Why are animes as shit as jewlywood?

Goes on >>>/a/

I hope the authorities re-capture soon and put him back in his padded cell.

...

Are you two missing the whole OP's post?

Because as a far eastern media, anime is supposed to be drastically different than those of the west. The traditional culture of the west that disappeared for a brief moment in the byzantine era but reappeared in the renaissance era, with their individualistic way of thinking that focuses on the desires of oneself, is entirely different than traditional culture of the east, with their zen music, and haiku poems, that lack romanticism and selfishness. Turns out, everyone tries to mimic the west. Anime, despite what the weebs say, is really no different than the degenerate western media. Looks like I've been fooled here, all the weebs are looking for nothing but vain entertainment.

The lack of selfishness in japan was exploited by the oligarch, politicians and businessmen to create a nationalistic, industrial society. It has been happening since the late 19th century, when the people of japan decided to collectively "compete" with the west for the sake of "welfare" of their own "people". And later after the people of japan were sacrificed for the blessings of Tokyo Firebombing and two hydrogen bombs by the oligarch, people finally lost their faith in nationalism. This is supposed to be a good thing right? People would finally look for a way to improve their souls, but sadly no.

This is where the business oligarch took over and introduced a capital controlled industrial society where people must work their asses off ignoring everything else in their life or else they aren't worth living. This is where degeneracy was born. The japs have lost their faith in anything but fulfillment of their own desire. This is just terrible, the same shift of spirituality>socialism>nationalism>industry also happened to Russia. People are wretched, but they aren't even trying to cure themselves, socialism nationalism and capitals have disabled the spiritual attribute of their souls. Everything is vanity, and in my opinion the lack of art is to blame for all of those.

>>>/a/

Got banned.

...

Anime and anime discussion belongs on /a/ or /jp/.

...

It's a joke, m8.

It's very different, and that's exactly why so many Westerners are so deeply, deeply triggered by it.

This is the age old "guilty by association" tactic that the anti-anime activists deploy every five minutes or so.

Anime posts belong on /a/.

There's so many people or maybe just one dedicated one? who make the same post that it's hard to tell.

I meant the bit at the top of the page. Holla Forums is for live action.

You didn't read my essay.

I did. What about it?

go back to leftypol

The philosophy of most if not all anime is no different than the ego boosting western philosophy.

>>>/a/
>>>/jp/
>>>/4chan/

Anime is very different from Western media and you are, again, just using the old guilty by association trick. Don't think that you are bringing anything new to the propaganda table here.

Then why don't the mods do anything about the anime threads?

Like I said, you didn't even read my essay. You don't bother to disprove my points either.

Probably off doing something else.
Not that you actually care. We both know you're just shitposting here as the latest wave of intl/freech nonsense.

anime is both the singular and plural.

Like I said, you are not bringing anything new to the propaganda table. This is a standard tactic and has been seen many times. You are not anywhere near as clever as you think you are.

If this was a standard tactic then you should know how to disprove my points. Look at my OP post. Let me rewrite it again.

What constitutes as masterpiece in anime is the same as what constitutes as masterpiece in the west. It's no different than western media.

Can you provide a example of each?

Anime is about sex and making otaku penis hard. That's about as spiritual as you can get without praising jesus.

Goes on /a/.

Have you tried watching something that isn't hentai?

I don't know if you're legitimately retarded or just testing my knowledge in anime, but btw here it goes.

naruto, berzerk, jojo, and other shitty cliche shounen animes

everything with depressing story that are supposed to make you [email protected]/* */

everything with romance ranging from shoujou to haremshit

yuru yuri and shit

I don't read horror anime but there are some of them out there

guro, rape, sadism, etc

bathing scenes in anime already constitute as softcore pornography

everything by shaft studios

...

Anime goes on /a/.

/a/ is the board for anime.

Discussion of anime also goes on /a/.

/a/ is where you should go to discuss anime.

Don't take it to Holla Forums; that board is for western animation and comics.

If you want to talk about western animation and comics, go to Holla Forums.

I hope this has helped clear things up for you all.

look at the top of the page.

How could you say that to this face? You're a monster.

spirituality>nationalism>industry>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>(((socialism)))

Egotism is cancer, kill yourself.

It's the ideological phases of japanese society, not ranking them.

What?

friendly reminder that movies were always meant to be escapism and tarkovsky had autism

God is a spook

mkay gg allin

The "guilty by association" tactic involves associating anime with negative thing X, criticizing negative thing X and arguing that anime is the same because it is associated with negative thing X, even though the association is entirely made up.

This has been done before countless times and is easy to see through. You are not clever.

Do these look like Disney to you:
youtube.com/watch?v=qsv5pUKHRCA
youtube.com/watch?v=ItCMX3A1qaE
youtube.com/watch?v=gtTyWCjvSfI
youtube.com/watch?v=UBacmgngsNQ

They're easily identifiable as anime, nobody would confuse them with Disney or American animation in general.

The ways in which Disney influenced early post-war Japanese animation have been distorted to an extreme degree, to the point that some people think anime is exactly the same as Disney.

.

.

.

These 3 paintings provided are considered to be among the greatest of western art and they sure scream out to me Me! Me! Me!

Actually Beyonder the board owner of Holla Forums has said that anime is allowed there since it is simply cartoons from another nation.

Despite what that one Autist that lied to get mod powers and deleted half the board thinks jojo is just as Holla Forums as adventure time.

The large eyes that are a noticeable trait of animation made in Japan has it's influence of orgin in the anime: Tetsuwan Atomu (Astro Boy) created by Osamu Tezuka. All large eyes in all of Japanese animation stem from this show. And what influenced Tezuka to use this visual flair? The early films of Walt Disney. I know that large eyes are different in Japanese animation than in western animation I simply wanted to pint out their size and nothing more.

...

I was not arguing that anime is the same as western media. I was arguing that the ideologically, the plot is no different than standard modernist individualistic western cliche of "the cry of human souls".

It started again during the renaissance, but doesn't mean that all the artists and arts were individualistic, they were almost there but not there yet. The Raphael one though, it screams that, the glorification of human achievements instead of mysticism. Michaelangelo's David is too. Compared to Russian iconography, which are less romantic and many of them were made by anonymous artists, western art were individualistic. The rise of humanism in Germany also contributed to individualism in Renaissance German literature, which were full of satire.

Stalker is philosophical garbage and Tark is overrated. I'm guessing OP just likes him because he thinks Tark is Christian and OP is also Christian.
t. Christian

Also how is Stalker not about me me me struggle? All three characters just whine and complain about their struggles the whole way through the zone.

...

You communist fagot life is about self and art reflect life so kill your self already

The Writer is supposed to be very talkative, ego-driven, and obnoxious. He's a nihilist who has lost hope in observable facts, but finds it hard to believe in mysticism. But in the end of the movie, he finally understood the importance of mysticism, because without it, a man can't be tormented by questions and therefore won't have a motivation to write.

Then how come there's still zero revelation of the truth about the Zone? The movie never even implied that it was real or just an imagination. The characters didn't explain anything, except stating the state of their own character arc.

Not really. His wife literally said that to cheer up the Stalker, but the point of his whole monologue is "the intellectuals don't need the Room." It's a statement of humility, a spiritual philosophy that is not very popular and understood in the west, often associated with weakness and masochism by the westerners. He earlier said in the beginning of his journey in the zone, that "only the wretched how know how to behave will get into the room." This is an extension to that statement.

That's why socialism, communism, capitalism, libertarianism, egalitarianism, humanism, and nietzschean phillosophy are popular in the west since the 19th century, right?

Because Stalker devoted his struggle to make the people he guided into the Zone find happiness, not for himself.

Except Stalker. He never blamed the Zone, unlike the other two.

So, what you're saying is: works of art that have anything vaguely about humanity in it, anything focusing on humanity's achievements, anything not focusing on mysticism, anything about an influential person, anything that contains a notable person, and all satire is somehow "individualistic" to you? Really? I don't believe you know what individualism is! Individualistic art is art that focuses on it's creator, and that is all the definition entails. Your strange definition of "individualism" is simply baffling!

Also, your insinuation that art made by anonymous artists is somehow "better" than non-anonymous art, (the implication being that this art does not fit your ridiculous definition of individualism) is pure lunacy. I would like to enlighten you of the fact that the artists of Renaissance Italy worked on commission, and that they had to be known by name to sustain their career.

I am not familiar enough with Renaissance German literature, or humanism to refute your claims about them, but by the utter absurdity of your other claims I doubt It would be worth the energy required to type it if I was.

I laugh at you, your pretension, your wretchedness, and your absurdity.

You already tried making this thread on /a/

check em

...

What relevance does this have?

Go away.

What are you trying to say here? This post is near-unintelligible.

Human desire is selfish and individualistic. Individualism, as in not caring about spiritual needs, but listening to desires instead.

That's one of the grudge Tarkovsky had for being a director. He was not a mysterious monk, but a man of career working to get paid with money, fame, and praises. He once told a story of an ancient chinese painter who moved into an obscure place, changed his name, and changed his style when he got too famous and rich. Tark obviously admired these kind of people, people with no sense of individualism.

Fine.

The most mystic movie ever made then, with unparalleled poetic details of shots and editing.

Do you have a archive, screencap or the OP post number? I want to see him get BTFO by smug anime posters.

I would show it to you, but I got banned pretty quickly.

But aren't spiritual needs also desires?

Define: "mystic", and "poetic detail".

No, it's needs and longing. It's not desire of the flesh.

Beyond human understanding.

Seemingly "pointless" details that somehow give meaning into the story. For example, the moving glass, the faint lights of the bar, the dog, the human bones near a doorway, etc. And other details that can't really be articulated, like the "apocalyptic but full of hope" atmosphere.

Taking care of your garden is still a selfish desire

I am assuming you mean God/undefined-spirituality. Or am I wrong?

So by poetic detail you mean atmospheric details (for the purpose of tone) provided by the set/setting. Or is your definition of "poetic detail" wider than that?

Assuming you are the only "Tarkposter" you have said in an earlier thread that the films of Stanly Kubrick are "almost, but not quite quite Kino". I would like to inform you of a story I heard about his filmmaking process: In a war film Stanly created he got the set guys to use a wrecking ball on the building in very exact areas for the purpose of "getting the perfect play of light on the scene". To be honest, this sounds quite a bit like your definition of a "poetic detail".

...

I agree, it's infuriating. Obviously there are east-west divisions in the past, but everyone in Western Europe simply looks as Russians as just European… not some fkn faraway Eastern civilization like some of them LARP as.

'we more mystical and have beards'– no you ain't that different Ivan.

Above>464583 reply to

Take anime discussion to /a/.

Not really. Desire has to be entertaining, something people would do to give themselves more entertainment.

To take care of your garden, you'd need to ignore so many desires for a reason you don't truly understand, but is greater than the reason for your bodily desires, according to your faith. Acknowledging that something is more important than fulfilling your own desire, is not self fulfilling, therefore not selfish.

But is a monk, who disconnect himself from everyone in the world in order to find solitude for his soul, selfish? For me it's not selfish, but it's pacifist, and it's not good either. The person might have great faith, but faith wouldn't be alive without works. But it is necessary to disconnect yourself from the world sometimes then go back to face the world when you have matured your soul.

The christian doctrine has perfect grasp of spirituality, but it's not exclusive to christian spirituality. Many people of the ancient civilizations in the past have tried to ignore their earthly desires in order to find a harmony for their soul, particularly the buddhists. It's spirituality too, because they try to follow the spiritual attribute of their spirit.

It's not just atmosphere. It's like reading a poetry. Many things such as fire, sand, water, soil, animals, etc are included in the poem without any logical relationship to the poem's context, but it aesthetically improves the tone anyway.

I think I was referring to 2001 only, I find his other films too intellectual.

The shots and the sequences in 2001 are very poetic, I don't deny that. Most of the things don't happen to advance the plot, but rather to give aesthetic value to the film, to move the audience's soul through the logic of poetry. But in order to be a Kino, your film has to be fully transcendental, it has to be free of all kinds of materialism and selfishness. There is none of this transcendentalism in Kubrick's work.

2001 was a glorification of humanity's greatest technological achievement, full blown romanticism, which is very egoistical. 2001 is the materialist's wet dream. "We were born in this earth to find a way to work less and eat more, to conquer the whole universe and fulfill our wildest ego", this the message of 2001. Very Nietzschean, very (Synagogue of Satan) Jewish. This is absolutely not a kino, which seeks spiritual harmony of the soul. Cinema definitely.

And? He was very well aware of it.

Tarkovsky lived in the ages when the Russian people suffered from soviet communism and the much more democratic Eurosphere was in the early steps of moral decadence. He observed that the wretched Russians posses great faith and were thirsty for hope, while the liberal Europeans denied their spirituality. Watching Fellini's City of Women and Bertolucci's Last Tango in Paris made him disdain the western culture even more.

Nowadays, due to the Soviet oppression has ended and globalization happened, Russians might be not much different than western Europeans.

Also, nice work comparing an entire nation's television programs to one of the most beloved directors of all time. Of course most of it is going to pale in comparison: you might as well dismiss your wife's cooking in favour of famous chefs all the time.

The point is anime is too westernized.

Lol.

This
"spiritual experiences" are something you find on a mountaintop after not eating anything for three days

I'm a Russian, I just want to say that just like Japan and China, Russians hold an anti-western sentiment because we are collectivists rather than individualists, our value system is different than it is in the west and our society is still traditional. Basically whatever is seen as politically backwards in the west is a virtue over here and what is a virtue in the west is seen as crazy over here. This doesn't mean we dislike westerners or anything, we just think the policies over there are really weird.

This dude knows what's up.

Holy shit, fucking this.

I would say that the lack of art is a symptom of the main problem. Art always reflects what is in the hearts of the people, if it is beauty then the art is beautiful, if it is degeneracy then the art is degenerate. The question is: is it possible to destroy degeneracy by making spiritual art? Me, I really don't know, it may be something worth trying, but then again, there is no place in the world for anything spiritual nowadays, it's not like some dumb teen girl who listens to Nikki Minaj or whatever pop trash that plays on the radio is going to listen to your "music for the soul" or whatever.

Anime discussion goes on /a/.

I disagree, the film starts out with apes who are implied to learn reason from the Monolith, then after one makes the 1st tool (the bone) it cuts to a space ship (the implication being) that this space ship is the tool of the result of 4 million years of the use of reason. If the film was fellating humanity's technological achievements as much as you believe, then I ask you this: Why do the humans approach the Monolith with arrogance as if they have concerned it? Why is it that throughout the film the camera dwells on images of technology, while the main characters are saturated in the light emitted by said technology? One answer is that: The technology quite literally defines them, but even with their cute little gadgets and gizmo's the humans are nothing but children. They have to relearn how to expel waste, the food we see them eating, suspiciously looks like baby food. Even with all of their technology the humans are shown to be infantile. Throughout the film Hal is shown to be the most human, while the humans are shown to be robotic. Then at the end of the film the Monolith appears to show the main character that which lies "beyond reason" (which I have to note sounds suspiciously like your definition of "mystic" in this post: ) Finally at the end of the film the main character is reborn as a transcendent being having transcended past the need for reason, intellectualism, materialism, the ego, and selfishness.

I also have my doubts that anything in his films is simply for aesthetics, people often say his films have "layers of meaning" and it seems likely that the things you deemed to be purely aesthetic in the film were very important to the meaning Stanley intended.

What happened to the delete post function?

Can you give examples please?

What? Michelangelo's David (and the biblical story itself) is about sacrifice for one's people and God. Michelangelo wanted to show the ideal servant of God. Strong, stoic, and a willingness to act despite one's fear.

No, I do not believe you fully understand. Italian Renaissance artists did not even pick their own subjects of work. They were commissioned to create whatever the the patron wanted them to do. At least Tarkovsky was able to pick his artistic subject.

bump

Legend of the Galactic Heroes is about the human condition. The stuff about war and politics is only there because those things are apart of human nature.

Maybe, it's certainly the best shot movie ever made, and it caused me to feel things I've never felt from any other movie. Personally, I like Andrei Rublev a bit more, though.

Speaking of Tarkovsky, couldn't you make the argument that Zerkalo is a "Me! Me! Me!" film?

bump

Truthful and realistic portrayal of spiritual experiences, not experiencing spirituality.

Excuse me for writing an off topic discussion, but there is nothing wrong with having your own interpretation of 2001. Kubrick left everything open to interpretation, just like Tarkovsky did with Stalker. But the disdain I have for 2001, due to the rigid and artificial nature of science fiction, it is extremely difficult to interpret. In the other hand, Tarkovsky's realism style of filming and directing is much more relatable, artistic sensibilities is all it takes to understand his films. In Tarkovsky, there was no such things as HAL's intentional chess losing to imply that the AI has been programmed to lie to itself (you need to understand chess to understand the meaning of that scene, which disdain), or how the protagonist grew old in the alien zoo, everything Tark made is logically much more obvious than Kubrick's and hence is far better for open interpretation.

Back to the topic, so you have your own interpretation of 2001. You're saying that the human technologies in this film are a metaphor for human's arrogance and spiritual desolateness. Technically, according to Kubrick's own commentary, you are a kind of wrong.

This is a quote from Kubrick himself in Playboy interview:
spectrum of people who would not often give a thought to man's destiny, his role in the cosmos and his relationship to higher forms of life.
Kubrick implied that creating technology and conquering the space is man's destiny that was given by his alien skydaddy. Flying himself to Jupiter was obviously his tribulation, according to this commentary, and the end destination is to be reborn as a more advanced life form, the next step of evolution.

His view is even more obvious in this interview.
feelguide.com/2010/11/18/long-lost-stanley-kubrick-interview-where-he-discusses-the-concept-and-meaning-behind-2001-a-space-odyssey/
This proved my point, that 2001 isn't free of selfishness and ego, the ego of conquest.

The Monolith isn't beyond reason. It is very obvious that it exists and it is an alien life form. To be fully transcendental, it should've have been like Tarkovsky's Zone. Tark never implied that the Zone exists or doesn't exist, in fact he was the one to question the existence of the Zone when people thought that it canonically exists. We don't even know what the Zone really is, literally zero clue. Only by faith one can be certain of the existence of the Zone. This is what true mysticism is.

Maybe I should've written "JUST to advance the plot", because saying that they advanced the plot in a traditional, obvious, simplistic sense would be wrong. I've never said that they lack meaning or not a part of the story. Aesthetics can be meaningful for the story in a way poetry does. "Layers of meaning" would imply intellectual interpretation, and like Tark, it's not what Kubrick intended. It is all straightforward visual poetry, even though Kubrick's poetry might be flawed and not very comprehensible by artistic sensibility.

It's not about the context of the art piece, but about art piece itself. It is very heroic, sensual, and romantic portrayal of an individual. Not saying that there's anything wrong with portraying God's servant as a stoic man, but it is pretty egoistic. David shows no trace of fear or struggle to combat fear either, unlike what you're saying.

If a more mystical artist was told to create David, he would be portrayed as a small, frail, unattractive and humble young man dressed in rags, whom by God's grace of faith and power was able to take down a gargantua. He wouldn't pose as confidently as Michaelangelo's David, for he wouldn't believe in his own power. The details of the statue would be invested in portraying his weakness as man, instead of the sensuality and heroism of his physical beauty.

Isn't politics entirely about exploiting human nature? Exploration of human condition and politics are the same. The only relevant human nature are weakness and wretchedness.

Andrei Rublev is indeed more grandeur and entertaining than Stalker. Not as transcendental, but it proved that Tarkovsky was an extremely talented director.

First of all, it's not about the cry of human soul. It was just a movie about observation and deep retrospection, not a love story or a tragedy. The film is neither hopeful or hopeless, neither sad or cheerful, it can't be associated with any kind of emotion. Introvert, but not selfish.

The east values tradition, the west values progress.
The east values nationalism, the west values globalism.
The east values the majority, the west values the minority.
The east values empowered men, the west values empowered women.
The east values a duty to others, the west values a duty to self.

In the west: freedom, choice and self-determination is prioritized over order, stability and discipline, in the east it's the opposite. All our differences come from this.

I'm not saying any one way is is better or worse, personally I just believe that there should be balance in life, where both systems coexist without cancelling each other out.

Because anime is cartoons for teenagers.

On the contrary, if you look at David's pisello [pic 1] you will notice it is disproportionately small [pic 2] for David's overall-size. (David: 13 feet pisello: five-inches). So what would cause this "shrinkage"? When viewed from a high angle (the view Michelangelo would have had as he chiseled away in his workshop) hides a (invisible from the ground level) stressed expression on David's face [pics 3 and 4]. David isn't simply striking a pose; David is facing his opponent Goliath, the Hebrew-baiting giant. This study: theage.com.au/news/Arts/Shrunken-vision/2005/01/22/1106334263269.html?oneclick=true found that every minute, anatomical detail shows a man scared out of his mind.

David's dick is small because he's white. Tom Hardy has even smaller penis.

Stalker film sounds a lot like Sam Beckett's works

100 years ago, the West also valued all of those things the East does, just saying. In 1910, Germany held the same values as Russia. Progressivism, Feminism, and Globalism are recent phenomena.

Can you explain further what you find "rigid" and "artificial" about science fiction?

I've heard that Kubrick was obsessed with chess, and that he thought of his actors as "chess pieces"…I think It was a YouTube documentary about one of his films. I have also heard that he may of been autistic giving a possible explanation of this admittedly cold outlook on humanity.

I was of the belief thought that was characteristic of modernist/postmodernist thought.

I am unsure of what you mean by "artistic sensibility".

This

Hey OP, your ideas of mysticism and poetic detail and all that other shit you say can be seen in and are present in everything. You just choose not to see it in western art because of some preconceived aversion you have to it.

Focusing on the human is no different than not focusing on the human. It is you who are truly egotistic and individualistic by thinking that it is.

Never noticed that. Okay, I see your point, but it's still too romantic.

Science fiction mostly rely of special effects, which is artificial. Science fiction films like 2001 don't look anything like real life, it's not familiar to us, and therefore hard to truly comprehend. I don't really know how to explain rigidness. Rigid, as in mechanical, robotic, dead, cold, limited, something that gives a wearisome feeling instead of solitude and liberation.

Modernist thought is devoid of meaning.

Connecting things using logic of poetry. I find 2001 to be full of gaping holes, logically and poetically. It's one of those works that can't be interpreted.

I never said that the west doesn't have mysticism. It's just traditional eastern art respecting it more.

?

Nope. This is just the East's justification for being poor and getting outperformed by the West.

In truth, the West was lucky thanks to geography and some other variables… but the bullshit about mysticism and tradition is laughable.

Nationalism is a subversion of traditional collectivist society of the east, no different than socialism. It was imported from the west too.

Actually, I hate the east being rich and industrial. I wish they could stay poor and wretched. The meek inherits earth.

What do you mean by romantic?

Can you provide a example of such a hole?

How did geography help in luck? What other variables.

I'm not certain I would define Russia as either east or west. I believe it is a separate people.

Glorification of heroism, beauty, and strength, instead of signification of human weakness. The only human weakness shown here is fear, and it is shown quite subtly.

The chess game, the shape and function of monolith, the reason why bowman grow old in the victorian bedroom, the baby food that you were talking about, the floating fetus, these all just raise unanswered questions. With Tarkovsky's Stalker and Solaris, regardless what your interpretation is, nothing is left unanswered. In 2001, you just have no clue why the monolith is anything like that.

Russian spirituality, east asian spirituality, mideast spirituality, and south asian spirituality differ greatly, but still, they were all more spiritual than the west, at least before the world wars and globalization.

Uh…a rectangular prism? also this video.

That's a lot of intellectual interpretation. This is the reason why this film falls flat. It's full of holes, like a puzzle, and it always puts you into a suspension of disbelief due to it's unnaturalness.

bravo, cuckbrick

Compare it to the anomaly of the Zone. Even if the Zone was real, it creates very subtle anomalies that only the believers themselves can see. Removing the scent of flowers, making people lose their path, disappearing people, gently whispering warnings to people, everything can be believable and doubtable. The monolith thing in Kubrick, it just doesn't make any sense.

All of this talk about the nature of art made me think of the potential of the newest medium. Too bad this medium had to appear in such a non-spiritual, egotistical, materialist age. Just ask Holla Forums, they know all modern games are either: 1.garbage designed by committee, pandering to the lowest common denominate garbage or are 2.pretentious hipster/modernist/post-modernist garbage.

Video game can't be an effective form of art. The only potential it has is entertainment. It's a GAME for God's sake. The faggots who created Shadows of Colossus didn't understand this concept. That's why the game is bland and boring. Like Todd Howard said, video game is the greatest

To create an art, the aspects of entertainment and competition must be eliminated. It would turn a game into a walking simulator, or an electronic novel, or an interactive movie, not a game anymore, but I don't say that there's anything wrong with making an actually good walking simulator. The Hard to Be A God kino is pretty close to walking simulator, it only needs to be more interactive.

But yes, a video game that tries to be art is not a game anymore. Game is not an art medium, but an entertainment medium.

*greatest medium for entertainment.

But entertainment is an art.

...

Entertainment is escapism. Art is truth.

...

21 actually. Art is not intellectual though.

[checked]
It clearly states the monolith is the movie-screen.
Part 2 is better.

I'm half-certain you are a very subtle troll.Good job.

If we can't convince you of the potential of vidya as a forum of art, he can.
youtube.com/user/Matthewmatosis/videos

opinion discarded

Why?

...

No, Russia is Russia and has always been Russia.

The west is really just France, Germany, England and their spawn.

It's ok to be stupid but please don't attempt to refute a statement from someone much more intelligent than you when you're not even comprehending the basic terminology he is using.

Russia is degenerate western scum just like the rest.

Yes, Petrinism was/is a coat of painting mimicking westernisms, but the russian spirit is retained underneath. All that is required is for the paint to be fully stripped.

Whatever lies you need along with your bottle vodka to get through the day. Go back to masturbating to Tark and trying to relive past glories, user. It's the Russian pastime after all.

Todd Howard is one of the best video game public speakers in the world.

I understood his terminology quite fine, thank you.

this.

cute dogs.

Well, same thing. The point is, nothing in 2001 actually makes sense. Kubrick just wanted to put us into a random state of awe, unlike Tarkovsky.

Do you feel trolled? Did I hurt your feeling?

YES! HURT! HURT! HURT!

cool thread OP

bump

bamp

zamp

zump

Well, forgive me buddy. You're okay there?

Shigurui 10/10
Claymore 9/10

both manga/anime, old 08 days

No, I mean, a hero's journey is very cliche and very European. Despite being regarded as one of the most unique animes out there, Berzerk still falls into this cliche. There's nothing outside this trope. What I meant by "what else do you got" is, can you even name an anime that isn't about the cry of human soul?

ah if thats the case …

p.s i like OP's post very much especially coming from Holla Forums

This is why is visit this site, this forum and this thread in particular. Thank you anons.

You're welcome.

lmao
Based Andrew, btfo triggered weebs. Animes will never be pure kino

==NO! HURT! HURT! HURT!== :^)

kino is was literally invented to describe anime

I'LL NEVER FORGIVE YOU, BULLY!
AND I'M NOT YOUR BUDDY!

==NO! I'M HURT! HURT! HURT!== :^)

What the fuck codekikey, I typed those correctly.

[citation needed]

bump

What the fuck is this shit, CHIM?

This is why Russia is a shithole.
The west has the will to power while the east sits around circle jerking about "beyond human comprehension"

Pictured: Western ubermensch and their will to power

...

No, КИНО is a purer form of art N'wah.

bump

test

no atheists in a foxhole my child, call me when you have actually seen the abyssno i dont mean the fucking movie, even you know wat i mean

oh and stop posting that fat disgusting con artist, he is not trashman and this isnt facebag

Though I may be making a huge amount of assumptions I am just going to assume this post is you: web.archive.org/web/20160807051802/https://8ch.net/tv/res/426590.html#426995

Do you not see the similarity's of this post and the videos I am providing?

vid 2

vid 3

...

Tarkposter is still around, I know it.

Anime is allowed here now, the intl spammer isn't the only one here that enjoys the occasional anime.

Fuck off, freech.

Don't talk to them user, that encourages their shitposting.

moefags are the weeaboo version of bronies.

That is all.

it was always allowed

The chess game, the shape and function of monolith, the reason why bowman grow old in the victorian bedroom, the baby food that you were talking about, the floating fetus, these all just raise unanswered questions. With Tarkovsky's Stalker and Solaris, regardless what your interpretation is, nothing is left unanswered. In 2001, you just have no clue why the monolith is anything like that.

It's funny, in horror it seems that the less background and explanation a story has the more scary it is. For example: in Junji Ito's "The Enigma of Amigara Fault" I have heard the opinion (when posted here before) that it would be far better if the backstory was not included leaving the reason for the draw too the holes up for interpretation.

...

Dammit, I thought the (spoiler image) button would stay checked. The delete post function isn't here anymore for some reason, sorry everyone.

...

...

...

...

You are the one placing the human in a special position outside of nature. You place man on a deeper and more fundamental pedestal than the artists of the west by saying that he is the improper subject matter for art. You said western art is focused on the desires of oneself which is entirely untrue. Western art does not focus on human desire but it recognizes human desire. It doesn't pretend to be above it all like that eastern zen bullshit you revere so much. You think that human achievement is somehow outside of or incompatible with a spiritual or mystical understanding of the universe which is baffling to me. By rejecting this aspect of reality you seem to me un-spiritual or even anti-spiritual. You merely adopt a veneer of what appears deep to you and pretend other things don't exist. If you truly were a spiritual person you would see what you claim to venerate in Tarkovsky's work in western art and indeed in all aspects of life. You are merely another poser though, a pretentious asshole.

Why does this exist and why did you post it.

read

Not really, in fact nature is man's home, and man shouldn't reject nature or claim that he is higher than nature. He is special, but is still a part of nature.

Then why are tales about heroism and tragedy still the most praised works in the west? Tarkovsky recognized human desires, for example in Andrei Rublev there is a man who invented hot air balloon and died from and for his creation. Humans have a desire to create, to prove themselves, and they would sacrifice everything for it.

At first, Rublev was extremely disappointed when the Tatars and Khokols destroyed his beautiful iconography. He let his desire to create left unfilled and stopped painting. Then Tark made Rublev's intention higher than mere fulfillment of the desire to create, a call to save the souls of the people of Rus by his art. Desire should not be unrecognized in art, but there should be something to transcend.

But humans can transcend beyond mere desires. The longing for harmony is what really defines human. Animals can live forever trying to fulfill their desires, but not humans.

They're not incompatible, but humans aren't defined by their "achievements." Achievement is just a fulfillment of the human desire to prove themselves.

I don't understand your definition of spiritual then. How is fulfilling desires spiritual?

I didn't claim that I'm more spiritual than you.

It is true most of the time, but I don't find your manga scary. The way the characters act, their motivations, don't make any sense. I find the original story of 127 hours more scary, even though it completely lacks mystery.

Heroism and tragedy isn't solely about human desire also recognizing human desire exists is not the same as succumbing to or fulfilling that desire.

How is the longing for harmony not a desire?

My argument was that it would be much more scary if 25-26 were removed.

I agree that it isn't very scary, most people fund it kind of lulzy. with the exception of exception of the claustrophobic.

Junji Ito's work is well regarded though. You can find some of his stuff here:

mangasaurus.com/manga/1389/fuan-no-tane
junji-ito-index.tumblr.com/the-index

Sorry for breaking this into two posts but

You did implicitly by shitting all over the western tradition and pretending you understand it and simplifying down to a couple of shallow characteristics.

Yes they are, a to prove the characters. The artists want their audience to applaud and sympathize with the bravery, strength, or the pain and struggle of the character. It is a desire of proving self.

Because it is a desire to leave desires. A spiritual need. I find it quite confusing if it isn't distinguished from basic desires. It is something that lies outside Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Self-transcendence, as Maslow described it.

You did implicitly by shitting all over the western tradition and pretending you understand it and simplifying down to a couple of shallow characteristics.

You did implicitly by shitting all over the western tradition and pretending you understand it and simplifying down to a couple of shallow characteristics.

It's not just a western tradition. Every people has this kind of tradition, and their own version of a more transcending alternative. But it seems like the western society (in general) has been quite lost in the last few hundreds of years.

Forgive me for not making a flawed analysis with flawed articulation of a difficult topic, but I haven't seen anyone here disproving my points

Yeah, it's a very claustrophobic manga. Thanks for the links though.

These are all for something. For something greater than just human desire. The hero struggles for transcendent principles truth, justice, beauty, so on. A lot of Western art even questions the extent to which human action can effect these things. Take Aeschylus for example, the father of western drama. He is always criticizing and questioning the protagonists desires and their motives for action but in the end they act not out self interest or desire but out of this longing for harmony that you describe. Western heroism and tragedy have the capacity of transcendence inherently built within them.

My Holla Forums side is telling me you are a frustrated hapa, forever jealous of the Western man and forever incapable of understanding him.

Why?

I didn't accuse ALL western art of being focused on desires. I criticize in generalization, I criticize the general population that regards human desires as masterpiece. No matter what the artist's intention is, In the end it is the heroism of the character that is remembered due to the romanticization by the writer. Take Dostoevsky for example, Crime and Punishment, his stories are unromanticized.

None of those is transcendental btw. I think you should explain them further. No, I haven't read Aeschylus.

What does Holla Forums have to do with our discussion.

I'm not a hapa, and I'm not jealous of anyone. Sorry, but I don't get you. I'm jealous of the medieval peasants if anything, regardless east or west, for being able to live and survive their faith despite all the hardship. This is an ill designed world and us the modern men try to ignore it.

typo duh.

I think you underestimate the general human population. You take the simplest and most dumbed down understanding of a piece of art, project that onto the population and then criticize them for your own mental constructions.

I think you should explain what you mean by transcendental further because those things are commonly referred to as the transcendentals in the western philosophical tradition.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendentals

Whats stopping you from doing that today?

I think you would be saying this same thing had you been living in the middle ages.

Well, do you have a recommendation?

I'm not a philosopher, and I don't read much Plato, but what I mean by transcendent is something that extends Plato's theory of transcendental. In my opinion, beauty, goodness, and truth, does not come from a man. It comes from nature, it comes from God, it is nothing but a grace or a gift. Western art often depicts transcendental as something that comes from a man's effort. There should be some kind of humility and mysticism, a belief that man's power and effort are nothing.

Distractions of course. Back in the medieval days, there were no distractions, only hardships that people have no choice but to face. The Kali Yuga and the Book of Revelation fear the death of spirituality in modern society. I think it's an easily observable that a wretched and simpleton man has greater faith than a strong and intelligent man. They can't trust themselves after all.

This is exactly what Plato and other Philosophers mean when they say transcendental. And it is my opinion that Western art's main goal is showcasing this fact. Not that man's power and effort are nothing but that they are in service of the divine. Nature is divine but man is a part of nature thus man has divinity within him. It is not egotistical to recognize this. It is egotistical to deny it.

So my recommendation is don't pass judgement on things you don't know about.

There were always distractions and there always will be.

I disagree, I think a simple man has simple faith and a strong man has a strong faith.

But Plato didn't understand humility.

Nature is not divine. Don't be like a pantheist. And man has no divinity given by nature. Man has divinity within him? This is the kind of thinking that makes the west worship the human form instead of advocating humility.

Human is human. He is a part of nature, and he has divine gift of rationality from above that may make their soul transcend. Humility comes from the fact that man can't truly leave nature and recognizing that every good that he has produced does not come from himself. Even faith is a gift, even though the answer to the faith is your own decision.

Deny what? Ever watched Solaris and Nostalghia? Nature is home, but nature is not our god.

Back in then, could anyone sit in front of computer, masturbating to waifus and play video games all day while your mom cooks hotpocket for you until you got obese? Only the oligarch could enjoy so much distractions, the peasants could easily avoid it. Being a monk and saying goodbye to all entertainment wouldn't be as hard as it is today. It's easy to be scared and run away from wretchedness in the modern ages.

No, a strong man would believe in his own power, while a weak man would be all hopeless if he had to believe in himself.

Alright m8 we are basically just arguing semantics at this point so im going to stop.

Last thing though, you have no fucking clue what Plato understood. Stop being a jack ass who thinks he is above it all. Read Parmenides.

But I have no problem with your semantics. I think you're more knowledgeable than me. It is you who don't understand my emphasis on humility.

alright, I will try to pinpoint the things I think we disagree on while clarifying the things I think that we agree on.

I think agree with all of this. When I said nature is divine, I am not saying nature is the divinity, the one, God, whatever term you want to use, which is what I think you thought.By saying nature is divine, I am saying nature comes from God, which I think you would agree with. And clearly nature doesn't give man divinity as nature is not an agent capable of giving.

I believe man like all things has its source/cause/arche in divinity. Not only in the gifts of his mind but also in the gifts of his body. I believe in the virtue humility but I believe you take it to far and reject the divine cause of mans body. Aristotle called virtue a mean between two excesses. I believe humility is the mean between vanity and a kind of debasement of the self of which I believe you are guilty. (A debasement of the self is implicitly a debasement of God)

Again I seem to agree with everything except that I believe when recognizing that every good that he has produced does not come from (or originate within) himself, that he should also recognize that he, as a human being, produced the good. He played a vital and necessary role in ultimately making these things come about.

again not claiming nature is god.

peasants avoid distractions of those sorts but isn't plowing the fields a bigger distraction from the contemplation of divinity than anime?

They merely run from one wretchedness to another. The only escape is through noetically pure anagogic contemplation.

I don't know if you thought I was talking about physical strength but I wasn't. Regardless, I believe there is some wisdom in what you say. But to counter, I would say that the weak man becomes strong by understanding that God has provided for him all his needs within himself. A man believes in the power of god within himself.

Can you please define wretchedness? I am not familiar with the term.

bamp

zamp

tamp

But that's wrong. Divinity isn't descended. Divine is literally godlike and perfect. Nature isn't perfect.

Body is not meant to be loathed, but not to be worshiped or glorified either. The mind/soul isn't either. It is not a debasement or self loathing, it's just humility, a kind of extreme humbleness. It's accepting the fact that you're a pitiful and powerless creature who doesn't deserve to make your own will.

No, that would be far too overbearing. Orthodox iconographers of the past didn't put their signature on their paintings, they were anonymous artists. They considered everything to be a grace from God, their creation, their talent, and even all their effort, that's the reason why they wanted to stay anonymous.

Plowing the field is dirty, boring, and tiring. It's the kind of activity that makes you feel wretched. Watching over your crops is also worrisome. From it, there will be hope and faith.

Yes, that's the point. They don't want to make their suffering meaningful.

No, I said that the strong are the ones who believe in their power. The weak would dedicate all their power to God and believe that they own nothing.

Yes, the weak are invincible. Unfortunate events wouldn't give them fear. They'd look joyful despite their wretchedness.

Just open your dictionary. Basically it means small, sorrowful, and pitiful.

In what way?

That sounds suspiciously like communism.

In so many ways. It is finite.

Communism, socialism, and nationalism are a worship of humanity, not the divine.

So that's all?

Then where does nature come from if not God?

These seem to be contradictory to me.

And yet they still painted them. It was a choice they actively made. Through the act of painting they chose to imprint their will on reality. If they believed what you believe, they would have painted nothing.

Being finite is a really huge, gaping flaw. Every single aspect of nature is finite. It is bound by time, space, and resources.

Not really. Loathing means ungratefulness, while in humility one will be grateful regardless the circumstances. Humans are designed to be weak, but they really are not an abomination.

Yes, and? An answer to the call of faith is a man's response, but faith itself and the rest are a grace.

It's all faith, God's will.

What do I believe that prevents them from painting?

Is this painting Romantic? I'm not sure if it is glorifying God or man.

...

bump

Romanticism is very individualistic. This painting isn't very meditative, it has too much emotional manipulations, but don't accuse the artist of being not christian for following the romanticism movement trends.

like what?

Define meditative

The Wikipedia article: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Supper_(Tintoretto) says it is a work of "mannerism". The mannerism Wikipedia article: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mannerist says it was a artistic movement inspired by the three great high Renaissance artists lasting about from 1520-1580 while Romanticism: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanticism was a artistic movement from about 1800-1850. What are the "romanticism movement trends" you speak of?

Graceful, but not very awe or wow inducing.

As taken from the mannerism wiki page: unnaturally elegant.

Sorry, I always assumed a dark painting with exaggerations a romantic painting. Some of Tintoretto's paintings are close to Romanticism. Comparing St Roch at The Hospital by Tintoretto and The Massacre at Chios by Delacroix, for example. These two are from the different periods, but they have something in common, although Tintoretto, of course, put greater emphasis on harmony instead of moods unlike the Romantic art.

I just watched Stalker for the first time. If I go though pic related, though the entirety of my memories, through all religious texts, all sociology, neurology, and psychology, all great pieces of art discussing the human condition, and though all philosophy's determining the base motivations, observations, interpretations, instincts and emotions at their cores Stalker says I will never figure out the reasons for what I and humanity do… has left me sad.

So it seems that emotional manipulations is taking proportion, balance, and ideal beauty beyond what is true and good. Following "intellectual sophistication" the artificial beliefs of man instead of the natural beliefs of God. The earthly instead of the divine so to speak.

Imagine if someone where to make a Divine Comedy film. Dante is prideful and almost worships Beatrice on earth, but in Hell he has a debate with different people in each layer of Hell. And with each layer he sheds that which is not of God but of man from himself showing a literal concurring of himself in each film only in these concurring does a score play. But then the film gets to heave it changes completely as this is of God if is the most awesome scene of all of film-making, reminiscent of the Dies Irae in Mozart's Requiem. Or to put it another way: that which is human is wretched, that which is God is pure bliss incarnate.

bumperino

sump

don't say no

I would of preferred if this was a group scene, it seems to me that Tark missed a opportunity of letting the actors subtly interact on the railcar.

Movies, cinema, moving pictures, whatever you like to call it, is a joke. In the literal sense. You are a slab of meat piloting a meatbag constructed for eventual fatal malfunction and you are sitting in front of a screen watching other people´s lifes in the hope of escaping yours and finding some answers which you won´t get. The thought to do this on itself is big time delusion, still you waste hours upon hours although you HAVE to know how much you are making an idiot out of yourself at least on a subconscious level . The fact that you are doing it nonetheless is nothing but a joke, there is no way to work around this.

That´s why the approach of "artsy" cinema will never work out, it won´t be art, it will always be escapism, pulp essentially, made to be watched, made to hit the rights buttons. The only way how to deal with this correctly is to know that it´s a joke and build around this. Go for the unexplainable, toy with the audience´s expectations, throw them quibs where you tell them exactly how ridiculous they are.
Kubrick understood this, Tarkovsky didn´t.

For example in Full Metal Jacket there is the montage where that annoying bird song blares while a film crew moves past some ongoing firefight and at the exact moment when the singer goes into his ecstatic ghostly ramblings of some sort a soldier with "BOOO!" written on his helmet goes past.
Think about the one-point perspective in most Kubrick movies, it´s such a surreal and odd perspective it takes you out of the movie. This is mostly overlayed by high points in the narrative or environmental and music sounds to hide it somewhat however on a subconscious level you just know that something is mightily wrong and that the movie tells you exactly that.
You are then able to see everything as a much more dreamlike procedure in order to get more abstract meanings out of it, because it´s clear that the movie doesn´t even try to be realistic, it can´t be anyway, as the different camera perspectives and cuts aren´t translatable into real life experiences. When you´re dreaming you´re trying to process real life happenings to get more in touch with the emotions which are normally supressed during your daily life, it´s movies´ biggest merit that they are able to replicate that in a way but it´s also their biggest flaw, as that is the only thing they can do correctly.

tl;dr Mistakes into miracles is the thing to go for and "art/kino movies" are nothing but pretentious crap.

inb4 copypasta

So the best possible film would be a POV dream without any cuts?

Video: youtube.com/watch?v=dNiVFCWMrqI

What a weird comment. Does anyone know what the hell he is talking about?

No, the contrary actually, the best possible film would be with very bizarre and outlandish cuts and perspectives as "realistic" stuff à la the Revenant is forgetful anyway.

Examples include Natural Born Killers, every Kubrick film ever, Enter the Void, stuff like this.

Holla Forums is fucking dead, it´s true.

I didn't want a meme answer.

The one that rattles on the table in the beginning or the three Monkey moves with her mind?

ill designed by whom? God or man?

Same guy. I found the sound design implemented in a ingenious manner (the lights in front of the waterfall a particularly fantastic example) but, the sounds were obviously recorded in a studio resulting in "misalignment," that broke the 4th wall and immersion for me.

Have any of you guys ever played The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask? It emotionally resonated with me more than any piece of art in any medium. It is nothing like a film, but somehow it works. Sad, that the potential of the medium of Video Games is so wasted.

...

...

lol not everything needs an argument you autist, video games suck haha

Both.

Ill designed by man, ill destined by God.

The sounds are actually electronic music. All the train and many if not most of the nature SFX are entirely engineered by synthesizers. Tarkovsky's films have much more intricate details and production values than they might appear.

some say no

You say you know we shouldn't You keep holding out But you don't let go

Some are dumbasses.

I'm giving up…
[Oooo…ooo]
on trying
To sell you things…
that you ain't buying-ah-eh-eh-en!
[show move!]

This thread is dead isn't it? I kept bumping it but there is truly nothing to talk about anymore is there? ;_; RIP in spaghetti, I nevar knew ye.

Well thank you, user. I'm OP