I agree. The only problem is that people get pissed when you start to refer to it as anime. There's a fine line one must tread as an anime fan...people get mad too easily over pointless stuff like this. I'm not a big fan of Hummingbird, but the one feature I like about it is that it lists cartoons with anime influences to add to your list, unlike MAL, though the feature has gone under-fire with anime "purists" apparently.
**PLEASE READ NOTE FIRST**
*NOTE* I know it's a very long post but please read every word that I have to say and think about them. My intention, even though it may feel like it, is NOT to prove everyone wrong and that I'm right. I don't give a crap about that. I've been proven wrong on this very subject countless times but I've listened, spent years to put everything together logically, and constantly played devil's advocate to myself. I have spoken with other people and we have exchanged information to improve our ideas. My intention is to share as much of my knowledge as possible, to educate those who don't know, and learn from those who do. So please do not be offended with what I have to say. I apologize beforehand if you are, but as I will later state in this post, I had to write all of this in order to rectify what I believed to be incorrect information or add information to statements that I did not think had enough research behind it. Again, I apologize if you don't like the tone or something along those lines in this post, because it's not intentional. I just wanted to state what I believed to be true and provide sufficient evidence to back up my claim. Discussions like these tend to get people fired up, so please read what I have to say with a calm mind and I would like to repeat myself in my request for you to read every word that I have typed before making any type of response.
Because it's not an anime. There are a few reasons why some people get ticked. One reason is that they feel that those making the "anime is anything that looks like anime" statements have not done sufficient research, and it's basically the same logic one would use when stereotyping, but just on cartoons. Another reason people get pissed is because that logic also implies that anime>cartoons, which is NOT true. Anime IS a cartoon, more specifically, it's a Japanese cartoon. By DEFINITION, Anime is a Japanese cartoon. Since that is the definition, it cannot be subjective, which is what most people don't get. Now, regarding 12 Days, it's definitely not an anime. Anime is specifically Japanese, and just cause she draws inspirations or techniques from it, it doesn't make her work Japanese. Her work is Korean because she is Korean. Plus, is it fair to just group Korean animation with Japanese animation because of their similarities? That doesn't seem right. Think of it this way: if an American martial artist went abroad and studied Kenpo (a Japanese martial art) does that make him a Japanese martial artist? No, it's an American martial artist who practices a Japanese form of martial arts. Thus, Avatar: TAL is a cartoon that has been inspired by foreign techniques. Avatar is actually a bad example to use in this debate because the animation isn't even done in Japan, it's done in Korea. We can't just group them together because both are Asian. Also, they clearly define their works by the origin of country despite similar techniques because if a comic is made in Korea, then it's called a manwha, not a manga. And if it was made in China, then it would be called a manhua. AND NOBODY DISAGREES WITH THAT. By that very same logic, it would mean Avatar cannot be anime because it, just like a Western cartoon, is defined not by technique but by its origin of production. PLUS, animation is only the visual aspect of a show, and a show has MULTIPLE aspects that make it up. Why should all the other aspects such as writing or audio be ignored? Isn't that LITERALLY judging a book by its cover? At least one part of it has to be made in Japan by a Japanese production. As long as it has that one part, then it's anime (like IGPX). In the case of Avatar, all of the symbols, writing, names, etc. are actually Chinese, not Japanese. Anime is only specific to Japan, NOT any other Asian country. The other Asian countries would not like to be grouped with Japan because of similarities. It sounds a lot like cartoon racism if you think about it.
I know that you're tempted to say that definitions can still be subjective. However, that is only the case with definitions that have subjectivity built into them, such as if something is cute or not (the definitions usually have a subjective line like "based on the eyes of the critic.") However, even that still has its limits, because there are still technical reasons as to why someone can be beautiful or not. That's why makeup was made, right?
Also, there are still people who can be universally accepted as pretty, like some 20 year old celebrity actress. I'm sure we'd all cringe if we saw a naked obese 100 year old woman, right? That proves that there is a limit to subjectivity anyway. Another example is horror. Many people are not scared by someone like Jason Voorhees, yet they have no problem considering them to be horror villains. Why? Because horror is defined by something that is meant to scare you, not whether or not it actually succeeds in doing so. In science, definitions are objective, such as the volume of water being EXACTLY 1 g/m^3 or the fact that we know EXACTLY what the speed of light is. Now, I know what you're thinking, it's science so it's different. But in reality the whole world is science. Science is the study of the world and how it works. In fact, the standards are now being revised by a new academic curriculum called the Next Generation Science Standards so English and Math are now considered to be types of sciences. This standard will be implemented in a few years, and I actually study these types of information in my college classes (I had to sit through an entire presentation of the NGSS by one of its main writers). I would like to further note that anime's definition is only for categorization, and that it requires the content to be Japanese. Therefore, the definition doesn't leave much room for subjectivity. The definition was made so that it could be differentiated from other types of cartoons. Then it basically becomes a question of what makes something Japanese? My post is in response to this question.
Sirius You said that not being called an anime is unfair? How is it unfair? That's implying that anime are better than cartoons, but they're not. Anime is merely to say something is Japanese, nothing more, nothing less. You even mentioned that some anime looks very much like Western cartoons, right? Yet, they're still called anime. There's nothing wrong with that, but that means the opposite must by true using the same logic. If anime that looks Western is still called an anime (and there have been no arguments about that) then that means Western cartoon that look like anime are still called Western cartoons. Anime is not a title of prestige. It's a mere categorization based on the origin of is production staff. What is then? It's a Western cartoon that's heavily inspired by Eastern influences (one of which is the anime style of animation). Another way you can say it is that it's an anime-inspired Western cartoon. Remember that inspiration does not equal definition, so being inspired by something doesn't mean you are what inspires you. If you are what inspires you, then it would be because of other reasons, not of the inspiration itself. Otherwise, everything would be literally one and the same and nothing in the world can be differentiated (which is definitely not the case).
We associate Anime with Anime-esque animation because it's always been easier to do so. When categorization is easy, people tend to stick with it. However, when categorization becomes more complex, we have to be sure of what the category's definition actually is. Generalization saves you a lot of time, but when certain anomalies come along, then you have to realize that generalizations aren't always true. Just because an American can't speak English well (whether it be due to mental disabilities, living in isolation, or being raised by foreign-language speaking parents), it doesn't make him not an American. But those situations are not common, which is why people never really bring it to light. Avatar is not anime not matter how you look at it but that does NOT mean it's any better or any less. IMO, a lot of people these days avoid the anime vs cartoon discussion because they don't want to tick people off or because they don't want to put in the energy to do the research. That's fine, but I think a big reason why people want to say things are anime when they're not is because whether it's conscious or subconscious, they have belief that anime is somehow better than cartoons. Even if most anime are better than cartoons, the distinction should still be made. Like in soccer/football. Brazil has better footballers than Australia, but it isn't right to automatically assume that a Brazilian player is better than an Australian player based on just their nationalities, even if in the end the Brazilian player turned out to be better.
I would like to note that Anime vs Cartoons is somewhat laughable because the title in itself shows that little research has been done. Anime ARE cartoons, they're just a specific type of cartoon. There are Japanese cartoons (anime), and then there are Western cartoons. Western cartoons are just called cartoons because they've been given no other name, although to be accurate (especially for this thread in which we need to make distinctions), there would need to be Western put in front. Another reason why Western cartoons seem like a very broad term that's been accepted is that many Western productions have multiple countries working on each of them, like with Sonic Boom being animated by a French team. Since it so common to have many Western cartoons to have parts be made in different Western countries, it would make sense for Western cartoons to just stay as a broad term, rather than have an American or French cartoon title. It's different with Japan because until recently, most Japanese productions have been all-Japanese.
Now that transitions me into my next statement: it is possible to have a production that is BOTH anime and Western animation. IGPX is the best example. The reason is that IGPX was animated in Japan but half of the writing staff was American. Also, the American team made their own audio track that both teams considered to be "equal" to the Japanese audio track. As Jason DeMarco, one of the producers and co-creator of Toonami, said, "It's just as much theirs as it is ours." The American staff was also in charge of some other important parts of the production too. In fact, the show was produced by Toonami/Cartoon Network. Essentially half of the production was American, and the other half was Japanese. Therefore, IGPX is considered to be both. This is NOT the case for Avatar or The Boondocks, both of which don't even have a single percentage of Japanese production in them (at least from the credits).
I think saying that whether something is anime or not should be subjective is an incorrect statement, because it's simply too specific in terms of the definition and the situation. Even if it's subjective, you still need evidence to back up your claims, right? Otherwise that defeats the whole purpose of defining what an anime is if some random person can just make that distinction without any good reason. Every category is based on a criteria, and once it fits that criteria, then is it within that category. The only question, and the only time subjectivity is even possible (although the definition of anime is very clear in this regard so subjectivity is minimized), is what that criteria is, hence why I made the above paragraphs. I determined which criteria made the most sense based on the reasoning within the above paragraphs that I noted in my previous sentence. And even in broad circumstances, subjectivity has a limit. What if I said Miyazaki was the worst director ever? What if I said that the Beatles were the worst band in existence? (Regarding both examples: I don't mean worst as in overrated, but as in actually the worst.) Even though what I said was an opinion and there is an amount of subjectivity in those claims, everyone would think that I don't know anything and that I am nuts. And they would be right. I can say that I dislike both, but when I say that they're bad, that's a whole different story. A lot of subjectivity can be overridden with objective logic, such as explaining Miyazaki's writing and animation techniques or how the Beatles make perfect pitches/tones and then harmonize them together with the songs that they make. In both cases, what they're doing is very technical, which provide concrete evidence that both are skilled in their areas of expertise.
Now, I know I wrote a lot, but the fact is, I'm making a rather big claim, so I want to have as much concrete evidence as possible with every different way of looking at it as possible in a logical sense, because I don't there to be any holes in my logic. I wanted to make sure that everything I said was logical, consistent, and detailed. I'm sure many of you don't want to read all of this and would rather just stick to what you believe than take your time to read every word of every sentence. However, if you really do care, if you really do believe in your beliefs, then I want you to read everything I have to say without missing a single word. And don't just read it and then immediately type in a rebuttal. Read it everything, contemplate on what I've said, and then read it again. Afterwards, if you do disagree, then post a strong rebuttal. And don't say "to each his own, everybody has their own opinions" or something like that, because my claim is that it's not an opinion. I am not sitting on the "I want everything to think that I'm right seat" because I once believed that anime was separate from cartoons and that something like Avatar should be anime, but I listened to what others had to say, and everything they said made logical sense with not holes in their logic. The people who taught me were credible were writers, animators, editors, producers, critics, etc. who actually worked in the industry and decided to either post their knowledge on articles, explain themselves in interviews, or were kind enough to speak with on Twitter. These were the people who knew what they were saying. They weren't biased fans set out to prove something that would make themselves feel better or elevate their interests. They just spoke on what actually was, because they were the ones who had to know these sorts of things to make a living. Why do I want to recite this information on a forum? Because I want to spread their knowledge and experiences to everyone. I know that being told "you're wrong" doesn't feel good. Heck, it feels horrible quite often. But if people are misinformed and are making incorrect statements with little research, then they need to be exposed to right information because we can't have people spreading the wrong information. This is how the world works, correct information must be spread and incorrect information must be rectified. This can be done in articles or discussions but it must be done somehow. The internet's refusal to listen and to go the "everyone has their own opinion" excuse and their reluctance to read long articles and paragraphs due to either laziness or having their feelings hurt are the reasons why it has such a terrible reputation when it comes to accurate and credible information. Yes, I am from the internet as well, but I have solid evidence to back up my claims, which is a key difference. So please, read what I have to say with an open mind. Know that it isn't personal but I had to say what I had to say because I care.
And if you still want to stick with the "everybody has their own opinions" excuse, even after reading everything that I have wrote, then remember that opinions can be proven right or wrong, and that all facts used to be opinions until they were proven right. It's all about the proof.
Also, there are still people who can be universally accepted as pretty, like some 20 year old celebrity actress. I'm sure we'd all cringe if we saw a naked obese 100 year old woman, right? That proves that there is a limit to subjectivity anyway. Another example is horror. Many people are not scared by someone like Jason Voorhees, yet they have no problem considering them to be horror villains. Why? Because horror is defined by something that is meant to scare you, not whether or not it actually succeeds in doing so. In science, definitions are objective, such as the volume of water being EXACTLY 1 g/m^3 or the fact that we know EXACTLY what the speed of light is. Now, I know what you're thinking, it's science so it's different. But in reality the whole world is science. Science is the study of the world and how it works. In fact, the standards are now being revised by a new academic curriculum called the Next Generation Science Standards so English and Math are now considered to be types of sciences. This standard will be implemented in a few years, and I actually study these types of information in my college classes (I had to sit through an entire presentation of the NGSS by one of its main writers). I would like to further note that anime's definition is only for categorization, and that it requires the content to be Japanese. Therefore, the definition doesn't leave much room for subjectivity. The definition was made so that it could be differentiated from other types of cartoons. Then it basically becomes a question of what makes something Japanese? My post is in response to this question.
