27301


I've read and listened to anime reviewers rate the art and animation of a
given title, and I'm not clear which is which, nor specifically what they
refer to.

I imagine they're referring to the quality of the visuals, but I'm not sure if
the backgrounds are the art, the characters the animation, vice versa, or if
I've got it completely discombobulated. Is there more to the visuals than the
characters and the backgrounds? Conversely, am I oversimplifying it?

Searching DDG yielded a mess since the terms were too generic.


CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-27T02:46:15.210
26853
2016-01-17T07:58:42.167
2015-10-27T04:22:05.910
1908
13647
question
anime-production
Anime reviewers refer to "art" and "animation" separately. What does each one refer to?


> Anime reviewers refer to “art” and “animation” separately. What does each
> one refer to?

While I imagine there's variance in how reviewers use words, I would think
that most would choose to describe "art" as being still imagery (backgrounds,
clothing design, static pans, color choices, etc.) and "animation" as being,
well, animated imagery (character animation, CG, combat scenes, sakuga, and so
forth).

> Is there more to the visuals than the characters and the backgrounds?
> Conversely, am I oversimplifying it?

Dividing the visuals of an anime into "characters" and "backgrounds" is not
all that wrong (though it raises the question of how one ought to characterize
things like mechas and non-static background elements). But it's a fairly
artificial distinction, and one that isn't too useful as part of a critique of
an anime. There are still shots of characters (for example, when the camera
pans over a character), and there are animated shots of characters (facial
animation, walking motion, etc). Likewise, there are still shots of background
details... but some backgrounds are animated, too. Take, for example, [this
segment from _Nichijou_](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8TtD4p98eg).

The distinction between "art" and "animation", on the other hand, is, in some
cases, a useful dichotomy: it is frequently the case that the people who do
the animation for a show (keyframers, tweeners, and so forth) are different
from the people who do static art assets like backgrounds (background artists,
3D modellers, etc.). As such, I think it makes some sense to evaluate the two
separately.

It is probably often the case that the perceived "quality" of the art and
animation of a given show are fairly well-correlated - a studio that hires or
contracts skilled background artists will probably do the same with their
keyframers, and a studio that hires bottom-barrel animators will probably hire
bottom-barrel painters.

But sometimes, reviewers will observe a marked difference in the quality of
the art vs the animation. Consider, as an example, _Bakemonogatari_ (not the
whole series; just _Bakemonogatari_ itself). The animation in _Bakemonogatari_
is frequently _very_ limited (or, in the TV airing, absent altogether,
replaced by screens of text instead). But the art is often remarkably
elaborate.

And going the other way, _The Tatami Galaxy_ has fairly mundane-looking art.
But when you [see it in motion](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kq7O6eR12oM),
you might find that still screencaptures of the show don't suffice to convey
how fluidly the show is animated in many of its shots. (The "mundane" art of
_The Tatami Galaxy_ is clearly an intentional artistic choice, unlike the
limited animation of _Bakemonogatari_ , which probably isn't. I've used it as
an example anyway since I can't think of anything better off the top of my
head.)

Bundling "art" and "animation" into a single category called, say, "visuals"
loses some of the granularity that would allow a reviewer to discuss the ways
in which _Bakemonogatari_ succeeds with its art whereas _The Tatami Galaxy_
fails, and vice versa regarding animation. So I guess that might be why
critiquers of anime would choose to evaluate "art" and "animation" separately.


CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-27T04:21:25.007
26859
2015-10-27T04:21:25.007
1908
26853
answer


**Art**

The quality of work and visual glory, that we are basing upon.

**Animation**

The act of moving frames and motion.

-

That`s the way, I do things when I review anime on the website, I write on.


CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-27T04:45:03.343
26861
2015-10-27T04:45:03.343
18697
26853
answer


I upvoted senshin's answer, but to possibly add a little clarity, here's my
take on it.

"Art" refers to the visual design of a show: how the characters and
backgrounds look; the use of color, lighting, and shading; the way shots are
framed; the angles and use of artistic concepts like perspective, proportion,
and depth.

"Animation" refers to the process of stacking up frames to create the illusion
of movement.

Whether a show has good art is subjective. Bakemonogatari is believed by many
to have good art, because it uses perspective, color, and shading in a unique
way and has visually interesting character designs and backgrounds. Pokemon,
on the other hand, has very functional art. It uses color and shading in
simple, pedestrian ways. "Simple" and "pedestrian" are value judgments,
though; Pokemon is made for children, who haven't typically had as much
exposure to art, so to its target audience, Pokemon's art is fine.

Whether a show has good animation is not really subjective. We can judge
animation according to how well it succeeds at creating the illusion of
motion. Shows that reuse a lot of animation or have static backgrounds or
characters that move in unnatural ways have bad animation. Whether the bad
animation is a net negative for the show or not is a subjective judgment, but
determining whether the animation is bad is pretty simple and objective. Speed
Racer, for example, has bad animation, because it has fewer distinct frames,
less motion, and reuses a lot of sequences as compared with shows like Eva,
Akira, Fate/Zero, or Cowboy Bebop, which have good animation. This can be
objectively determined; hypothetically, we could even write a computer vision
system that could count these things for us and tell us whether a show has
good animation or not. We can still love Speed Racer despite (or because of)
its bad animation, but unlike with art, there's no "quality without a name"
that can make the animation of two shows incomparable. We can always make
technical, numerical comparisons between the animation of two shows.

These two things do interact somewhat. The level of detail that things are
drawn with is part of the art. But if the level of detail drops in some
frames, that affects the animation. And although Bakemonogatari's limited
animation was not an intentional artistic choice (the production of the show
was plagued by scheduling problems, and some episodes were barely finished in
time for broadcast), we can imagine that a show might use limited animation as
a deliberate artistic choice.

The cinematography is another place where art and animation interact. In an
animated show, we can consider each individual frame as a piece of art. We
could take a frame of an anime and hang it up in a museum between a Monet and
a Gaugin, and consider it as a painting. But we can also consider a sequence
of animation as film, and judge it on those merits. Cinematography is largely
artistic, so again subjective. But a show that fails at creating the illusion
of movement in a convincing way will have a hard time being regarded as a
serious piece of film.

However, for the most part, when anime reviewers say "art", they mean the
show's use of color, lighting, and shadow; level of detail on the characters
and backgrounds; and possibly the way shots are framed. When they say
"animation", the just mean "how well this show succeeds at creating the
illusion of motion".


CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-11-14T19:32:43.890
27301
2015-11-14T19:32:43.890
7579
26853
answer