Worst Anime Artstyle ever!!

Dopu said:
I've some artstyles that I dislike, but now that I think about it those are usually from shows I dislike. So I don't know if it's really the art that I dislike or just seeing those characters.

Anyway:



That scene was one of the worst looking things I've seen.

TheBrainintheJar said:


Outside of the action, the art is bad. It has no elegance of realism or minimalist charm or, well, anything. I can't find any beauty in the rough sketchiness or an interesting visual idea.

TheBrainintheJar said:
Art style doesn't matter?

So would you watch anime if there were all stickmen?

Illyricus said:


Don't surpass this:

Comic_Sans said:
Lol

What show is that from

TripleSRank said:

Even stickmen can have their moments.

If there were more series like the last four, then yes. A great story can transcend visuals even if visuals are of some importance.

TheBrainintheJar said:


A show can't 'transcend' visuals because they're a part of how the story is told. A book can't 'transcend' its prose either.

A show can have crapy art and still be good, just like it can have a crapy story but everything else will make it enjoyable. Still, every part matters and affects the story somehow.

TripleSRank said:

Where did I say "show"? I'm quite certain I said "story". There's a big difference: There are many ideas and concepts that cannot be portrayed by sight alone. Anime is as much a storytelling medium as it is a visual one, if not more so. So yes, an anime's story can indeed transcend one individual method used to convey it (the visuals). Prose just happens to encompass multiple methods indirectly.

Your wording is biased when you ask if visuals don't matter. They do-- but not as much as the story itself. Otherwise you may as well visit an art museum or watch animated music videos muted.

I hope you will note the irony in my argument, in comparison to the argument that those who value story more should just read books.

TheBrainintheJar said:


I used 'show' instead of 'anime' because it's more comfortable, although now that you clear it up I understand you better.

Anime's visuals are one way in which the story is conveyed. Sound is another. Pacing is another.

I don't think that the method aren't as important as the story itself, because the methods define the story. If an anime overcomes a shitty art style, it was because it had other methods. In Ping Pong, it overcome the art style because it also had vibrant action scenes, tight pacing and a focus on a variety of characters.

FontSize72LOL said:
I'd rather watch Ping Pong the Animation styled art than the Dorito-faced senpai's that plague shoujo anime. CLAMP, and its associated triangular dorito faced shoujo artstyles are some of the grossest looking things ever. Its literally the #1 reason i cant go anywhere near most shoujo anime, even if i want to.

Eden2307 said:
I really like when something has a unique and recognizable art style that sets it apart from others, and I can tell who the artists are from it. Seems a lot of people in this thread think different and not cliche/normal is usually bad.

I'm not even gonna get started on all the One Piece art style haters that were obvious to come.

So yeah, nothing in particular. I guess just a boring/cliche and forgettable art style is what I dislike.

Kuma said:
there is different between banormally good and abnormaly bad. witch craft works and redline is different, yet rarely people hate it, because it's different in good ways. but yeah, some of those hate are overexagrated. but still, art style is subjective point.

TripleSRank said:

What idea is presented and how it is presented (figuratively) can indeed be greater than the (literal) method used to present it. A story's structure and content can often be delivered in a variety of methods (which is why adaptations can exist in the first place), and it is that core non-method-dependent content that I am referring to when I say that the story is more important. Of course, you can argue that a given story can be conveyed better or more poignantly with a specific method or group of methods, but I would still argue that the base idea or ideas that are being conveyed are more important than how it's conveyed.

This is the heart of the style vs. substance argument, actually. The delivery method is the style; the content is the substance. I personally am a strong advocate of substance even though I can appreciate style.

Irrelative said:
I hope no one says Ping Pong.

TheBrainintheJar said:


I'm not sure. I found a lot of content in Future Diary, but the style is too haphazard, the pacing is too fast and none of it was explored. I also find interesting ideas in Mushishi, but its presentation was too cold and disconnected from its characters that it left it unexplored too.

You can explain an idea using the right words or big huge words that will just confuse the reader. Both say the same thing, but one helps you understand the other doesn't. Style is part of the substance.

YEEART said:


>realism

ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

To be honest, I think I'm one of the few that actually found Ping Pongs art strangely charming and unique. I actually loved it.

Dimitrije1606 said:

I freaking lost it, where is this from? Deen?

TripleSRank said:

Pacing is part of the core content that is medium-independent (aka style-independent); some methods of presentation may make a given pacing easier to work with, but that doesn't make pacing suddenly become the literal prose vs. visuals type of presentation-- it is the figurative type of presentation contained within the core story.

Usage of terms is likewise part of the core story. Whether you narrate through prose in a book or have a narrator audibly speak it in an anime; it's still the same content-- just in a different method of presentation. The same is true of dialogue: The same content is there; it's just presented differently.

Also, "big words" =/= bad. Precise words exist to convey the exact meaning intended. Misuse of words is bad, but your analogy doesn't work with that because that's a fault of the core content rather than evidence that style and substance are the same.

It sounds like you are indeed confusing style with substance. They are not one and the same by any stretch. You're just arguing that some styles are better than others when my argument has not to do with the best style, but of the relative importance of style compared to the actual content (substance).

Eden2307 said:
It's all subjective, and everyone has different taste. I just still kinda hate how people will say something's art style isn't good, simply because they can't appreciate it. One Piece is a huge example, but definitely not the only one.

TheBrainintheJar said:


Pacing isn't part of the core content. It's part of the style. Erin and Mushishi have a slower pace to fit their calm atmosphere, whereas Future Diary has a fast pace to fit its paranoaic thriller atmosphere. It's a stylistic choice.

The style of narration affects the story. You can tell it deadpan, dramatically, quickly or slowly. It will affect how we perceive it.

Big words aren't bad in and of themselves, but a person can use a dense writing style. This style can get so dense it'll be hard to get to the meaning.

I'm not sure you can separate style from substance, because a lot of the substance is filtered through the style. Content can't exist without it.

RE: realism in Ping Pong. I don't get it. What's realistic about a horribly depressed dude being a champion of table tennis?

TripleSRank said:

You're using style to refer to two separate things, one of which is figurative and the other of which is literal. Figurative presentation involves core, medium-independent aspects of the story such as the pacing, dialogue, type of narration, the actual events that take place (the plot), the character's personality, etc. This can all be shown and presented literally through many methods-- prose (books), images and text (comics), images, text, and sound (animation/live action), etc.

Anything that can be translated from one medium to another is part of the content or substance. You can show a picture of a person in a comic or describe them in a book, but they're the same idea in both cases. You can have dialogue in both an anime and a book. The pacing can be identical in both an anime and a comic. Music can be described or presented in multiple formats. So on and so forth. That is all part of the substance because it can be the same in multiple forms of presentation (mediums, or styles). The only thing style can do is intensify or make more poignant the ideas contained within the content: For example, visually showing a chain breaking as a symbol could potentially (though not necessarily) be more emotive than describing it in a book, but that doesn't change the content itself (the symbol, a breaking chain).

This shouldn't be a difficult concept to grasp.

TheBrainintheJar said:
Drawing a character and describing it are two different things. Drawing gives you an exact look. Describing something should give you an idea of what it feels like (Precise descriptions nearly always fail. See also: Game of Thrones).

TheBrainintheJar said:
The same with music. Sensory information can't be exactly described or else deafness/blindess wouldn't be so terrible.

TheBrainintheJar said:
Other than that, some things will exist in all mediums, I agree - events, dialogue, characters. Still, how good the content is depends on the style. Saw's stylistic choices of industrial-like atmosphere (Industrial rock soundtrack, everything having a rusty metal look) gives it a personality that makes it more fun than any other Torture Porn film.

Digimon Tamers wouldn't work without the stylistic visual design of the D-Reaper. It needed this creepy, cyber-alien visual style to emphasize how the D-Reaper is.

Pi needed black-and-white and fast cuts to emphasize Max Cohen's black-n-white worldview and quick but neurotic brain. The content would be there even if you directed it like Mushishi, but it wouldn't be as good.