For the Love of Manga

Or maybe she didn't want to look at the naked model anymore...

kanna172003 wrote:Knew it was Cat. She's pretty much proved she's an anime fan.

I knew it was Cat also.. but something made me think it was one of the 3 room mates of the fox girl (sorry, horrible with names!)
IDontKnow

I really like the teacher though... I don't know why but she just seems like a teacher XD
Man I'm not making much sense today.

Wellllll she's in drawing class at the moment, where hunter is the model. she's reading a comic. Fifty bucks says the exact thing that just happened in Cat's manga happens her in just a few moments. or within the day

Is Cat still under probation? And by that, I mean is she still having to work extra hard to bring up her grades so that her parents continue to pay for her college after Dawn's experiment?

Wow. I had not realized that the orange text boxes were the voice of the reader. (Cat)
I had thought they were the actual dialouge in the comic.
I feel dumb now.

About the whole Cat's comic arc idea:
FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY, YOU MUST DO THAT IN A FUTURE ARC, ELLEN-NATALIE!!
(Plus, what should I call you? Do you mind 'Ellen-Natalie'?)

Anyway, I really like the manga-y style of the comic Cat was reading, contrasting it with FE's normal style makes the comic more believable IMO. Also, I'm very impressed with the way characters look. They are all very unique and it is easy to infer information about them based upon their appearance. (See Laughingbanana's comment about the teacher.)
Good job with the comic so far!

BY THE WAY:
I noticed something funny in the comic with BatCat. (The one about Ronnie's "missing" apple)
In one of the panels, BatCat is seen raising a finger on her right hand, yet she still has four fingers curled into her fist.
She has six fingers.

Banjo(Auz) wrote:BY THE WAY:
I noticed something funny in the comic with BatCat. (The one about Ronnie's "missing" apple)
In one of the panels, BatCat is seen raising a finger on her right hand, yet she still has four fingers curled into her fist.
She has six fingers.

Oh dear, so she does.   
Ms. Natalie, please don't die of embarrassment. We need you alive to make the pretty artings for our eye organs to look upon and enjoy.

Cat, WHAT ARE YOU DOING. NO. BAD. Don't read comics in class! Especially not this class! Really, I am a bit surprised. Prof. Fergeson's the same teacher with that strict attendance policy who was quite displeased when Cat participated in that little switcheroo experiment. Judging from her behavior in this page, though, it seems that the prof. has let that go, from an emotional standpoint at least. Grade wise, it's still not clear to me if Cat will be receiving an F or what (assuming this is still the same semester, of course). Cat's still showing up to class, so I suspect she still has a chance of passing, but she might be failing and attending anyway just to learn (and possibly to prove to herself and her teacher that she can and will take the class more seriously). 'Course, none of that lines up with her reading manga in class. She must reeeally be obsessed with NekoOtaku...

Banjo(Auz) wrote:(Plus, what should I call you? Do you mind 'Ellen-Natalie'?)

Sure!

Banjo(Auz) wrote:In one of the panels, BatCat is seen raising a finger on her right hand, yet she still has four fingers curled into her fist.
She has six fingers.

A few people have pointed that out since the page posted-the 2 a.m. artist strikes again! I'll be sure to have that correction made before the page is reposted elsewhere.

Hunter gets a makeover

Oh my...   

Ellen-Natalie wrote:Sure!

Ok.
(Man, I ask way too many questions like that. Sorry.)

Ellen-Natalie wrote:A few people have pointed that out since the page posted-the 2 a.m. artist strikes again! I'll be sure to have that correction made before the page is reposted elsewhere.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean that in a rude way. I probably should have worded my post better.
Others pointed that out? I didn't know that. Sorry again!
(I apologize too much.)

You're not being rude at all, Banjo! (Just so you're aware )

Ellen-Natalie wrote:You're not being rude at all, Banjo! (Just so you're aware )

Art is not supposed to be useful. Art is considered a pleasure, like music. If you think about it, art has no practical use. But people still like it. My high school art teacher was the exact same way and I threw back the exact same line I just said. She didn't have an answer so she made me stay after class to clean up.

This is the problem I have with some art teachers and their respective teaching methods. Art is a very subjective thing. You like some things, you don't like others. It depends a lot on taste. I don't think I would be a good art teacher myself because I believe I would have a hard time critiquing and not playing favorites with a particular style.

With that said, I do believe this. If you're going to go into an environment where you will be teaching others (no matter what it is), then I believe that professionalism should be shown. Whether or not a person can be completely neutral is up for debate, but I think that an entire style of art should not be criticized.

I actually do have a bit of experience with this going out to BYU. Taking animation, the teacher constantly ragged on anime, talking about it being a cheap way to animate and that was why it was developed. I don't know the history about anime myself, but, he went on about it a little too much for my liking. Basically, they didn't want us drawing in that style. They wanted a more cartoony style. Something imitating Looney Tunes or Disney works. But they also wanted us to learn exaggeration, stretching figures, making them more dynamic. There was a lot of good in the class, but I was a little disappointed in the shaming of anime.

I also had to listen to the students themselves talk bad about the furry artwork while in the class. That completely took me off guard since the reason that I love to draw is because of all of the old Looney Tunes and Disney cartoons and movies. It was shocking and upsetting to hear other classmates talk bad about an art style that I feel these old shows led me towards.

But anyway, my rant is over. =P

See Ms. Natalie? The religious topics don't bug us at all (and you were all worried over that one ), but bring out the 'comics aren't "real" art' debate and suddenly GIANT WALLS-O-TEXT!!!

Guess it's pretty easy to see where our devotion lies. 

Latrans wrote:See Ms. Natalie? The religious topics don't bug us at all (and you were all worried over that one ), but bring out the 'comics aren't "real" art' debate and suddenly GIANT WALLS-O-TEXT!!!

Guess it's pretty easy to see where our devotion lies. 

It just strikes me to my very core! =P

Trevor_Fox wrote:Taking animation, the teacher constantly ragged on anime, talking about it being a cheap way to animate and that was why it was developed. I don't know the history about anime myself, but, he went on about it a little too much for my liking.

Was that Mr. Loosli?

Ellen-Natalie wrote:

Trevor_Fox wrote:Taking animation, the teacher constantly ragged on anime, talking about it being a cheap way to animate and that was why it was developed. I don't know the history about anime myself, but, he went on about it a little too much for my liking.

Was that Mr. Loosli?

Ha! Yep! Kelly Loosli.

Latrans wrote:See Ms. Natalie? The religious topics don't bug us at all (and you were all worried over that one ), but bring out the 'comics aren't "real" art' debate and suddenly GIANT WALLS-O-TEXT!!!

Guess it's pretty easy to see where our devotion lies. 

And now I am going to add mine! Long-winded pontification, ahoy!

(Edit2: Disclaimer: I've never had any art instruction beyond grade school, so my perspective's probably pretty limited compared to those of you who've studied it a lot. So it's possible I'm totally off-base or don't quite know what I'm talking about at some points in the rambling that follows, in which case, feel free to correct me. ^^; )

I agree with those who have come before me and said that Prof. Ferguson's expressed attitude toward anime/manga art is unprofessional and based on a weak premise. Not useful? Really?

First of all, kanna is right; people create art because it pleases them. From a strictly materially practical perspective, it doesn't do anything. It doesn't build machines that make our lives more convenient or cure diseases. However, I'll broaden the definition of "useful" (at least for the sake of this argument) to include communication: that is, telling other people about real events and issues or showing them something you want them to be able to recognize. A detailed, realistic portrayal more vividly and precisely shows something physical, but simplified visual art styles such as those found in comics still get ideas across and can be drawn faster, thus making them more efficient when pressed for time.

Now I'll expand the definition of usefulness to include expressing and exploring human consciousness. We build our lives based on our philosophies and perceptions of the world; how we perceive pain, misery, and unfairness, for example, affects how we define right and wrong, and that in turn affects how we choose to live. Art--in the form of novels, poems, drawings, sculptures, movies, or anything else you can think of--often captures, or seeks to capture, our perceptions of the physical world as well as our more interior emotional and logical experiences. Art does this in a way that can be simultaneously personal and impersonal; it portrays something people might see in their own lives or else think about and question, such as love, hate, pain, justice, forgiveness, human nature, physical beauty, et cetera (just to list a few broader, more general examples), but at the same time, it doesn't have to be tied to specific, real people or occurrences, though it can be. This allows people to communicate, appreciate, and examine all sorts of different feelings, ideas, questions, realities, and even contemporary issues while having a sort of emotional safety buffer. People can use anything gained from that experience with art to enhance or revise their understanding of the world, and that in turn can be used to choose how to live.

In terms of visual art, again, a realistic picture presents more vivid and precise detail (edit: I should clarify; I'm aware that abstract or animated styles can also be very vivid and detailed--I was thinking in terms of realistic portraits vs some far more simplified, black-and-white cartoon and manga styles) to bring a single scene or moment to life, but if one wishes to tell a story visually, then that requires a LOT of pictures, and it's easier to accomplish that with a simplified art style. Abstraction like the sort found in comic art can also be used to emphasize certain character traits or emotional expressions. My fiction professor once told me that fiction writing is "hyper realistic"; this is a similar idea.

I can broaden my definition still more and say that if the artist has any goal in mind when creating the art, whether it be to express something or simply find pleasure, then if art helps them achieve that, it is useful to the artist. Same goes for the audience: if the art does something for them that they value, then from their perspective, it can be considered useful.

Of course, I've now proposed a pretty broad definition of useful. But if the narrow definition of useful eschews all but the materially practical causes, how does Prof. Ferguson define useful that's broad enough to include some art skills but not others? What is it about manga that she perceives as useless in comparison to other art styles? Does she value only visually realistic portrayals? If so, why? I cannot think of any logical grounds for her statement. She may hold certain styles in higher regard due to what she perceives as more difficult or complex, but those characteristics have no direct correlation with usefulness--according to my understanding of the term, at least.

She could have said, "Cat, please don't draw manga style in my class. The goal of this course is to teach you how to capture anatomical details as realistically as possible. Master that here, and work on abstraction on your own time or in other classes." I would have found that acceptable. Personally, I find drawing something in precise, realistic detail quite challenging, and once a visual artist has that down, I imagine it would provide a solid basis for abstraction. I could therefore understand why Prof. Ferguson would prefer her students focus solely on that skill in her class. However, as I said before, her reaction indicates a bias against a specific form of art, and that seems to me both close-minded and unprofessional.

I'm curious to see where this arc goes. I also want to know if Hunter's going to see his manga self and, if so, what he'll think of it.

Also, Ellen-Natalie, Trevor_Fox, did you two go to the same school?  

Cutekitty wrote:

Latrans wrote:See Ms. Natalie? The religious topics don't bug us at all (and you were all worried over that one ), but bring out the 'comics aren't "real" art' debate and suddenly GIANT WALLS-O-TEXT!!!

Guess it's pretty easy to see where our devotion lies. 

And now I am going to add mine! Long-winded pontification, ahoy!

(Edit2: Disclaimer: I've never had any art instruction beyond grade school, so my perspective's probably pretty limited compared to those of you who've studied it a lot. So it's possible I'm totally off-base or don't quite know what I'm talking about at some points in the rambling that follows, in which case, feel free to correct me. ^^; )

I agree with those who have come before me and said that Prof. Ferguson's expressed attitude toward anime/manga art is unprofessional and based on a weak premise. Not useful? Really?

First of all, kanna is right; people create art because it pleases them. From a strictly materially practical perspective, it doesn't do anything. It doesn't build machines that make our lives more convenient or cure diseases. However, I'll broaden the definition of "useful" (at least for the sake of this argument) to include communication: that is, telling other people about real events and issues or showing them something you want them to be able to recognize. A detailed, realistic portrayal more vividly and precisely shows something physical, but simplified visual art styles such as those found in comics still get ideas across and can be drawn faster, thus making them more efficient when pressed for time.

Now I'll expand the definition of usefulness to include expressing and exploring human consciousness. We build our lives based on our philosophies and perceptions of the world; how we perceive pain, misery, and unfairness, for example, affects how we define right and wrong, and that in turn affects how we choose to live. Art--in the form of novels, poems, drawings, sculptures, movies, or anything else you can think of--often captures, or seeks to capture, our perceptions of the physical world as well as our more interior emotional and logical experiences. Art does this in a way that can be simultaneously personal and impersonal; it portrays something people might see in their own lives or else think about and question, such as love, hate, pain, justice, forgiveness, human nature, physical beauty, et cetera (just to list a few broader, more general examples), but at the same time, it doesn't have to be tied to specific, real people or occurrences, though it can be. This allows people to communicate, appreciate, and examine all sorts of different feelings, ideas, questions, realities, and even contemporary issues while having a sort of emotional safety buffer. People can use anything gained from that experience with art to enhance or revise their understanding of the world, and that in turn can be used to choose how to live.

In terms of visual art, again, a realistic picture presents more vivid and precise detail (edit: I should clarify; I'm aware that abstract or animated styles can also be very vivid and detailed--I was thinking in terms of realistic portraits vs some far more simplified, black-and-white cartoon and manga styles) to bring a single scene or moment to life, but if one wishes to tell a story visually, then that requires a LOT of pictures, and it's easier to accomplish that with a simplified art style. Abstraction like the sort found in comic art can also be used to emphasize certain character traits or emotional expressions. My fiction professor once told me that fiction writing is "hyper realistic"; this is a similar idea.

I can broaden my definition still more and say that if the artist has any goal in mind when creating the art, whether it be to express something or simply find pleasure, then if art helps them achieve that, it is useful to the artist. Same goes for the audience: if the art does something for them that they value, then from their perspective, it can be considered useful.

Of course, I've now proposed a pretty broad definition of useful. But if the narrow definition of useful eschews all but the materially practical causes, how does Prof. Ferguson define useful that's broad enough to include some art skills but not others? What is it about manga that she perceives as useless in comparison to other art styles? Does she value only visually realistic portrayals? If so, why? I cannot think of any logical grounds for her statement. She may hold certain styles in higher regard due to what she perceives as more difficult or complex, but those characteristics have no direct correlation with usefulness--according to my understanding of the term, at least.

She could have said, "Cat, please don't draw manga style in my class. The goal of this course is to teach you how to capture anatomical details as realistically as possible. Master that here, and work on abstraction on your own time or in other classes." I would have found that acceptable. Personally, I find drawing something in precise, realistic detail quite challenging, and once a visual artist has that down, I imagine it would provide a solid basis for abstraction. I could therefore understand why Prof. Ferguson would prefer her students focus solely on that skill in her class. However, as I said before, her reaction indicates a bias against a specific form of art, and that seems to me both close-minded and unprofessional.

I'm curious to see where this arc goes. I also want to know if Hunter's going to see his manga self and, if so, what he'll think of it.

Also, Ellen-Natalie, Trevor_Fox, did you two go to the same school?  

D: Wow, there is absolutely nothing else I can add. I think you summed up everything perfectly  

kanna172003 wrote: D: Wow, there is absolutely nothing else I can add. I think you summed up everything perfectly  

...I think I had way too much time on my hands today. Or too much of a desire to procrastinate. Or both.  I should probably clarify the disclaimer thingy, though. I mean I haven't had visual art instruction since grade school; I took voice lessons in high school and am on my second creative writing course in college, and those things are definitely artistic. But the issue at hand mostly pertains to visual art, so...

Trevor_Fox wrote:

Ellen-Natalie wrote:

Trevor_Fox wrote:Taking animation, the teacher constantly ragged on anime, talking about it being a cheap way to animate and that was why it was developed. I don't know the history about anime myself, but, he went on about it a little too much for my liking.

Was that Mr. Loosli?

Ha! Yep! Kelly Loosli.

I loved Mr. Loosli! I got to do an internship with his animation class when I was in high school! He does have a chip on his shoulder when it comes to anime, but it's a justifiable one. (He was actually one of my inspirations when writing this arc.) Plus, he is willing to accept student anime work if it's done with professional quality. When I last saw him, only one student had accomplished this.

Ellen-Natalie wrote:

Trevor_Fox wrote:

Ellen-Natalie wrote:

Trevor_Fox wrote:Taking animation, the teacher constantly ragged on anime, talking about it being a cheap way to animate and that was why it was developed. I don't know the history about anime myself, but, he went on about it a little too much for my liking.

Was that Mr. Loosli?

Ha! Yep! Kelly Loosli.

I loved Mr. Loosli! I got to do an internship with his animation class when I was in high school! He does have a chip on his shoulder when it comes to anime, but it's a justifiable one. (He was actually one of my inspirations when writing this arc.) Plus, he is willing to accept student anime work if it's done with professional quality. When I last saw him, only one student had accomplished this.

That makes sense. I thought it strange when I first came out here and heard about how so many students came into the animation program drawing anime. I have my anime influences, but I've never really drawn just anime. I've always tried to find a style. So, it was strange hearing about how so many students tried to draw in that said style. Guess I don't associate with enough people. =P

Cutekitty wrote:

Latrans wrote:See Ms. Natalie? The religious topics don't bug us at all (and you were all worried over that one ), but bring out the 'comics aren't "real" art' debate and suddenly GIANT WALLS-O-TEXT!!!

Guess it's pretty easy to see where our devotion lies.

Also, Ellen-Natalie, Trevor_Fox, did you two go to the same school?

Guess we've both been to BYU at one time or another. =P

I suppose I should add now that I really don't like to to refer to it as "anime", I really just like to call them cartoons.   

[DELETED BECAUSE OF STUPID CONTENT (*facepaw*)]