jhenne-bean:

stuffedokapi:

splinterend:

It took me awhile to finally get into FLCL, and only recently have I finished the acclaimed six part anime OVA that inspired the creators of the series Avatar: The Last Airbender. The first few viewing tries were unsuccessful, mostly because I couldn’t get past the ten…

Did they really need to say all of that to prove that its just an aesthetically pleasing show? Holy. Shit.

I know some people that need it literally broken down, yes. >_> 

ALSO, I think it’s pretty interesting, from a ~film history~ perspective. (That’s what Floating Worlds is really, relatively simple-to-condense thoughts, that are expanded on and analyzed instead. I like it. |D)

But yes, it really could have been summarized as “FLCL is aesthetically appealing.” xD  

___

Well hey, this sounds familiar:

The first few viewing tries were unsuccessful, mostly because I couldn’t get past the ten minute mark without growing impatient or irritated. For some reason, whatever made the series so appealing to so many people I know was making me feel like I was developing a hernia in my brain. 

HEY TURD.

TURD.

HEY TURD.

MAYBE YOU SHOULD READ THIS ONE TURD.

Maybe it will help you xD

I’ve never really considered watching FLCL soooo….

Homestuck is not aesthetically appealing? At all. It’s like, the opposite of that.

Idk this makes me not want to watch it? Like, Beauty should have meaning. They used Alice/Jaberwocky as an example (haven’t seen these either) but it reminded me of being assigned “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland” for the first time in the sixth grade and loathing it. I hated having to read it until my dad pulled me aside and told me it was a political commentary on Victorian England. And then he made me stop reading it in order, and read the last chapter or so, when Alice has to show up for court. And then he explained what it alluded to, and why it was funny, and suddenly everything clicked and I really loved it. I read the whole thing, and I enjoyed it. All the nonsense suddenly had a sense! A nonsensical sense, but still! I still love Alice in Wonderland.

So yeah. I mean, even with Fantasia, you have stories, meanings, songs, and so on. It’s beautiful, but it has depth. Something that is well liked isn’t necessarily good, or valuable. It can easily be faked, shallow, plastic, hollow. Something that is popular isn’t always good or great.

I had to take a mini quiz for my Docent training program that divides the way people think of art into like, 4 or 5 categories. The other girl there fell mostly into “Emotion/Aesthetics” which means if she thought something was pretty, or if it made her feel something, she would like it. But I fall heavily under “Multiple Art Worlds” view, where I like to examine meanings, methods, cultures, ideas, concepts, and the hows and whys. She thinks I should appreciate things just for the sake of them being things. I don’t agree, necessarily. I like knowing why things are appreciated. I like having reasons to appreciate them. Simply put, she feels, and I think.

I think the misunderstanding here is that my thinking is somehow cold, unemotional, or unappreciative. On the contrary, I find simply “feeling” flat - I want my feelings to go as deep as they can, and to do so, I must understand things. This is seen as overthinking. The Museum Education director (in charge of the program) said my obsession with the hows and whys and whats of things may lessen somewhat “By the time you hit Grad School.” and have learned way more about my chosen field. Given that that’s another five or six years from now, I’ve got awhile to go.

But I think it’s unfair to paint my method as cold or unfeeling. I do feel. I just do it differently. My way of feeling is a constant passionate curiosity for everything and everyone. If I’m not dissecting something, it means I don’t care. I am neutral. I don’t have any feelings. But if I’m exploring something, examining or researching or questioning, it means I am indeed feeling something about it. I care about things only after coming to know them, and if something is shallow, how can I dive in to explore? How can I love something like that? Sure, things can be beautiful because they evoke emotions, but why did it evoke an emotion?

When I see something, I want to know it has soul.

I don’t think that’s so bad, at all. From an aesthetic standpoint, that means I don’t appreciate things “just because”, necessarily. But it does mean I try to appreciate something from every angle I can come up with, if I choose to appreciate it.

By the way, imagery implies meaning, or symbolism. Imagery does not exist in a vacuum of “It’s a pretty picture and it’s a pretty picture.” 

And if I think something has little or no point? No value? Granted, I feel like Homestuck falls into this - it’s not an exercise in aesthetics. The art is terrible. The story telling is convoluted, and written for hipsters. There seems to be little meaning, rhyme or reason and that doesn’t seem to be the point. I unabashedly hate Homestuck because it’s pretty much a circle jerk of anti-hipster hipster coolness quotient. It’s ~art~ because ~art~ because because because…and there’s no meaning. It’s flat. And the creator seems like an asshole too. Then:

Sorry I just don’t love things without any meaning. My heart requires pure cosmic “Oh I get it now.” #if it can’t move me, it’s not going to get very far in my world.