Ask John: Do Americans Define Anime by Appearances?

Question:
A lot of anime in the US seems to look similar, as in, it seems as if American anime fans have started to grow some sort of preconception about what “anime” is supposed to look like. Do you find this to be true? If so, do you have any theories as to how this phenomenon originated? I thought America was an opened minded country, but I’m constantly bombarded with rejection of the type of anime I watch, even though there are plentiful fans over in Japan and Asia.

Answer:
First and foremost, I don’t want to make generalizations or promote stereotypes. I’ll discuss my perceptions of commonplace attitudes and majority opinions, but I want to stress that there are always exceptions, and I don’t want to imply otherwise. With that said, I don’t think that American viewers are strictly obsessed with recognizing anime in the form of a particular visual styles, but I can’t entirely dismiss the accusation, either. There is a significant variation in the visual design of the anime that’s available in America, but at the same time Americans do have a tendency to define anime by visual appearance and categorize interest in anime solely on appearances.

There are a number of reasons behind the American tendency to define anime by a particular visual style, including tradition, exposure, natural instinct, and the relative difficulty of classifying anime with other standards. Since its introduction to America nearly 50 years ago, anime has been defined in America by characters with big eyes and wild hair. The highly stylized look of anime characters has become synonymous with Japanese animation for the majority of Americans because they’re used to that look and have little or no exposure to contradictory examples. America was introduced to anime via stereotypical anime characters with big, round eyes and wild hair, and that stereotype has only been reinforced by generations of exposure to newer anime imported to America.

Part of the reason why Americans aren’t especially aware of distinctly different styles of anime visual design is because there aren’t an overwhelming number of mainstream anime titles that consciously emphasize drastically unusual visual designs. Anime titles like Dead Leaves, Fujin Monogatari, Akagi, Gag Manga Biyori, Kemonozume, and Alexander Senki that consciously employ atypical anime visual design schemes are all relatively recent. Earlier works such as Mori no Densetsu, Dragon’s Heaven, and Gisaburo Sugii’s Genji Monogatari film, are simply too sporadic and not well known enough in America to be influential in expanding the average American’s perception of what anime typically looks like.

Contemporary American animated productions like Powerpuff Girls and Teen Titans are sometimes referred to as “anime.” Moreover, there’s a strong sentiment within the American fan community to define “anime” by visual design rather than cultural origin or artistic content. Especially for casual observers, it’s natural to recognize the distinctive “look” of anime, including its characteristic big eyes and wild hair, and its color scheme of bright, solid colors, and group all similar looking examples into a single category. The theory that Teen Titans and Chobits look similar, so they must be similar is, I think, a natural association. Furthermore, while obvious visual characteristics are easy to distinguish, the characteristics that make anime specifically Japanese animation are not obvious nor easy to distinguish. Even life-long, die-hard anime fans would be hard pressed to specifically explain and identify reliable, consistent examples of exactly what nuances make Japanese animation different from American animation that visually resembles anime. An astute viewers may be able to “feel” a difference between a Japanese created animation and an American created animation, but identifying the precise reasons for that “feel” is extremely difficult.

I don’t want to excuse the laziness of arbitrarily classifying “anime” by superficial visual characteristics, but I do understand why doing so happens. Classifying “anime” as anything that looks like anime is easy while properly classifying “anime” based on a work’s cultural heritage and influences is difficult. The argument may be made that even Japanese citizens define “anime” as merely “animation,” but I would argue that this practice is a lazy shorthand performed by mainstream Japanese citizens that have no reason to care about properly distinguishing Japanese animation. Furthermore, the practice of using the words “anime” and “animation” interchangeably is a distinctly Japanese linguistic trait that does not carry over directly into English, and should not be forcibly shoehorned into English language. Average Japanese citizens may refer to all animation as “anime,” but they’re also average Japanese citizens speaking Japanese; that doesn’t mean that what average Japanese citizens do should also be applied to English speaking hardcore anime fans.

Defining anime by its cultural origin instead of by visual appearance is not a symptom of racism or ignorance; it’s simply the most effective and academic option available. Defining anime purely by visual appearance would make the distinctive styles of Japanese artists including Hiroyuki Imaishi, Koji Yamamura, and Masaki Yuasa not anime while entirely American created works like The Little Mermaid and Teen Titans would be anime. Hopefully obviously any observational theory that results in such conclusions is clearly flawed. However, I hope I’ve adequately explained why such a classification theory has evolved in America. Through routine, convenience, and an absence of motivation and reason to change, America has developed a stereotypical image of what anime looks like, and largely defines both “anime” and interest in “anime” with this stereotypical image. Arguably what many American viewers like about “anime” are its most superficial and obvious characteristics. That gives many Americans little reason to be interested in Japanese animation productions that don’t resemble the stereotypical American notion of “anime.”