Comments

  • Munch munch, chomp chomp...
    Oh hey that's irritated me in the past too.
  • edited 2016-09-23 14:13:42
    I don't think I've ever personally encountered a situation wherein I needed to use either term. That said, this seems to be a pretty arbitrary definition -- it depends on how punchily one can state a premise.
  • I don't think I've ever heard the term "low concept" before today.
  • edited 2016-09-23 16:44:43
    Jane said:

    I don't think I've ever heard the term "low concept" before today.

    This too.

    It makes sense that it would exist given the existence of "high-concept", though.
  • I have cut a caper with the dancing mad god

    I don't think I've ever personally encountered a situation wherein I needed to use either term. That said, this seems to be a pretty arbitrary definition -- it depends on how punchily one can state a premise.

    I think the distinction lies more in what drives the work. Is the work driven by an over-arching theme that's larger than the individual scenes, or is it driven more by the smaller interactions?

    Perhaps visualize them as two machines. The high-concept machine has one large, central gear around which many smaller gears turn. The low-concept machine is made up of a myriad of tiny or small gears. Both machines have purpose and function, but how they go about their work is fundamentally different. 
  • “I'm surprised. Those clothes… but, aren't you…?”
    Precisely.
  • So basically "high concept" just means "attention-grabbing" or "memorable"?
  • “I'm surprised. Those clothes… but, aren't you…?”
    No, not really. It's more specific than that.

    Did you read my mini-essay up top?
  • I have cut a caper with the dancing mad god
    Not really. It means that the work is driven by one or two large, central ideas that everything else revolves around. These ideas don't have to be flashy, necessarily. 

    Low-concept stuff revolves around many smaller ideas and interactions, primarily. 
  • kill living beings
    every use of high/low to describe art is preemptively ruined for me by that calvin and hobbes comic, even though this is an orthogonal concept
  • No, not really. It's more specific than that.

    Did you read my mini-essay up top?

    I did indeed read it.

    Not really. It means that the work is driven by one or two large, central ideas that everything else revolves around. These ideas don't have to be flashy, necessarily. 


    Low-concept stuff revolves around many smaller ideas and interactions, primarily. 
    I get that point.  That is what Sredni posted in that blogpost.

    What I don't get is how one can necessarily say that a work is one or the other, from the observer's perspective, without getting into many arguments of opinion or semantics.
  • I have cut a caper with the dancing mad god
    Some things are going to be more obviously one than the other. It's often going to be a grey area. Many works fall somewhere in between. It's a spectrum, not a binary. 
  • My dreams exceed my real life
    I've heard it defined partially by how easy it is to elevator pitch something.

    Compare an elevator pitch for Jurassic Park to one for The Big Lebowski. One for the former would probably sound like "The security breaks down in a theme park with real dinosaurs" and I'm not sure what one for the latter would even start with
  • edited 2016-09-23 17:12:14
    “I'm surprised. Those clothes… but, aren't you…?”
    In some cases, the line is indeed blurry. In many or even most, all told. But some instances are clearer than others: If a film's premise could be summarised in a short and very literal title—for instance, Snakes On A Plane or Sharknado—then it is a high-concept work; if a summary of the works core themes would take more than a sentence and tell you very little about the plot, and vice-versa—Bakemonogatari is an excellent example, as is Pulp Fiction—then you are dealing with a low-concept story.

    ^ Again, precisely. The harder a story is to explain meaningfully, the less high-concept or the more low-concept it is.
  • edited 2016-09-23 17:19:29

    Some things are going to be more obviously one than the other. It's often going to be a grey area. Many works fall somewhere in between. It's a spectrum, not a binary. 

    That makes sense.

    But I'm just not getting how one can define the difference between, say, (to borrow from Sredni's blogpost)  "dinosaurs fight aliens" and, say, "a gentle comedy about high school", other than simply saying that the first premise has more "punch".  I mean, it just seems really subjective and based on cultural norms -- for example, the premise "a story about a nun who moonlights as a prostitute" feels "punchy" only because we have a cultural expectation about nuns being sexually conservative.

    Maybe it really just is about that, and has to do with how much something differs from "normalcy" in one's culture?  But in that case it could also be said to be a measure of "speculativeness" (in the sense of speculative fiction), and basically everything sci-fi and fantasy could be said to be high-concept.  (Is it?)
  • edited 2016-09-23 17:22:28

    The harder a story is to explain meaningfully, the less high-concept or the more low-concept it is.

    Oh wow I got ninja'd three times.

    Actually the way you put it there makes it seem like the difference is whether the work is more focused on the immediate premise or more so just uses the premise as a launching point for exploring other themes.  That seems to be it.
  • Munch munch, chomp chomp...
    It doesn't have anything to do with "punch," that example used is just more actiony. You could contrast Haruhi and Bakemonogatari, or Flying Witch and Pulp Fiction.
  • “I'm surprised. Those clothes… but, aren't you…?”
    See, "a gentle comedy about high school" describes the genre, but nothing about the plot. What makes something high-concept has everything to do with an ability to quickly summarise a key element of how the story progresses or what incites it without having to explain the mood or the style. The element of surprise is generally there, but that's because novelty is more important here than familiarity.

    Let's compare two high school comedy anime, just to show you what I mean. Great Teacher Onizuka is about a Japanese delinquent who winds up teaching high school. One can tell what kind of story this is going to be and what the tone probably is just by the description. That's high-concept. On the other hand, Hidamari Sketch is about female art students in an apartment complex. That description tells you nothing about the appeal of that show, however: How the tone is gentle yet exuberant, or how the direction uses symbolism and wild angles to convey these emotions. Such a story is low-concept.
  • imagei will watch the heck outta this pumpkin patch

    I mean, it just seems really subjective and based on cultural norm


    i feel like this is likely true of *most* concepts in criticism and fiction

    the lack of black-and-white concrete lines does not invalidate the concept, and demanding them means shackling oneself to a very shallow and limiting form of criticism imo
  • Tachyon said:

    I mean, it just seems really subjective and based on cultural norm


    i feel like this is likely true of *most* concepts in criticism and fiction

    the lack of black-and-white concrete lines does not invalidate the concept, and demanding them means shackling oneself to a very shallow and limiting form of criticism imo
    I don't think this is really the issue because I actually just don't really get this, because I can't seem to apply this high/low concept sorting without simply going "it feels that way", and that's not a reliable way to do anything (and also horribly subjective) so that can't be the correct criterion.

    And in particular, Haruhi was mentioned and I'm not actually sure whether that counts as high-concept or low-concept.  I think it was cited as an example of high-concept? 
    Odradek said:

    I've heard it defined partially by how easy it is to elevator pitch something.


    Compare an elevator pitch for Jurassic Park to one for The Big Lebowski. One for the former would probably sound like "The security breaks down in a theme park with real dinosaurs" and I'm not sure what one for the latter would even start with
    Y'know, you may be onto something -- maybe I'm confusing the work itself with the pitch.

    Unfortunately, of the examples named so far I'm not personally familiar with any of the low-concept ones.

    I think I'm starting to see how high-concept stuff could be mistaken for being shallow since the premise is more attention-grabbing?  Though of course it's possible for something with a speculative-fiction setting to also explore deeper themes.

    But I'm also kinda failing to see how it doesn't basically include all of speculative fiction.  Unless you also say that something can become low-concept when the premise is done a ton of times, like the first time you have a knight-saving-the-princess story it's high-concept, but then after that's been done fifty million times, it becomes low-concept on its own, or something like that?  Which would also mean that it depends on the audience, like it might be high-concept to children but low-concept to adults.  Or am I barking up the wrong tree?
  • “I'm surprised. Those clothes… but, aren't you…?”
    ...you've never seen Hidamari Sketch or Bakemonogatari?

    I thought you were more of a weeb than I was.
  • Munch munch, chomp chomp...
    Glenn has gone on record quiiiite a bit as having watched a fair bit, but not a lot (and in his own words, to paraphrase, especially compared to others here). And no, I've never seen him talk about either.
  • edited 2016-09-24 03:18:42
    You can actually just see my repertoire on MAL and HB.  I use the same username there.

    And yeah, I've never seen either of those.  Closest thing is a Wiz Khalifa x Hidamari Sketch video, and putting Sketchbook on my to-watch list.
  • imagei will watch the heck outta this pumpkin patch

    I don't think this is really the issue because I actually just don't really get this, because I can't seem to apply this high/low concept sorting without simply going "it feels that way", and that's not a reliable way to do anything (and also horribly subjective) so that can't be the correct criterion.


    . . . can't it? Is subjectivity ipso facto horrible?

    i find this concept extremely straightforward and intuitive, and genuinely am not sure whether you've spotted some problem i haven't, or whether you're overthinking this.

    And in particular, Haruhi was mentioned and I'm not actually sure whether that counts as high-concept or low-concept.  I think it was cited as an example of high-concept?


    Haruhi is a funny example, really; it's easy enough to describe it in ways that make it sound like a high-concept series but in practice that premise is rarely the focus (often it's more like an elephant in the room). i wouldn't be confident describing it as either high- or low-concept, i think it's somewhere more middling/ambiguous.
Sign In or Register to comment.