2025-02-05 - Soul, Art, and One Punch Man
The first blog of 2025 is a great time to cover a topic that has been brewing in my head recently about why we like certain things humans make, while considering others "soulless" or "cashgrabs." Generally, about why some things are so compelling and others are not. You may have heard of the term "soul" being used in the last few years, or as it's colloquially known, "sovl." Some people would have you believe this is just a meaningless term that is shorthand for "old good, new bad" but I think I can define it in terms that are at least easy to understand. I believe soul can be defined as something that was very clearly made by a human who put time, effort, and dedication into it, and who had an immense sense of passion for their work. In a sense, the work itself has a "soul," it feels very real. This aspect of it being something that you know someone actually created with thoughtful intent is the crux behind why we enjoy certain things, despite them being considered dated. Everyone has at some level an appreciation for humanity, and for what we've accomplished. You may not be proud of all of it but to think that we came from the jungles and the plains to building civilizations is a notion that we are instinctively proud of. I think anything that showcases "soul" is a direct appeal to this instinct, we see something that someone spent a lot of time on, with care and effort and we acknowledge it. That's why when something is made as a corporate product, or with an ulterior motive besides trying to make the work the best it can be, we can see through it and know that the work is "soulless." But how can you tell when someone is putting the correct kind of motivation into something? It seems humans have an instinct to be able to tell when something was made with love, and when something is made for profit. Now is a good time to bring up one of my favorite stories, One Punch Man, a free online webcomic by ONE. One Punch Man follows the story of a man named Saitama, a hero with such immense strength that he can defeat monsters with one punch, but he has grown bored with his strength. It is largely a parody of traditional shonen stories, as well as the general japanese hero story. It's hilarious and has some excellent storytelling, paneling, and (I think so at least) art. The focus here is is Saitama's reason for being a hero, and how it contrasts with the rest of the story and the parodied heroes the fill it. The story starts out chronologically with Saitama deciding to save a young boy from a monster despite having no powers, and then deciding to train so he can keep defeating monsters. He trains so hard he becomes too strong, and he just continually defeats monsters. Later on, he realizes there's a hero "association" and decides to join it after realizing nobody knows who he is. You might think this is just showcasing a selfish desire, but keep in mind he was still performing hero work even without knowing whether he was popular or not. Saitama becomes a "professional hero" because he likes to defeat monsters and save people as a hobby. On the flipside, most of the other characters, and in fact the hero association itself, are a parody on this romanticized, false vision of what a hero is. They put on costumes, get names, have hero quotas, guidebooks, merchandise, and they get fame and wealth for being heroes. So, when most of these people say they want to be a hero, they mean that they want to be a professional hero to reap all the benefits that come with it. For them, saving people is just their job, it's a result of their work rather than being why they work. There are a few cases that go against this notion, such as the character Mumen Rider, but in large this is most of the characters motivation for being heroes. So why is Saitama different? Well, to put it in an easy analogy, he became a hero because he wants to defeat monsters and save people, while other heroes defeat monsters and save people because they wanted to become heroes. The order of priority is crucial, it shows most of these people would not be heroes if the base motivation for being a "pro" hero weren't there. On the flipside, Saitama was doing hero work without even knowledge of any association, pay, or fanclub. He did it in his free time as a hobby, just because he wanted to. He is entirely internally motivated, and had no one told or encouraged him to be a hero, he still would be one. Initially, I thought this would quite a nice point about the nature of heroism, and how true heroes are people who would save others even if they got no recognition, who simply enjoy doing it and get satisfaction from it. However, I now realize this can be used as a broader point about human motivation itself. Why do artists create art? Many modern artists do it to make a living. They draw for patreon donations, make animations or shows so they can get by. But, if these people were not being paid for what they do, would they still do it? I would say no to the majority of them. A helpful quote I think applies well here is from the words of Theodore Kaczynski. "Here is a rule of thumb for the identification of surrogate activities. Given a person who devotes much time and energy to the pursuit of goal X, ask yourself this: If he had to devote most of his time and energy to satisfying his biological needs, and if that effort required him to use his physical and mental faculties in a varied and interesting way, would he feel seriously deprived because he did not attain goal X? If the answer is no, then the person's pursuit of goal X is a surrogate activity." I don't wish to debate Ted's position on surrogate activities here, that's a topic for another time, however this is a useful rule of thumb for artists, creators, thinkers, and anyone who puts effort into their goals. If they received no widespread recognition for their work, if they and perhaps their friends and family were the only ones to see it bear fruit, would they still work on it? Would they still pour hours into their craft, trying to make it the best they can be, knowing they wouldn't be able to live off of it, but just purely for the satisfaction they get from working on it? If the answer is no, then I think that person's work will most likely come out to be "soulless." If someone cares more about the work itself than the rewards of the work, that kind of internal motivation is what produces the best art, storytelling, media, culture, and everything you think of regarding humanity. I believe you can tell when a game, drawing, or piece of music has "soul," and that you can tell someone was just interested in making it and wanted to make it the best it could be. I have recently been getting more into Neil Cicierega's music, and my immediate impression was how soulful it feels. It's one man, making music and just having a good time doing it. Sure, he does make money off of it too but he clearly enjoys doing it, he released plenty of fun musical creations online for free even aside from paid albums, which I believe were also released online. This modern obsession with wealth and the financial or status outcomes of a project are what I think are degrading our culture. It's in large part the fault of society and corporations for cutting corners and focusing only on gains. This mindset has propagated society at large and it's a shame. That's not to say that things with soul have gone extinct, there are plenty of people who still have the drive and motivation to make things just because they want to do it. But they're in large part drowned out by society at large. With videogames for instance, indie developers will find it hard to "make it" or have people even know their game exists when big game corporations have mass marketing and sell millions of copies. I think nothing short of a full societal breakdown will change this, but you can at least be the change you want to see and to do things because you want to, not because of the rewards you'll get.