Are dolls like family or like toys?

Here you go - dictionary definition of TOY:

noun
1.
an object, often a small representation of something familiar, as ananimal or person, for children or others to play with; plaything.
2.
a thing or matter of little or no value or importance; a trifle.
3.
something that serves for or as if for diversion, rather than for seriouspractical use.
4.
a small article of little value but prized as a souvenir or for some otherspecial reason; trinket; knickknack; bauble.
5.
something diminutive, especially in comparison with like objects.
6.
an animal of a breed or variety noted for smallness of size:
The winning terrier at the dog show was a toy.
7.
a close-fitting cap of linen or wool, with flaps coming down to theshoulders, formerly worn by women in Scotland.

Now that last one - who knew? LOL

These dolls are COLLECTIBLES - expensive, somewhat fragile ART objects. You want to call your $700 uniquely fashioned doll a toy, who am I to stop you? But I WILL tell you that you are being facetious - the way a person is who calls their FERRARI a toy (which some people do - well, more often their WIFE does).
These dolls are NOT actually 'toys' - because they really aren't suitable for children to play with, they are not trifles, they are worth a lot. In fact, perhaps the reason for the hostility many people show when some call BJDs 'toys' might be found IN this definition - 'trifles, of little or no value or importance, small article of little value'. They can be 'played' with, but so can ANYTHING if you want to do so.

 

A few people in this thread have mentioned that they consider their pets family; I do too, and that makes sense, but I could never accord that importance to a material object, no matter how fond I was of it or how much emotional value it is. My dolls aren't family ): they're just lovely, detailed, possibly-a-toy, definitely-a collectible objects (that I really, really like having, mind you!)

I think that while the connotations of "toy" don't match up to our dolls (and certainly the value and the artistry of them doesn't match up to what people would associate with that word), if the alternative is considering them FAMILY then I would have to take toy over that, inexact though it is.

 

Well said, Teleri. They're not toys but more along the lines of my porcelain collectibles. The difference is that they're slightly more durable and you can change their look, face and hair and pose them as you see fit. They're amazing creative sparks. But they're not toys.

 

My dolls - collection. But fortunately, I can touch it, change clothes. They bring me a lot of joy))

 

Both choices are a bit extreme. They definitely do not rank as high as family to me.

 

They are objects of joy. I don't play with them and I wouldn't protect them with my life.... So I guess they are roommates

 

I'd say that definition number three is indeed an accurate description of how I think of my own collection. They're a pleasing diversion... Playthings... Not precious "works of art" or objects with any particular social or practical value beyond pure entertainment. Their price, as far as I'm concerned, doesn't lend them any additional status on its own. There are toys made for children that cost just as much or more than they do.

So, while you can certainly call me, and other collectors like me, facetious if you like, do keep in mind that not everyone places the same value on their inanimate playthings (Even relatively expensive ones-). For some of us, yes, these dolls really are "just toys" no matter how inappropriate you may find that, or how much it may offend your personal sensibilities. Don't assume we're all being flippant or less than truthful just because you don't agree with us.

 

Fortunately, my family's all aboard the hobby! Personally, I think for as long as you manage them yourself (this with regards to funds more than anything), it shouldn't matter what your family think. Just try to enjoy them yourself, eh? :3

 

Brightfires, they are not made to be playthings. They are collectibles, objet d'art if you will. Some are most CERTAINLY 'precious works of art' depending on the sculpt and the amount of work put into the dolls. You go ahead and trivialize your collection if you wish. Fine. Perhaps you do not put any creativity into your dolls. Or think that creative pursuits have no social value.
I personally have some big problems with that definition - 'diversion rather than serious practical use'. It sums up the notion that is infecting school systems (in the US anyway) right now (taking away the arts, music, etc out of the curriculum for this very reason).
But as I said, this is WHY a lot of people have huge problems calling these dolls 'toys'. Because it demeans them.

 

I agree with Teleri, they surely hold more value than a toy. Like she said, their value is built upon both the way they are made and the time invested into them by their owner - they can definitely be seen as works of art. Espcially considering how creatively inclined the hobby is in general.

 

I've never claimed to be particularly creative, so maybe you're right... Maybe I'm a terrible dolly-owner and hopeless Philistine who wouldn't know an objet d'art from my elbow... Apparently you think that makes me somehow responsible for the downfall of Civilization, so who knows.

But that doesn't change the fact that I do consider these dolls toys. If that offends you... too bad. You don't get to define how other people participate in the hobby. Some of us just don't take our dolls... or ourselves... all that seriously.

 

Brightfires, I actually SAID you had the right to call your dolls whatever you want. People misuse the English language all the time, and in fact as you point out you are using one of the lesser definitions of the word 'toy'.
MY point was simply to show WHY people get upset over this. Calling something a 'toy' (usually 'just a toy') demeans them. Do you see?

 

Oh, I do see what you're trying to do... I just don't agree with your premise, and I find your way of expressing it a lot more hostile than it needs to be. Language does matter, which is why using terms like "facetious" to describe a point of view that differs from your own really isn't a great idea. There's nothing wrong with being passionate about a subject, but that's not an excuse for being insulting to other collectors.

Personally, I just don't feel that a doll can BE demeaned. As fond as I may be of my own crew, I have no illusions about their nature. To me, they're simply inanimate objects, with no motive consciousness of their own. No matter how attached the owner is to it, a doll isn't self aware. It has no ego or self-esteem that could be damaged by whatever status its owner gives it. It has no dignity or self-respect to harm, so rather you call it art or call it a toy makes absolutely no difference to it. It's incapable of caring. (Its creator or owner is another matter, of course, but the basic question was how we look at our own dolls themselves rather than what we think of the companies that made them or our fellow collectors. PEOPLE are due more native respect than objects, but people aren't the subject of the thread.)

I also feel like it's important to keep perspective in mind. Not everyone is coming into the hobby with the same expectations or outlook on how they want to participate. You accused me of "trivializing" my collection, and I'm not going to deny that I do... I don't take them all that seriously, and I don't see that as a questionable way to go... My collection isn't a defining point in my life. Dolls are only a hobby for me, not a lifestyle, and in the grand scheme of things, they're honestly not all that important.

Obviously, that's not universal... but it doesn't have to be. There's no rule that says we all have to see our collections in exactly the same light. It is best if we don't assume that people with different points of view are being untruthful, though, or that they don't still put a hell of a lot of work into those things they call toys.

 

You continue to act as if I care what you think about your own dolls. I do not. I am simply pointing out that when anyone says 'BJDs are just toys' it upsets a lot of BJD owners because the word 'toy' is a belittling word. It is the OWNERS that this attitude demeans, not the dolls (which are inanimate whatever you call them). YOUR decision to call YOUR doll a 'toy' is irrelevant to what other doll owners feel about THEIR dolls.
You refuse to understand how your language upsets other people. YOU are being insulting to other collectors and don't even realize it.

 

I'm going on one end of the extreme to say that the BJDs in our home are definitely family. Sure, they're inanimate objects made to look relatively similar to human beings and built to be posed, modified, dressed, and played with, but that's what makes them family. My pets are my family. My drawing and art supplies, and my ritual tools associated with my spirituality are all my family. They are a part of me just as I am a part of them, so in essence the dolls that I own and will own are just as vital to me as everything else that I feel makes up my psyche and makes me who I am. My doll is an extension of myself, so of course I find him to be extremely close.

Calling them toys doesn't offend me particularly, because in a way they do fit the criteria of what a toy is--a plaything. Toys can be outrageously expensive. My father calls his motorcycle his toy, because to him it's a precious item he gets to have fun with. I won't be calling my family's BJDs toys necessarily, but they're still precious items that we enjoy and cherish. The price of them, and how much work goes into them, simply amps up how much I feel they fit into my family as members on their own. The dolls in our home all have their own backstories, personalities, and presences. So why would they not be considered family?

 

And I find that accusation absolutely ridiculous...

Admittedly, given the general level of drama that this hobby is known for, seeing someone get bent out of shape over what another collector dares to call their own dolls wouldn't be particularly surprising. Some of our fellow collectors do have a very difficult time mentally differentiating themselves from their possessions... But that doesn't mean that they're right. It also doesn't mean that they're entitled to some kind of "dolly safe space" where they won't ever have to encounter other points of view.

Simply having and voicing a different opinion with civility isn't an insult.

 

You just keep misreading what I'm saying. It's almost laughable. What part of 'call your dolls whatever you want' do you not understand? You tell me I'm being insulting to you, but I have no right to say the same thing back at you? OMG
Listen, my posts were not ALL ABOUT YOU. I was trying to make a point about why this topic might upset some people. Do you deny the truth of that? Really?
Whatever.

 

Not my place to say really, but I feel like this feud is eating up potential for other people to read and share their experiences.

 

They are neither to me... or both. They are something like... my OC children. I definitely have a love for them, but obviously it's nothing comparable to real people or pets. Dolls can be replaced indefinitely if they were lost or damaged (financial aspect aside), at least mine could.
I just love them the same as I love my original characters which only exist in stories and on artworks. They are like friends to me.

 

Agreed. Which is why I won't be replying to Teleri again. Let the dead horses remain unbeaten.