Doll Proportionality

Since some companies are specialized in realistic-looking bodies (like Iple), some are specialized in waifish bodies (DC, enchanted doll), some are specialized in bodies with big, big butts (Dust of Dolls and the other French artist doll makers, Leekeworld) and some are specialized in stocky, child-like bodies (like Volks' good old trusty MSDs), I don't think there is a marked lack of variety in the hobby.

Some people want their BJDs to resemble fairies, pixies and other fantasy beings that have been represented as skeletal-looking for a long time (for example, Brian Froud's fairies). I can see how Doll Chateau's oddly-proportioned bodies would appeal to them.

 

On the subject of Barbie- she's given a tiny waist, but huge breasts, wide hips, but thinner limbs. One of the things I love about the DC body is the consistency. Tiny waist, with wide hips, but you can see the bones there. Thin limbs, but the breasts are so important. They're smaller and in proportion with the rest of the body.

When I picture it like this, I think of models, but looking at a DC doll, that's not what comes to mind. They're surreal, but I think the sculpts help it deviate from models.

As Sukeban said, a lot of companies have an aesthetic they stick with. The wispiness is part of the DC design- but then again, they have the Baby dolls that are rather chunky.

To be honest, I think they must have a reasonable knowledge of the human structure because they were able to take it and push it till it was just on the verge of looking inhuman, but not so off that you immediately think of something else.

 

I think the main difference between Barbie's proportions and BJD proportions is that Barbie was sculpted to display clothing, so there's virtually no anatomical detail in her body whatsoever. Barbie's skeleton would look really messed up and she has no muscular features! Most BJDs (even stylized ones) have been sculpted with a knowledge of anatomy, so bone structure and muscle groups are represented in the finished doll. Even dolls with exaggerated features, like wide hips, have been sculpted with true human anatomy in mind - you can see on a Dust of Dolls Puns, for example, her muscles and belly fat and even where her hip bones begin. It's a very neat part of the BJD hobby to see just how anatomically correct our dolls are!

 

Like Sukeban said, I'd like to point out Iplehouse. They are very realistic. I can compare my roommate's Crobidoll Yeon-ho to my SID Storm, and there is a world of difference between their two bodies. One is thin, while the other is muscular. The Iplehouse body has far more detail, even down to the hands which are very masculine.

I can't say too much as far as female sculpts go, but I do know that Asleep Eidolon's girls tend to have "thicker" bodies and a kind of bubble butt. I love their bodies for that.

So, at large, I believe there is a nice variety in the hobby, and you can always make hybrids if one body type doesn't appeal to you.

As far as human anatomy goes, I agree--you should have an understanding of human anatomy. And, I believe that DC does. I don't have personal experience with those dolls, but going off the company photos, everything...fits with that body. Catalystflours made an excellent point: it's all in the breasts. They are small, and go with the extremely thin limbs and so on.

 

I have to agree that we have loads of options in this hobby. No one company (generally one to a few artists involved) should have to cater to anything in particular. It should also be noted that these dolls are, and have always been, marketed to mature doll collectors, so it does simply come down to taste.

Doll Chateau adheres to a basic knowledge of anatomy while employing a sort of beautiful distortion to reflect a very particular aesthetic, one that is really meant to be niche even within a niche hobby. Likewise, you have Puns and Leeke's art body embracing a very distorted but distinctly feminine aesthetic. The most muscled dollshe body is still basically shaped like a beanpole while lati-yellows are adorable pear-shaped chibis. Honestly even dolls generally considered 'realistic' based on the rendering of muscle are still elongated in the limbs.

So, long story short, no it's not a problem. A big part of the appeal of BJD is that it has room for a world of aesthetic preferences.

 

I think it's a good question, and it's something I do think about. I don't like seeing too-skinny models in magazines, and yet I like my skinny dolls. While it's true that there are curvy Iplehouse ladies and chubby tinies, the majority of female BJDs do have that idealized figure we're all (maybe too) familiar with. And I love Doll Chateau--I have one at home, with another on layaway. To me, they're so exaggerated as to be almost grotesque (which I mean as a compliment, I really do) and don't even seem like humans. I'm really drawn to the artificiality of dolls, and weird proportions are a part of that. Whereas I like real-life people to look healthy and happy--I really do have a whole different beauty standard with regard to dolls and humans. But I sometimes worry that, for young BJD enthusiasts, skinny dolls can be part of that whole media storm of weird body imagery.

On the other hand, in the 5 years I've been in the hobby, I've seen a huge increase in doll body diversity. The huge popularity of Iplehouse, and the whole pear-shaped/big bottom trend show that BJD collectors do support different body shapes. So I feel like that's an encouraging sign.

 

As an artist as well, I agree on the beauty of variety, and the need for basic understanding of anatomy. However, I fail to see, really, why you singled out DC here, aside from their striking style. After all, there is really only so much you can do with the human body and keep it a semi-realistic figure, or at least have enough elements of realism for a suspension of disbelief. And all doll companies are guilty of this in one way or another. Breasts may be smaller or hips wider, muscles more defined, but I don't see what else one would expect from dolls. If the artist/company likes their "style" and it sells, why bother making something new? Just for the sake of "artistic balance?" I've never cared for the attitude of, an artist must try/do many things. Why? Why shouldn't DC just do whatever they want, even if they do nothing else? Just like the anime artist; if that's what they want to draw, and makes them happy, why is it assumed by so many that they need to try something new? This applies heavily with dolls; there are scores of companies out there for those who don't like DC

On the Barbie topic, and this applies to most fashion dolls as well, like Monster High, is that they are a small scale, yet fabrics and materials only go so thin. A cotton that makes a nice, normal dress on e, will look several times as thick and bulky on a Barbie doll. Stretchy fabrics will become thin across large breasts, while lying flat and adding bulk to her waist. Many fashion dolls as created to look best once the clothing is on, and the bulk the clothing adds means the dolls have to be thinner than proportionally normal.

 

Hm...I wonder if, perhaps, it has to do with a certain exclusive quality BJD's have? When you're speaking of most varieties of art, you're pretty much talking about "art people", I guess you could say, who all, more or less, has some care about anatomy. Regardless of what medium you use, be it clay, paint, pencil, pastel, wire, etc, you know you have something in common with all other painters or collecters of art. But with dolls? You have a lot of people who aren't artistically inclined, or don't rally care much about art in general, and simply want a small companion, a decorative object, etc. So in such cases, being not too small a part of the community, I can see why a super stylized or distorted form wouldn't be very eye-brow raising.

As for some companies choosing not to expand, I'm not sure I've ever thought much of it. THat's just their thing, I suppose. It's what they do and like. And in a way, once a company has cemented itself in a certain style, even inadvertently, it can be risky or difficult to make a change. Like, if JC Penney's started selling Gothic Lolita coords. It's not what they're known for, and might be a jarring experience.

 

I think one of the reasons why a BJD "company" (which is often only a hand full of people, if that) will stick to a certain aesthetic is because there may only be one or two sculptors, so of course they will sculpt in a certain style. Also, if it ain't broke, don't fix it! DC bodies fill a niche in the market for elongated, fantasy-proportionate bodies and they do it well. Their product sells as it is, so why change styles? The same can be said of any company, really. But that's not to say that companies are static. Volks, for example, started out with chubby, child like bodies (SD10). They still produce them but with the trend moving towards more mature bodies they branched out and are producing SD16, SDGou, etc.

Even bodies with fantasy elements like digitigrade legs or wings exhibit an understanding of the basic underlying anatomy. The elements of the total body must be proportionate, even if those proportions are skewed somewhat. Otherwise I don't think they'd be balanced enough to hold stand unsupported or hold poses.

 

More acceptable for BJDs to deviate from standard proportions than other... what? Most dolls I can think of show some kind of stylization in their proportions. Usually quite a lot, in fact. Part of the draw of BJDs for me at least was their incredible lifelikeness compared to any other dolls I'd ever seen. And really, most art shows stylization of one form or another, unless the style is absolute photorealism. Some otherwise "realistic" looking renaissance paintings, if you measure the body proportions they've been tweaked to make the human figures a little taller, slimmer, longer-limbed. Even in actual photography there can be skewing, especially with digital editing - magazine covers are sort of notorious for this. If the human eye is drawn to slightly unnatural proportions, why not play up to that? DC has clearly found their more extreme version of stylization successful.

 

Bought people and dolls are different. I am a woman with anoreksia, and it felt safe to have a little dc to be me when I not manage life some times. I also have strong dolls with more normal bodys. And as some said here, the dolls is not always pretending to look just human. Sme are eleves, some are animals. I dont think that thin dolls is less correctly than eleves. But I understand what you mean when you ask about it is normal. Iplehouse for exammple, is great on "normal" bodyes. I am waiting for one yid girl, and have a bid boy. So I think different is a little normal, like all people are different from each other. But offcore, to thin is not perfect. But my dolls are not perfect. They are individual.

 

It's an interesting question. As an artist, I do believe that you do indeed need a good understanding on human physics to create a body that's beautiful. I'm not talking about what is realistic or physically possible here - but how the human body is put together. It's quite easy to spot the artists who lack the knowledge that's required to make something beautiful, as well as whether they have used references or done research. There is quite a lot more to it than just simply making a design and sculpting it, I think. Of course, this is easy to see (at least I think so) since the most popular kinds of bjds are made with a very good understanding of the human bodies, even if the resulting doll may not be realistic as far as human bodies go. If that makes any sense?

 

You know, I never understood why barbie got such criticism, her breast are not really that big, its her tiny feet which are unattainable. But anyhow, I think companies should be free to explore all different body styles and proportions, whether its the frail looking thin bodies of doll chateau, or the adorable pear shape of the leekeworld artbody, or something else really bizarre like an anthro, I enjoy the variety.

Having an understanding of anatomy is essential I believe. In 2-d and 3-d art they always teach that you first need to know how to draw human anatomy to truly be able to deviate from it and have it look believable. For this reason every art teacher i have known discourages drawing only in manga style, because if you learn real human anatomy first, it will help you with whatever you want to draw. So I think the sculptors of those dolls already know how to do realistic, and that helps them create something wonderful and surreal.

As a side note, I have noticed many bjd hands and feet are unrealistically proportioned, even though they still look good.

 

The reason why Barbies were so criticized is because they were intended for children, specifically young girls. Barbie was marketed to them as the ideal young woman they should aspire to be. An impossible ideal to attain, add to that the epidemic of anorexic adolescent girls and the media started to focus on doll's bodies with a vengeance.

BJDs are not marketed to little girls, far from it. BJD's were considered collector's dolls expensive and difficult to acquire, quite different from the american mainstream aesthetic of fashion dolls.

They were not supposed to be identical to each other like Barbies, you are encouraged to make them as individual as you can so that your doll is unique and does not respond to some marketer's ideal of beauty. Browing the galleries, you will see an amazing diversity of looks for the same molds. These dolls are supposed to be fantasy, their looks an expression of the sculptor and the owners fertile imagination, not an ideal to aspire to.

BJD's until a few years ago were mainly of japanese aesthetic, anime and the like. In the last few years the appearance of a multitude of companies has brought in all sorts of styles. Today BJDs run the gamut from waif like to down right rubenesque.

 

Personally I tend to be drawn toward dolls that are more stylized and unique. It probably stems from my love of fantasy such as fairies as sukeban mentioned. I am an artist and my artwork is full of stylized thin wispy fairies. I love dolls that bring me a sense of wonder and whimsy so I get more excited about them than a realistically sculpted BJD (even though I still love seeing photos of the realistic ones online or seeing them at doll meets). Pretty much my entire dolly family is made up of the more stylized or character style BJDs.
That said, I also agree that for the stylized proportions to look appealing the artist should first know what normal anatomy looks like so they can then modify it with that knowledge in mind so the doll is still believable. There have been some of the stylized BJDs that I just didn't feel drawn to because there was just a tad too much artistic interpretation lol

 

Naah, I don't feel BJD sculptors have any sociocultural obligations when it comes to body-image. It's art. You get weird-shaped things in art. Bony starveling sylphs, inflataboob tit-expansion stravaganzas, double-wide superhero beefcakes, cadaverously lanky Ichabod Crane wannabes, wispy teens, potbelly babies, weird Weeble-shaped toddlers with breasts. As Mr. Brecht reminds us, art is not a mirror held up to reality, but a hammer with which to shape it... So, after it comes off the anvil, art often isn't shaped much like us.

 

I would like to second what DominiqueB said about the difference lying in that Barbies are marketed for children and that BJDs are not meant to be the 'idols' that we aspire to be.

That being said, I view BJDs as a form of art, as a variation of your usual static sculpture and one that is intended for customization. In art you see surreal things all the time and a preference to surrealism is just a personal choice, nothing more; it very rarely means you actually view the world as distorted or have a distorted mind. Rather you are trying to get a message across in the way you deem most fit. In such a manner a "distorted" view on anatomy or the ideal of beauty presented by a sculpt does not have to mirror the real world's normality.