The handcrafted quality, 3D technology, and the future of BJD

Like others I'm all for smacking down boot-legged dolls, but I do not agree that the use of a computer somehow compromises the integrity of any form of artwork. It's just a different way of producing a finished article. If we're talking about a program such as Maya, the artist is *still* using his/her own aesthetic preferences, artistic experience and hand-eye co-ordination to sucessfully produce a piece of work.

Similar to the traditional media/Photoshop grumbly undercurrent in the illustration world, the only time I get pissed off is when I feel an artist has lied, as in, having traced or over-painted when they purport to have created something entirely from scratch. Other'n'that... beauty is beauty to the consumer, ain't it? I don't really mind if it was sculpted out of sawdust and PVA glue or it's been done using the toppingest-notchingest 3D software money can buy.

 

What I find most interesting about this post is that I have heard the almost the exact same arguements being used by painters. Digitally created pictures vs hand painted pictures. AND copies made via a printer vs copies made as 'art prints'.

I don't know how I feel about all of it. As a computer person I love the aspect of using computers but I also know how a time consuming craft can become a bygone "technique" that few people know how to do. I once saw a glass blower who created works of art. His 5 inch horses had fetlocks and hooves, not long draws of glass with a nubbin on the end. But fewer and fewer people are blowing glass, and those that do can only make a living by creating pieces in mass, thus eliminating the time to take care with the detail bits.

 

I don't know, computers can be pretty time consuming too depending on what it is you're trying to do. I think the issue you mention with the glass blowers has more to do with the demand for mass produced inexpensive goods (something that has been going on since the industrial revolution) and the fact that making a living off more expensive art pieces tends to be incredibly difficult no matter what the media. A computer won't automatically take away from the detail and quality of the dolls provided that the artist is good and that the company cares about their product and takes quality control seriously. Nor will using a computer for that segment of production automatically result in mass produced dolls as there are many more steps in making a bjd. I don't see people suddenly giving up actual sculpting of dolls just because the technology is there--my guess is that both techniques will be used as there are some people who are better at sculpting and favor that while others are more comfortable with computer work.

 

It really bothers me when people imply that something created digitally is less art or easier than the same type of thing done using non-digital media. (I'm sorry, I really can't bring myself to call resin a 'traditional' media.) That being said, I really can't see how 3D modeling would be any more practical than hand sculpting, even, or especially, if we're talking about boot-legging. In fact, I'm pretty sure that it would be more complicated, more expensive, and more time consuming than creating the same doll by hand.

Would I buy an original sculpt that was designed digitally? If I liked the look of it, sure! As far as I'm concerned, how something is created is less important than the originality and beauty of the design.

I don't see how a doll created this way could be seen as any less a BJD than one sculpted with clay and hands. The end result is the same: pretty chunks of resin connected together with elastic and little metal hooks and having a specific type of jointing system. Would they be on-topic for DoA? I'd like to think that that's a decision which would be made based on their visual aesthetic rather than the method of design.

There are two picture frames that hang above my desk, which I stared at for quite a while as I formulated this response. On the left is a watercolor painting of a garden by my grandmother. On the right is a digital print of that same garden, from a different angle, made by my sister. Is one somehow better than the other solely because of the medium?

 

I think the question of watercolor vs photo is a good way to put it in terms that (for me at least) are more commonly accessible. That is, I do watercolors and I also do photos - both on the mildly talented amature end. I find photos easier to produce, but then I've been taking them for years. But one photo takes less time than one watercolor. Does more time automatically equal better quality? NO... but sometimes yes. That's part of what makes this such a good question for discussion. In my opinion there are reasons for supporting both sides of the question.

 

As technology advances, companies are going to attempt to use these more technologically advanced methods - any company would - to increase profits and productivity or to ease the designing process. I don't hold this against companies. I look down upon the 3D modeling if it's used for shady purposes (pirating and copying, for example). But the 3D modeling itself is a form of art, and though perhaps not as awe-inspiring to most as true hand-sculpting, I don't think it's right to condemn all dolls designed this way. It takes immense skill to render in 3D programs, never mind the fact that it's expensive and very time consuming. You don't see just anyone heading out to work for Pixar, for instance. It's a skill, and just like how handmade sculpture takes skill, it takes skill to render something in 3D programs. It's not simple.

I wouldn't purposefully choose a hand-sculpted sculpt over a sculpt created with digital assistance if I liked them both. I'd pick whichever one appealed to me more. Though I admire the skill and quality of something originally created by hand, I wouldn't purposely avoid a doll sculpted with the help of a computer rendering program unless it was a blatant bootleg or copy of another company's or artist's doll.

 

I've been thinking about starting a topic for awhile, what do you think of companies who use computer software to design and manafacture there bjds?

Many of the companies and individual artists out there sculpt and design their dolls by hand, placing photos of their dolls of the making process on their shops and blogs.

CAD (computer aided design) is also used to make a growing number bjds, especially since the software and equipment needed to create dolls in this way is cheaper now then when the bjd market was new 10-7 years ago.

I'm sure many of us have a few makers in mind that was suspect might use CAD to make their doll's heads and bodies.

One of the larger and more well known companies that uses CAD to make their dolls is Iplehouse - this was confirmed to me by a Korean friend who had worked for Iplhouse in the past. Since Iplehouse first released their EID line of dolls they have enjoyed huge sucess and gone on to release other equally as popular lines.

Ki-Yong, the owner and sculptor of Dollshe has written an intresting article that raises many questions on this issue: http://dollshecraft.com/infodesk/banner.php?number=60

This is not a discussion about pirated copies and if CAD makes it easier to copy dolls. That's another discussion.This is a debate about totally orginal dolls made with CAD. What do you think oif them? Do you think they undermine the artistry of bjd? Do you think they are easier to make and therefore less worthy then BJDs made with more traditional methods? Do you think it's misleading for a company to not disclose the fact that they use CAD to make their BJD? Or are 3d tools just another means to an end?

 

I know it's something I'm considering attempting at some point in the future, that much I can say. That should make my stance on the legitimacy of this form of sculpting quite clear.

What is very important for people to remember is this: it is a tool. Every tool has a learning curve. There are some things in a 3d application that are considerably easier than working with clay, and vice versa.

When these techniques are advertised, they will show you all the perks that a traditional artist may envy -- you can work symmetrically by default in some computer applications, for example -- but they won't show you how it's sometimes harder to smooth one area without the whole thing going to mush. They won't tell you that it can be a pain to navigate around in your 'workspace' to see what you could do just by picking up an actual object and using your eyes. They won't mention how extra smoothing and such will not necessarily give you the specifics of the shape that you will absolutely have to further refine by hand once you have a prototype. All of that? Not going to be terribly evident, since many artists who don't actually work with the software don't ever get past the sale pitch to see that it isn't the easy, instant perfection that the advertising would have you believe.

In specific reference to the article, there is a mention of 3D scanning. This is NOT presently something consumer-level, even if 3D printing is coming down to that range for some options through companies like shapeways. Standard 3D software can often be had at consumer level prices, there's a full range from free through oh-dear-heavens-that-cost-more-than-my-car. In reference to the provenance-based piracy concerns, while they're possible, I have to say that the people capable of doing these things, with the resources required to actually do it, probably have much bigger things on their plates. In a sense, it is like saying, "Lucasfilm has the technology to do this, therefore it can be done and everyone is suspect!" -- which would make sense if we all had Lucasfilm's resources, which... show of hands? Anyone? It is really no more possible to do this in 3D than it is in 2D, since there are people who do specialize in, well, forgery 'from scratch'.

ANY medium can be abused, and suggesting that a medium is inherently abusive is, to me, quite short-sighted. That said, even within the realms of 3D -- I work with 3D stuff all day in the very shallow end of that pool, splashing about in water wings -- you see the trend of 'my product is inherently better than yours because I did it this way and not that way and therefore it is inherently superior who cares if it is actually no different for the end user'. I'm sure people who paint see the same thing when it comes to watercolors vs. acrylics vs. oils. You see it in mac vs. pc, and in infinite other permutations. Seeing it said does not surprise me in any way, but it is, to me, like telling a digital painter that their work will never be valid or relevant just because they COULD, theoretically, have put a picture underneath to trace, and that they could 'erase' their watercolors and didn't have to mix up pigments for paint -- it is a mindset I understand, it is a mindset I can deeply empathize with as I do other handcrafts unrelated to this, but cannot in any way agree with this mode of thinking.

People with an idea will use the tools available to them. That toolset has exploded with potential options in the computer age. The tool does not invalidate the idea, and it does not invalidate the artist -- and that goes for traditional handcrafts as well. How many times have people condemned the 'home sewn' look, for instance? It is a double-edged sword in more than one way.

 

Personally I don't think it undermines the artistry of BJD's or the craftmanship of the sculptor. 3d programs are simply a different tool and one that takes time to completely master. Iplehouse is a pro. A 3d model has a tendency to look too perfect and lifeless and it takes skill to avoid this. IH's dolls are still full of character.

Though the sculpting of the doll takes as much time with a computer as with clay (and when you work with the computer you probably still have to add the joints later on, because you can't test them in a virtual environment), it is easier to create different sizes of the same sculpt and create new heads, once you have a first. Scaling the model or, in the case of a new head, changing the position of the edges and vertexes will only take a few hours. Days at most.

And this is where it stings a bit for me. Maybe it's because I make my dolls with clay and every new head that I make has to be built from scratch. I don't have the luxury of a saved early version that I can tweak a bit, nor would I want to have it. This use of 3d-modeling does undermine the artistry, in my opinion.
But as surreality says, the medium in itself is no different from clay or wax. Any medium can be abused.

As a final note: I think that, production wise, companies that use 3d programs to create their dolls, might be in an advantage, because - when using the medium the way I described above - it takes less time for them to produce new dolls. I do worry that, if in the future money becomes more important than artistry, clay sculpts will slowly be replaced with computer models. That would be a shame.

 

This! Actually adding in asymmetry probably sounds alien to a lot of people, but it's something a lot of 3d artists need to do to keep their work from looking very alien. Don't get me wrong, it's another step, but it doesn't equal the time involved in trying to create something symmetrical by hand. Omitting this step is one of the fastest routes to the less pleasant neighborhoods of the uncanny valley.

 

I don't think there's anything wrong with trying different tools, which is what computer software is. Using software to create artwork has it's own challenges just like working with any other medium. I don't have personal experience with 3D software, but I do use 2D design software and can attest that it takes time to learn and is not always easy.

People have also been copying dolls before companies were using software, so either way it's going to be an issue. To not use something just because someone could do something illegal is silly. Also, no matter how a bjd is made, if it's poorly designed then it's not going to do well. If the materials being used are poor, then it's not going to be a success. Doing everything by hand does not insure that the end result will be a beautiful high quality doll nor will using a computer.

I don't know about that. If companies where trying to mass produce inexpensive dolls for the masses, then yes, I could see that happening. However, these dolls are geared towards collectors, many of whom have no problems shelling out quite a bit of money for a doll they really like. Sure there are people on a tight budget, but there's a lot who aren't. Being a luxury item geared towards adult collectors, I think there's going to be less pressure on prices as people expect to pay more. Also some will prefer the idea of a hand sculpted doll -- the choice of medium itself could be a draw for some hobbyists. There are less expensive companies out there that fill a niche and have done quite well, but that hasn't stopped the pricier companies from having solid fan bases.

 

What do you think of them?

Hm...That's a difficult one. I must say that in most instances I prefer traditionally made things to computer made things. I don't deny that objects with a more modern construction can be very beautiful, but I love the knowledge that someone made something, physically, with their own two hands. It's the same in that I prefer traditional art to digital art. I've seen some digital art that has completely floored me, but then I look at some of Bouguereau's works, or even modern traditional artists on deviantart, and I much prefer that "look."

I think it just comes down to a matter of preference. It's impossible to compare a doll made on a computer and a doll made by hand and say, this one is more beautiful, because everyone will have a different opinion on that. So for me, my preference is toward hand-sculpted dolls, but I certainly don't judge companies who use CAD and I don't think the dolls are any less beautiful.

I will say one thing, knowing that Iplehouse uses CAD confirms my...un-preference for their dolls. I just always thought they looked a little too perfect, and now that I know they use a computer, it makes sense. But I still think they make very beautiful dolls and great eye candy, they're just not for me, the same way someone might look at the dolls I like and say ugh.

Do you think they undermine the artistry of bjd? No, definitely not.

Do you think they are easier to make and therefore less worthy then BJDs made with more traditional methods? Nope.

Do you think it's misleading for a company to not disclose the fact that they use CAD to make their BJD? I think it would be nice for companies to disclose that, but I don't think it's misleading for them to not.

Or are 3d tools just another means to an end? They are, and they are not. Yes, they both create BJDs, but there will always be subtle differences between one and the other. But these differences don't inherently mean using CAD is worse, just different.

 

I'm not talking about cheaper dolls. I'm talking about starting a company and have 20 different dolls for sale after a year instead of 2 (exagerating, but you get my drift). Of course the people in this hobby are willing to cash out, but for a company it could help tremendously if they have a large portfolio to choose from. More dolls, is a potentially larger customer base, is a healthier company. And in a market as saturated as this one companies probably need all the customers they can get.

It's also easier to create different sizes of the same type of doll (for instant dolls with chubby, childlike bodies). All you have to do is scale the one you have, make another head (or tweak the one you already have) and voilà: you've got yourself a new doll.

On the subject of copying:
The only possible problem there could be is that an artist using a 3d program might find it more difficult to prove the doll they've created is an original. Not because they can't show their work (they do have the 3ds Max file or Maya file after all), but because there are many who don't understand the process and there are quite a few fairytales out there.

A computer doesn't make copying a doll any easier than adding clay to an original.

 

Totally random observation: there's something deeply cool about the fact that your icon is your head sculpt, which I've been watching progress through icon form for a while now, and mine is one of the heads I've shaped for work this year virtually. It's a pretty neat thing, IMHO, considering the subject.

While it is a little more complicated than that, I think this is actually a good argument for the use of something like this. I also don't think the 20 heads instead of two example is that unrealistic, either -- it is definitely within the realms of possibility. There are some things that are 'niche', or considered such, the pudgier bodies being a really great example. (Very small or very large breasts being another good example, IMHO.) There are things like this that get written off as very unlikely much of the time because of the combination of the inherent development time behind them, and the small market for that particular item, that would make it ultimately not worth the R&D for the artist to do it -- they'd be doing it at a loss and most folks agree we can't ask a company to do that flat out. ("Hey, Soom, I realize you have like... three whole people who want a muddy green leopardtaur with dove wings and a crown of thorns and half its face is a boy and half its face is a gerbil and... " for example. )

Basically, while I see how that can be amazingly frustrating for traditional sculptors, I think there are definitely potential benefits to that aspect of the process to bring out more of the niche styles and items that might just be too risky for a small company to do via the traditional methods outside of services like DiMdoll's or Nobilitydoll's custom sculpt services.

I also don't think there's anything about the 3D tech that cuts out the traditional sculptor in some senses as well; the resizing that's mentioned in other portions of the thread this one was merged with is something I think a company with an existing line of traditionally sculpted dolls could potentially take advantage of for their own benefit. What's to stop a company like Soom from contracting time with a 3d scanner to get their basic supergem male and female bodies scanned, and scale them down to minigem size? I don't see any reason they couldn't do this if they wished.

Back to the core thread: the maquettes aren't necessarily a part of the process I've seen always done these days. In a special effects house, you see them; they aren't a part of the process at all for professional modelers I know, even those creating creatures from scratch. 3d scanners are not a part of the workflow for any of the modelers I know except the larger company I sell through, and they're presently using them not for the creation of a base model primarily, but the 'true to life' details of real people they're 'cloning' in 3d form. Please note this link contains some nudity! -- but shows the use of a 3d scanner for this exact process: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXgZQnWUQUU (mods, if I need to remove that please let me know, but I really don't know how to show an example of a bodyscan without, well, a body.) It should be pretty clear this is not consumer-level tech, though.

 

I perceive 3D designers and sculptors to both be artists, just artists skilled in a different type of skills. I wouldn't perceive one to be of more value than the other. Esecially considering that each must still be hand painted for things. I look at character designs rendered in 3D for games and movies and I am awestruck by their detail. And a sculptore that can bring a lump of clay to life amazes and fascinates me. I see no difference.

Copies and bootlegs can and will happen. That is factor to consider no matter what form of art they use.

 

Oh, this reminds me of the whole "It's not real art because you did it on a computer" debate that went through when digital art became a thing.

Yes, technology makes it easier to produce things - this is precisely why I like technology. It makes processes faster, more accurate and sometimes of a much better quality. I don't need to worry about making horrendous mistakes on the canvas when I draw- there's an undo key. This allows me more time to focus on the art itself - on getting across the feeling and emotion and meaning of my work without worrying as much about the technical aspect.

I think doll design should be much the same. If a computer can produce a doll that is engineered to stand like a rock, and that has good symmetry, the artist can focus more on the creation process, on the character design. I don't see why this is viewed as a bad thing in the article.

Granted, I am not familiar with modelling technology, and the issues of piracy are admittedly there. BUT. I don't see why you should not use technology at your disposal to make the job a little easier, and perhaps even make the end product of a little bit higher quality because of the process and computations that the technology is capable of performing for you.

Hope that made sense, no time to read over and edit as I have to leave for an exam.

 

You often see the argument that 3D is just another tool for the doll sculptor, but I've never seen the question asked: Is 3D an appropriate tool to use for figure sculpting? Let me try to clarify this...

We can't deny that CG techniques and traditional techniques give very different results. CG yields a smooth, beautiful, perfect image, sometimes a little lifeless depending on the artist. Traditional art is a little rougher, imperfect, asymmetric-- more like the human figure itself. Hand sculpting will naturally introduce irregularity into your work, whereas with CG you have to take steps to make your work less symmetrical (to avoid the uncanny valley).

If you're figure-sculpting as artwork, of course you want your figure to be as lifelike and human-like as possible. For this, hand sculpting is better. But how about if you're sculpting a doll? Do you want smooth perfection, or human-like imperfection? Which tool is "better" depends on what your goals are.

 

I think it depends on your technique in either, to be honest. Some will work endlessly to make something symmetrical by hand -- and some using 3d sculpting may never turn symmetry on in the first place. (Symmetrical isn't the only way you can work in most software.) Also... I have to say, don't underestimate the traditional artist that takes time to work on a symmetrical sculpt. It may take more time to do it, but it's absolutely not outside the realms of possibility to get incredibly close. http://www.pixologic.com/turntable/ -- has great examples of the possibilities with virtual sculpting, and of just how organically "imperfect" the end result can appear.

To say that those differences are typical results would likely be accurate, but I'd say that the majority of the very successful creators are likely adept at not falling into those traps.

 

Yeah, I know it is, but I was - again - exagerating a bit. Your argument that virtual sculpting could be used to create dolls that fall in a niche is something I don't think of, actually. I automatically assumed the worst (now, what does that say about me lol).

About your icon: That's your work?? Holy cow, I love her face!

 

Is it doubly weird that I've considered sending renders of some of the heads I have already to DIM for Minimees of them? *evil grin* She's one of the shaped-up and textured heads I do for work. (I love my job even though it makes me crazy.) It is not modeled from scratch, but (entirely legal) modifications of an existing model that people can buy as a customized 'add on' for that model when they use it themselves.

It's exactly that sort of crossover that I think makes these advances so beneficial. Virtual sculpts can still be molded/cast by hand and such -- and existing traditional sculpts could be scanned and resized to make it available from the original company in a new size range with reduced time, and so on. There's just so many good possibilities out there, and what's so cool about most of them is that they can combine elements of both.

For instance, I'd want to get extra copies of a basic head to make variations on -- say, a vampire, or half closed eyes, and so on. Things like that could be built via traditional methods over the virtually constructed and 3D-printed base, and depending on the mold-making process used, would integrate seamlessly with the rest. I'm something of a niche junkie, which is why I started considering some of this. Maybe only ten people in the world would want, say, fish ear head. Being able to just, well, DO that is something I'd love.

Where it gets really, really cool to me is that we may some day have 3d-printing tech that results in a good 'final product' that would allow people to literally design their doll on the fly from a list of company-provided components, or even buy legitimate copies of the virtual models of the parts to customize into what they want in 3d software, and have that produced on demand in matching colors and sizes and so on from the doll company. That tech really isn't 'there' yet -- but considering the customizing aspect of the hobby, I suspect that when the tech is there and affordable, we'll see a company offer something like this.