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

An interesting question and there has been a lot of discussion from both sides. I personally agree with those that say 3d creations would be time consuming and don't see a reason as to why they should be differentiated unless there is a definite evidence of cloning/copying.

Computer aided design is a great tool and could indeed help to offer the customer more choice and variation but there would still be elements of hand crafting to bring it to market. As to myself, I would not be driven either way when choosing my doll, it would simply be the one I could afford and the one I was most attracted to facially etc. I would look for creativity and the "look" whatever method had been used to create it.

 

Oh wow... I didn't realize Soom was using the computer techniques as well. (In a warped way, this makes me love them all the more since I putter with 3D for a living.) It also makes a LOT of sense, considering the remarkable speed of their production schedule. The idea of using a master model and modifying from there makes a lot of sense no matter what the medium used, but it's definitely made easier with 3D tech when speed is a very real factor to contend with. Zbrush is going to be much faster to 'carve' with experimentally, for instance, than clay -- and mistakes easier to adjust if they're caught quickly enough.

Quick edit: It's also worth mentioning that a lot of the details of even the computer-created sculpts are still hand-crafted. All the casting, the faceups, and so on are still done in the same way as the hand-sculpted dolls. (Technically they're still using hands with the computer, but a graphics tablet is a different animal than clay. ) Most of the clothing for this hobby seems to be made by hand (with a sewing machine, but still in small batches by seamstresses) as well.

 

I don't think it's a big surprise that Soom MDs are created using 3D Software, the symmetrical perfection of their sculpts has always suggested so while some of their older Super Gem sculpts have the slight imperfections that make me hope they were hand sculpted. I do, and would again, own both happily and appreciate the slight differences in result.

As many people have already testified using 3D software to sculpt is not easy. In the same way that I found using Photoshop to create my illustrations at first was like trying to draw wearing boxing gloves, it's a very different discipline that requires time to learn and repetition to perfect. The few objects I have designed using 3D software were quite basic in shape and I found that this technology does not easily lend itself to creating organic, fluid shapes. So frankly I tip my hat to Soom's sculptors and anyone else who can bend the limitations of this technology to their will. Because that IS what you do with CAD, make it do what you want. There still has to be a talented sculptor involved with a flair for 3 dimensional design.

I know that some people have a preference for hand crafted dolls and would feel cheated somehow if they owned a computer generated sculpt. So I think it would be nice if BJD companies stated which method they use to create their dolls. That way buyers can decide where to spend their money. I adore Dollstown dolls and marvel at the skill of the sculptor but that doesn't stop me appreciating the beauty of 3D software generated dolls either. Many hours of skilled dedication went into producing both and as long as copying and bootlegging are not involved, I don't see the problem either way.

 

To me this like the difference between digital art and hand painted art. There isn't any. You're essentially talking about a different medium, the thoughts and ideas that go into each creation is what matters most, not the medium you use to create it.

 

This is very intriguing point...
I must say I am definitely making a stand for the "oldschool" way. I don't mind these "newcomers", but I don't view them on the same level. "Level" not meaning "quality" here, it's something different. It's not because there is less skill involved, but because to me, there is less feeling involved. Someone keen on computer graphics will probably think otherwise, but I am an old-fashioned artist and I've always chosen handwork over technological solutions. It's a completely different feeling to "knead" a face out of a grey block in cyberspace, than it is to actually knead it. I'm not saying digital kneading is any less artistic, but I simply find things made by computers (even though they are actually made by the men behind those computers) come of a little... Cold. Unpersonal. I don't know why and I don't really have a good reason for it, but I like the idea that the doll I'm holding was hand-sculpted. In fact, this is also why I love OOAK artist dolls even more than regular resin dolls. I like my dolls to be as personal as possible, not as perfect as possible. And since I am making dolls myself, I know the emotions that arise when you're seeing the face come to life through your own hands, or holding the small hand you just made, still warm from your own body heat. I know the artist that made the original doll will have felt the same. Therefore, I prefer handmade dolls over computer-created ones.

 

Yes, there is. They're different because the methods used to create them are different. This is not saying that one is better than the other. They both have their place.

 

I see this sort of like saying there's a difference between watercolor and oil paint and acrylics and digital painting -- people can prefer the look of one or the other, or love them all as paintings, based on the content/end result. There's a difference there, but it's up to the individual to decide whether their emphasis is on medium or results. IMHO, you're shooting yourself in the foot if you love the end result, and dismiss it based purely on the medium; similarly you're being rather silly if you get something you don't like the look/end result of purely because of how it was made. You can get good or bad results from any of the above, just as is the case with traditional and digital sculpture, so I'm not implying the superiority of one or the other.

 

I find stating that digitally sculpted dolls aren't hand-crafted a pretty useless distinction to make. What, do the digital sculptors use the mouse/tablet with their feet? Nose-hairs, maybe? Nope, they're using hands, too. And of course the multitude of people who polish the prototype cast, create the molds, cast the dolls, sand and paint them are also hopefully working with their hands. I realize that blahblahblah 3D technology isn't physical, but implying that it isn't hand-crafted falls pretty much into the same line of thought as the old fozzies who never once tried painting or creating anything digitally and insist that it's inferior because apparently, you magically press this magical button of magicness on one of dem laptops, and it just poops out a masterpiece for you. If uh... anyone knows where that button is, let me know, yeah? 'Cause frankly I've started developing muscles where no normal people have them, and my fingers ache after holding the stylus for hours on end, sketching in and rendering the details. It'd be great if my lappie could do it all for me and make me famous.

Aside from medium, there really is not a single difference in the skills required to make a doll, or a painting. You use the same exact fundamental principals - anatomy, structure. You need to engineer the doll's joints to function in a pleasing fashion, regardless of media. In the case of painting or designing the overall look of the doll, you'll also use colour theory, composition and other elements of design. Both mediums have their strengths and weaknesses. Sure, a digital version of a doll can be modified, whereas a physical copy might have to be redone. But you can't feel a digital version of the doll, you can't experience how well the joints actually stay together, how sturdy and balanced the doll is. That all has to come from your experience, and from your head. Sure, perhaps designing a doll in 3D might take less time for someone who knows what they're doing - but that's the issue. You have to know what you're doing, and you have to know it so well that you can visualize it in your head and know it actually works in the physical world. Because really, the prototype you print out better work the first time around or that's thousands of dollars down the drain. In some ways, I'd say it's probably a lot more difficult to create a doll using digital technology than it is to just hand-sculpt it. Someone said that creating things digitally feels like wearing gloves, but I think it's more like oven mitts, or in the case of sculpting, those little probey things that stick out on the outside of a submarine that a researcher can manipulate from the inside via joystick.

And it's not like half of the time you can accurately tell the medium anyways. I was actually recently asked whether one of my recent digital sketches were markers or watercolours, or something else. (I was REALLY flattered by this comment, because even though I'm primarily a digital illustrator I really like the slight rough-around-the-edges charm that physical media drawings tend to have, so I strive to imitate it) I myself have complimented others on their amazing use of paint, only for the artist to laugh and say that they actually made the whole painting digitally. I've also seen a few oil paintings that I am to this day absolutely amazed at. They look like perfectly blended digital paintings. You can't see a single stroke of the brush, a single tread left by a hair (unless you stick your nose right up to it, of course).

Me, personally, I buy dolls that appeal to me. As far as the doll goes, I don't really have a strong preference for one or the other. However, my geeky scientific innovation side just finds the concept of a 3D-rendered, printed doll to just be SO AMAZING. It's absolutely incredible - I mean, when I was little, if you told someone that in just 10-15 years we'd have the technology that would allow us to create something in a virtual space and just make it a reality with little lasers, they'd laugh at you and say you've been watching too much Star Trek (or something). But, here we are. If there's anything in life that I'm more passionate about than drawing/art, it's scientific progress, technology, and the future. And while I like all of my dollies, my little dollies from the future created virtually and realized with pewpew lasers (or... something, but I think lasers are the coolest) are just that much more fascinating.

 

There's a running joke in my job about how customers want a 'make art' button installed in their software. It stopped being a joke when there was rampant screaming that they couldn't just push a single button and replicate the results we had in the promo images we'd created for the items.

I wish I was kidding.

This mindset is considerably more prevalent than most people would ever expect, and it's... well, you have to laugh, really, or you'd never stop crying and tearing out your hair.

 

I really see no practical difference between a handcrafted doll and one manufactured using 3D printing. In fact, considering that the technology is improving all the time, within five or ten years I could easily see 3D printing being a boon to the hobby as a whole. It could be used to reproduce the artist's original sculpt rapidly and easily, reducing production time for each doll and putting them in the hands of buyers that much faster

 

Although 3D rapid prototyping is a really interesting technology what does this mean for sculptors when it comes to BJDs? Sure, it has revolutionised the conventional 3D industrial prototype, and from a doll and figure perspective means wonders for those who have talents in the 3D digital modelling field who are not traditional sculptors. However, what does this mean for the skill and craft that we tend to associate with ball jointed dolls as designer-maker objects? I have mixed feelings on the subject coloured by the fact that I also have a great admiration for art dolls and figurative sculpture which rely on skilled artistic &/ or materials crafting talents but at the same time great admiration for digital arts and used to work in the digital media field ...and technically 3D prototyping can be counted as a fascinating extension of digital print technology. Hence, the jury's out for me as to how to feel about BJDs produced via use of rapid prototyping technology... too many conflicting feelings for me there! Personally, however, I'd rather buy a doll who's original concept was a sculpt rather than a digital concept - more out of admiration for the crafting skill involved.

 

Just thought of a very good reason to prefer the oldschool way or at least keep it going. The influence of MISTAKES on the sculpt. People tend to look at mistakes as a bad thing, and with computers you can polish and re-model your doll over and over again until it's EXACTLY what you wanted... But sometimes you can come to great discoveries by the accidents that happen while sculpting: "Crap, her eyebrows aren't where I intended them to be... *stares at doll for a while* You know, that actually works better than my original idea... I think I'll leave it this way!"
Of course there can be rendering mistakes and such with digital sculpting, but then it's often not so subtle (more like noses missing, hair standing up straight or eyeballs flying around next to the skull). The hand-sculpted way can lead to something completely different than what you've had in mind, but actually work even better. It can lead to new discoveries and help develop your concept of beauty.

 

@Puppit: With 3d modeling you could make just as many mistakes as with ordinary sculpting, you'll just have to refrain yourself from getting the perfect picture. A good artist is able to do that.

The main problem I have (as a sculptor) with 3d programs, is that I like to be very hands on with my sculptures. I want to feel what I'm doing. Although I was quite adaquate in modeling I didn't enjoy it as much as clay, because I was only looking at a picture on a screen. If I wanted that, I would've become a painter.
But this is a personal preference, not proof why one of the two methods is better.

 

What you're describing is frequently called the 'happy accident' artistically.

You're kinda... ok, not kinda, you're completely dead wrong here and I speak from experience. The list is not the only kind of mistakes possible -- all the 'I didn't realize that wasn't symmetrical', 'erk, her nose is in the wrong spot!' and all the same 'oops' mistakes are the same from medium to medium. As a result, that argument just doesn't fly. Trust me when I say that if you couldn't make this kind of mistake, I would be making considerably more money than I currently do and my real world job work would take far less time than it does, and you wouldn't see the vast numbers of wall-eyed horrors in the digital world that... well, there are enough to make one's own eyes cross.

Sure, you might be able to fix a dent with 'undo' or smoothing in the computer, but don't pretend you can't fix it with sanding or patching with clay/resin/etc. in traditional media to 'escape' a mistake if one is made. Take a look at the thread in large dolls for Loki/Ludwig, a traditionally sculpted doll where the proportions of the face have been changed, with progress shots -- a change in proportions is entirely possible in traditional media; it is not exclusively the realm of digital media. The difference in method absolutely does not in any way change the potential for this form of 'happy accident'. I may not have been sculpting dolls digitally, but I have been sculpting digitally for the past five years now, so I know for an absolute fact that one experiences the same incidence of 'oops... hey, wait, that's awesome!' as they often have experienced in traditional mediums.

I hate to be so blunt, but it seems that you really do not understand the digital medium at all if you think this doesn't and can't happen with the same frequency, and seem to believe what many do: that it does all the work for you. It simply does not happen that way, no matter how much people who only look at it from the outside believe. (And those of us on the inside sometimes wish!) Mistakes come from human error -- and no matter how smart the computer; when it's doing what you tell it to, there is plenty of human error to go around. It's not as though the computer is programmed to standard human proportions and won't let you move the eyebrows outside the lines. We are still talking about equipment that has to function with the use of human hands. It is just as easy to slip with a digital tablet as with an exacto knife or dremel, because in the end, a human hand is controlling the tool. That is where those accidents come from, not the medium itself.

I seriously wish people could comprehend the fact that just because a set of technical know-how is different, it doesn't make it any less difficult to learn, hone, and perfect. The problems you are describing are that kind -- not the 'happy accident' kind. That's the digital sculptor's equivalent of a joint not fitting into its socket at all because you used molding compounds with vastly different shrinkage rates, not the kind of thing you can leave alone without fixing it in some manner, or scrapping a great deal of work and redoing it from an earlier point.

What Silk describes is actually the biggest shortfall of digital media by leaps and bounds. Until you have something in hand, it is incredibly difficult to truly understand its shape and form in the real 3d world, rather than the virtual one. Things can look quite different from one piece of software to the next, let alone in real space. Certain technical issues -- like the movement of joints, or the actual weight of an object (will it stand? can it sit without falling over?) -- are almost impossible to test until you have the prototype in hand. (These run from around $3k-$12k for a single prototype from what I've priced out for an SD size doll, for the record, depending on the production house.) You then either have to employ the same handwork techniques a traditional sculptor would to adjust the prototype, or go back to the software with your fingers crossed and be ready to shell out for new pieces, however many need replacing, and hope it doesn't need another revision. (Another huge expense.)

 

I have worked with digital artists, such as 3D modellers and animators, and I know it's a huge lot of work, so please don't get me wrong on that! I'm not saying digital sculpting is easier, or takes less time.
It's just that most of the people I've met tended to strive a bit too much for perfection (meaning perfect symmetry and such), which I don't like. I seem to have offended you by thinking that they were representative for most of the CGI artists, I'm sorry for that. I know there are plenty of artists who aren't such hair-splitters and keep the creative development alive. Of course you can re-sculpt and mod and add and sand away things excessively when you're using clay as well, but there is a limit to what the material can take: If you keep sanding away, adding clay, sanding away and adding again it will weaken the material. And sometimes you can find out that something simply can't be changed because you made mistake in the base modelling/structure. Of course this can happen on a computer as well, but with sculpting you don't have back-ups of the earlier version or an underneath layer that you can change without having to start from scratch. I'm not saying that this is always possible, because changing the "base line"sometimes it inflicts with the other layers of the digital model, but it's much more often an option than it is when you're doing regular sculpting, as you simply don't have individual access to the other layers any more.
So it just seemed to me that using a computer would make people choose sooner for "over-processing" their design than regular sculpting.

 

Not offended, no. I will admit to an extreme frustration with the lack of understanding of the medium demonstrated by not just posters in this thread, but the people I encounter daily in my work environment. People still tend to believe you push a magic button and all the work is done for you, error-free. It has never been true, but this doesn't change the oppressive prevalence of this belief.

Sadly, the software I tend to use the most for this is currently doing an update, and most of their documentation is apparently offline due to the download volume, or I could readily demonstrate just how disdained 'too much symmetry' is in the digital world. It's considered a failure of realism, and a sign of an amateur. The most interesting things there are weird, distorted-looking creatures. They're utterly fabulous.

Most digital models don't have layers. They're an external 'skin' that is manipulated. You have to create the internal shapes directly to define something with actual volume as an enclosed shape.

A number of people involved with 3D digital art are math junkies, obsessed with ideal proportions and ratios and symmetry, and these things are more important to them than a realistic or desirable artistic result. That said, the problems you describe can happen to even those people. The 'happy accident' is something one has to be open to, however. Someone in pursuit of those goals is not going to be open to it. Someone looking to create something artistically is.

A number of the sculptors I have an enormous respect for are in the special effects industry. Quite a few use both techniques. I don't find the resulting work any better or worse due to the medium. Talent is talent. An eye for art is an eye for art. A tool is just a tool.

 

In reaction to Surreality: I must admit I don't do 3D digital modelling myself, I've only seen other people doing it while I was working in the same room, hence why I used the word "layers", lacking a better word, but you got my drift.
I tend to be extremely non-digital when it comes to my working process since I don't understand computers (or any electronics, really)... The only program I get is Photoshop, that somehow seems to follow my line of thinking.
I don't like working with something I don't understand, but I can see the appeal and possibilities in CGI, both the up- and downsides. I'm a stop-motion animator myself so sometimes it's just better or faster or simply more convenient for me to use a computer to review my captions and edit the film, as well as adding sound... But it takes a tremendous effort for me to understand those programs, perhaps also because I'm a complete idiot at math and science... I have a lot of respect for people who do understand these programs, because to me it seems like they're using magic. Then again I found out they are often flabbergasted when I tell them the flying puppet in the movie is simply hanging by wires instead of digitally edited into the background, or look with big eyes if I'm transforming a lumb of clay into a perfectly realistic skull or rabbit or whatever in a matter of minutes. So I guess both the admiration and frustration (damn those computer geeks laughing at my dirty hands and sighing when they want to use the sink but I need it to clean my brushes) works both ways. I think we are all a bit prejudiced and "in favour" of our own way of doing things. Of course it's about the quality in the end, but when I would be presented two equally beautiful and character-wise attractive dolls, one digitally modelled and one sculpted, I would pick the sculpted one... Simply because I can relate to it more. I understand how it came to be and what the artist went through. I suppose that would be the same for you, wouldn't it? It's just cool to know that the doll was made through a medium you like to work with.

 

See, I think that's it, really. It doesn't have as much to do with the results the medium spits out -- but empathy with the artistic process that produced it. That makes perfect sense.

Personally, I buy what I like -- I don't worry about the process (unless it involves something actually illegal/improper like recasting). The 'oh neat!' factor for me is about the fact that it can be done at all.

I've done some hand sculpting. I could do body forms relatively well, but faces... oh no. Painfully, laughably no. Poor sad things. Strangely, it's the reverse digitally -- faces are no problem, bodies... not so easy. The end result is more what it's about for me. Maybe it's because I have tried both methods, but I don't think so. I can understand why that empathy would sway a choice, however.

The 'magic' thing I can understand as well -- but that's skill. It does indeed go both ways. I remember watching painting shows when I was younger, and thinking, 'Wow, they make it look so easy!' ...and it isn't. Even some of the tutorials I could link certainly make it look easy -- but that's because of the artist's skill, not because the tools are doing the work for them. (I only wish I could do what they do.)

Physical familiarity with different tools is a huge issue, too. I can draw fairly well with a pencil, but am horrible with a tablet. The feel of the tool is different, the way you look at a page (and can watch the connection between pencil and paper) vs. working on a tablet and seeing the physically disconnected result of pen to tablet doing nothing, but appearing on the screen, are definitely factors for a number of folks I know. Some can do both, but a lot seem to favor one or the other.

 

Surreality, I think we've just pretty much drawn the conclusion of this thread! Thanks for this conversation.

(It may sound weird thanking someone for talking, but I think it's important for digital and analogue artists to have -mature- discussions like this every once in a while. Otherwise we might drift apart even further, forming our own snobby cliques and that would not only result into a loss of potential friends, but also a loss of potential knowledge and creativity)

 

I'm just joining here to share what i think to me the 3D modelling have nothing wrong, instead offers an hight level of realism and the chance to have differents mold-face, body sculpting, and the process in developing the entire doll project is faster than the standard hand sculpting process.
There's few comapny that use the 3D modelling and honestly i'm quite fine with it, at least even those sculptors that works to a doll wth stnadard handmade modelling, need to see some reference pics.
Just my tow of course.