Toy, Work of Art, Or Both?

They're toys. Really, really expensive toys.

At least I don't crash my toys at first play like my husband does with his (equally expensive) RC toys.

 

I class then as collectable models, just like my anime figures. They are not made for children so I don't think of them as toys. I do like to think of them as little pieces of art when it comes to the face ups and paint work on them, the clothing is also an art form

 

Art, definitely. They are amazingly realistic small scale sculpture, engineered to pose like a human being. An almost infinitely customizable art object, that serve as an artists muse.... and oh, well yes, I do, of course, PLAY with it!

 

Both?

First off, I do consider them art, because an artist sculpted them, an artist painted them, an artist made their clothing, possibly modded them, put them together. I usually explain to non-bjd people that they are "art dolls".

But at the same time, I do play with my dolls, they aren't displays at all.

So I guess to me they are interactive play-art? lol

 

I view them as... playable art? Same as CloakedSchemer lol

But if you had to make me choose between art and toy, I would have to say art.

 

Personally I find the word 'toy' has many negative connotations attached to it - such as something not serious or something meant for children implying they are something to be grown out from. So for this reason I would hate to call my BJD's 'toys.' If you want to take the opposite approach and call me a everlasting child, I wouldn't really mind that

I prefer the term interactive art. Interactive play-art is also an another very good term. I suppose when we think about art its all very high brow stuff 'the look but don't touch' kind of thing. But who ever said that was what art had to be? My BJD are definitely beautiful pieces of art created by someone very skilful.

And I shall leave my opinion at that

 

I like to think of them as kinetic sculptures in a sense. They are everything a sculpture is but they move and are interactive in a way that is similar to toys, but more than that. They reflect their owner, sculptor, etc, so as they pass from one person to the next they pick up a little bit from each part of the puzzle that is a dolls life. sorry got a little philosophical there...

 

I see them as art sculptures that I have a mess around with, like sew clothing for them, play around if face-ups, posing and photography.
Each doll does pick up something form each owner they have. Out of my current four, three were bought second hand, and they have something from their previous owners that I won't change (mainly face-up, as they suite their face-ups), apart from my Lati Yellow who just came blank and with eyes, who shall be mainly one that I've nurtured into a character, if that makes sense.

 

I say it depends on what you do with them. The reason I buy BJD's is because I want to have physical representations of my OC's. I like to make stuff for them, and photograph them, so they're a source of inspiration in more ways than one.

 

IMO they're not works of art if they're mass-produced. A print is not art; only the original painting is.

 

This.
My crew are toys, and if anyone finds that insulting... That's their problem, not mine.

While there is certainly artistry involved in the creation of the original sculptures our dolls' molds were made from, I just can't see these dolls as "Art" themselves.

 

I tend to think of my dolls as 'art projects'.

I guess technically they are toys, by their manufacture, but you can take a cheap or expensive toy and turn it into a work of art. Just look around, there are many mundane every day items and toys being turned into ooak works of art by artists -and being sold as art. I saw a documentary on the specialized art of painting sneakers. They are shoes, but also works of art at the same time. The artists who work on the shoes are real artists with real learned skills. Just because the artists don't use a flat canvas, but a shoe, the art work is dismissed as 'valid' -as the work was not done by the traditional definition, but on a shoe. This is also the case with bjds -because they are dolls as seen by the world -they are dismissed as traditional art. We who have them can understand their validity as art, as we ourselves work on them, understand what it takes to design one, etc. I can remember when mixed media was avaunt guard and not acceptable -now it's the 'in' thing. Over time, I think our definitions of 'traditional art' will change with more people willing to push the boundaries and try new things and accept new definitions.

I just wanted to add that -Art is subjective. It means something different to each individual based on personal preference. I'm thankful that it is, as each can find what they enjoy!

 

As a printmaker (and former promoter of artistic printmaking), I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you. In the case of traditional printmaking, the original sketch or printing block is not the piece of art, the resulting print (which could be considered "mass produced," as many runs are quite large) is the art piece. And keeping them within the edition is dependent on how similar they are--prints with great variations are tossed as "proofs" and errors, not kept in the run and frequently destroyed.

In my opinion, BJDs fall into this same type of category. It's not the original prototype or the mold that's the finished piece, it's the cast resin result. The casting is done by hand and finished by hand, just as a traditional print is pulled by hand. Frequently, they are even editioned in limited runs, just like prints! They're much like a three-dimensional version of the classic lithograph or intaglio piece, and I regard them as art pieces. They're not being cranked out in a giant factory in China for Hasbro, after all.

They're not intended for children; just because they aren't static and are meant to be handled doesn't make them not art. Mobiles are art, and plenty of art invites the viewer to touch or manipulate it. And just because more than one exists doesn't make it any less art.

 

Yes. I'm not going to worry about what other people want to find insulting. When someone else wants to fund my hobby, they can fuss over whether it's art or not.

I've had enough vintage/antique dolls over the years to know a toy when I see one. Kids will reach for an Izannah Walker or Jumeau doll just as fast as a tiny anthro -- or those Disney x Volks collabs that were just for sale that went for far more than an Izannah Walker doll does. I've let my older daughter play carefully with my (OT, sorry) ridiculously expensive/valuable porcelain Enchanted Doll. If someone wants to elevate it to art, great, but it's still designed to be played with. It's a doll.

Has our hobby fallen so far as to reach the fashion-doll collector mentally to keep our dolls boxed and untouched behind glass at all times?

 

The this is where I get to chuckle a bit...

I keep my crew behind glass, in display cabinets. But that's just because I have a large collection and I *hate* dusting.

 

Toy unless it's a very, very limited doll maybe. I don't see the point in calling it "artwork" if it's mass produced in the hundreds. That's just not "limited" to me. Limited is someone casting a doll that that maybe 25 people in the world can own. Art doll, that's a very high quality doll that's totally different from most of what's out there, faced up by the artist, and produced in a truly limited quantity, like 25 and sold for tons of money. What most BJD companies are doing isn't much different to me than what companies like Tonner do really. Yeah sometimes there's only 150-500 of them out there but a lot of the dolls can be bought for a very long time and they are selling hundreds, even thousands of them and some of them really never stop being made. That's not a limited piece of artwork to me. In the context of real art OOAK is the original painting, an autographed print sold in truly small numbers is a limited print, but the poster that gets issued in the thousands as a so called "limited print" that in reality almost anyone can buy? That's just a mass produced copy with a fancy label on it to boost sales.

Many of the BJD's out there nothing but mass produced dolls. Yeah it takes a lot to design and sculpt them but that's true of any high end toy in any medium. If I can go to the maker's website for months or even years and still pop major $$$ for the same doll that's not an artwork. That's just a very expensive toy. When toys do become real art for me is when people take them and make extraordinary things with them. Repaint them, mod them in such a way that they do truly transcend their origins. The work of Noel Cruz for instance, that's art. The dolls he uses they are mostly mass produced but when he gets done with them they are truly works of art and I am often genuinely awed by them...

 

I don't necessarily think it has to be strictly one or the other. Personally I consider any tangible, non-living object that I use for the sole purpose of entertaining myself as a toy. My video games are toys, my BJDs are toys, my stuffed animals are toys, I will even go as far to say that my books and comics are toys! (of course, it's okay if you disagree with that, but my reading habits are extremely hedonistic)

That said, I don't think considering something a toy disqualifies it as art. I will argue with you tooth and nail that my video games are art. A team of people put their artistic skills together and created a final product, much like with dolls. To me that is art. I will not doubt for one millisecond that the literature I read isn't art. Not all art is super high-end limited edition fancy stuff, and not all toys are mass produced for children.

And of course, you have to remember that art is a very broad term. I don't see art as a thing which requires a certain amount of criteria to be met before it can be considered art! Art encompasses a lot of different things, and not everyone will agree with what is considered art by other people, but I think it's important to challenge yourself as to why you think something qualifies as art or not.

Personally, I love the term someone said about "interactive play art"! A lot of art is based on interaction, after all (art installations anyone?)! And just because you can play with it and be entertained by it in the same sense you would a toy doesn't take away from the artistry of it.

 

Both, I guess. They're art in the sense that they're incredibly well-sculpted renditions of humans or humanoids, and they're toys in the sense that I pose them and dress them and play with them. I don't really see them as either, though. They're in a category of their own. I tend to call them 'the plastic people'. They're the only type of toy or art I have that has inspired an entire backstory full of characters.