1. It has come to the attention of forum staff that Dollshe Craft has ceased communications with dealers and customers, has failed to provide promised refunds for the excessive waits, and now has wait times surpassing 5 years in some cases. Forum staff are also concerned as there are claims being put forth that Dollshe plans to close down their doll making company. Due to the instability of the company, the lack of communication, the lack of promised refunds, and the wait times now surpassing 5 years, we strongly urge members to research the current state of this company very carefully and thoroughly before deciding to place an order. For more information please see the Dollshe waiting room. Do not assume this cannot happen to you or that your order will be different.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Dollshe Craft and all dolls created by Dollshe, including any dolls created under his new or future companies, including Club Coco BJD are now banned from Den of Angels. Dollshe and the sculptor may not advertise his products on this forum. Sales may not be discussed, no news threads may be posted regarding new releases. This ban does not impact any dolls by Dollshe ordered by November 8, 2023. Any dolls ordered after November 8, 2023, regardless of the date the sculpt was released, are banned from this forum as are any dolls released under his new or future companies including but not limited to Club Coco BJD. This ban does not apply to other company dolls cast by Dollshe as part of a casting agreement between him and the actual sculpt or company and those dolls may still be discussed on the forum. Please come to Ask the Moderators if you have any questions.
    Dismiss Notice

Using Actual Killers As A Theme: Going Too Far

Jan 12, 2012

    1. As a history buff, I think it's kind of cool. It peeks the interest of some people who will then rush out and order it. Now, it it was something about Ted Bundy, I would get a little more worried about that because he doesn't need to be immorilized. But I think you may have overreacted a bit, but that's okay. Everyone has their own opinion. If you don't like it, then don't look at it. :)
       
    2. Ah, thanks! Does it also hide their posts when someone quotes them? I'm just interested, nobody so far has actually ever been that offensive that I need to block their existence from me :D

      That's very true. For all we know the OP may have had something horrific happen to her along the lines of the nursery-rhyme. And if that's the case, I don't believe it's over-reaction at all. It's very natural to be super-sensitive to things that have traumatised you, or things that have a very direct bearing on your own life. Wishing never to have to deal with it is one way of, well, dealing with it. The way I deal with things that have impacted or traumatised me is to kind of dig into them... rub salt into the wound, in a way, in a hope of desensitizing myself. It's always easier to change yourself than it is to change other people (and it's very hard to change yourself).
      I tend to express it with my dolls. I have issues with mental illnesses and so one of my dolls is psychotic and spends his time in a strait-jacket, as almost a mocking caricature of my fears. It's a way of barricading myself from reality with fantasy and it may not be entirely healthy, for all I know.
       
    3. Harlequin-Elle: I loved what you said about people reacting in differing ways. I have been keeping an eye on this thread as it has grown. I've posted a couple of times. Everyone deals with trauma in a different way. I mean I certainly do. I stay way from things that have to do with mass shootings as a friend of mine was killed in one. But that doesn't mean someone else is going to have the same reaction. I have a character that I keep hoping to get as doll that has gone through several changes due to the fact that this character was originally based on this friend. Its away of coping. We all have differing ways of coping with things. I just feel like I needed to say I totally agree with Harlequin-Elle.
       
    4. I think Lizzie Borden was acquitted. I really don't remember and I am too lazy to look it up. I know there is a nursery rhyme about her. "Ring Around the Rosies" is actually about the plague if I recall correctly. The brothers Grimm and a lot of other things for children are pretty grim. I honestly take it with a grain of salt. I mean a lot of people make jokes about morbid things. It's just dark humor.
       
    5. Hmm.. Let me say this. Bjds as a whole were designed to be completely customizable. Because of this they have become outlets of expression for some owners. People inherantly 'play' with ideas that they do not understand wholly, exploring how they feel about things that make them uncomfortable or fascinated to better understand either themselves or the situation they are exploring. When someone creates a doll with such a macabre theme such as murder, it doesn't necessarily mean they are glorifying the act of murder but merly trying to wrap their head around why someone would do that. Admittedly, it is fascinating to think about. To look at it another way, someone can dress their doll provocatively when that isn't something they feel comfortable doing themselves. Thus exploring something they might not be familiar with. This isn't limited to just dolls either, it appears in all outlets of expression. It isn't about right or wrong, rather exploring the unknown and one's self, really.

      Of course different people have different reasons for doing the things they do, that's just one possible example.

      Personally, death and dark things are fascinating. And sells, obviously, or the horror industry would not be around today. So no I'm not terribly bothered by the prospect of murderer dolls or doll clothing. I believe I might be squemish about posting it in public if it was a recent case, but otherwise meh. Could it offend someone? Obviously. Am I bothered? Not really. Besides, what famous historical figures weren't murderers in some form or another? Some murderers became historical figures. Even well liked mythical gods have been known to kill a few mortals on occasion.

      The only time it seems to become tacky and glorifying is if a company is selling something related to it.
       
    6. This debate is still throwing up interesting ideas. I was most intrigued by FrankieCat's sweeping call to arms for all artists, are we all to just draw pretty pixies and rainbows now? Are we to burn vast swathes of paintings from the past that depicted less than palatable truths? Up in flames go Guernica, Goya's tortured nightmares and so much else that held a mirror up to the world and actually gave people living in horrific times the courage to act for change? The pyres of burning books, great works of literature that again deal with the horrific nature of humanity, would create an ash cloud similar to that which killed off the dinosaurs...

      In short, my opinion, echoes those who posted before me (with the possible exception of Michael 'misunderstanding the meaning of manners' Micheal) you cannot have light without shade, day needs night and the atrocities of the world make its many kindnesses and virtues so much more precious.

      As Harlequin-elle has stated, many people actually deal with traumatic situations by exploring them, not by turning away. Each to their own. It brings to mind the film maker Mel Brooks who was accused of glorifying the Nazis when he made The Producers, about 2 Jewish Broadway producers who conceive of a scam to make the worst musical ever: "Springtime for Hitler". The film was initially considered too insensitive to even be released back in 1968 and when it did come out in cinemas there were a lot of negative reviews because some people felt that the Nazis could never be the subject of humour. Mel Brooks is of course Jewish, and felt that humour was the best way to heal the wounds of the Holocaust. Considering the remake and countless theatrical versions, he was obviously right, that, for many people (if not all) re-examining horrendous events with humour has a cathartic effect.

      That is in many ways the highest function of art, picking through the raw wounds of history and the artist's own experience to produce something of meaning. If we all constantly turn away from what is ugly and violent then we are condoning it to my mind. Shedding light on horrendous deeds and confronting things that scare us are a way of lessening their power, and a way of hopefully understanding the causes, that way we can eventually stop these things from happening. I can dream anyway.

      Incidentally, on a complete side note, a descendant of Lizzie Borden was the scientist whose work made the major contribution to discovering the "warrior gene" which looks increasingly likely to be partly responsible for psychotic/sociopathic behaviour. I'm sure someone here with the right scientific background can better explain it than me.
       
    7. Vonbonbon raises an excellent point with the idea of humour being a healing tool after great trauma, especially in reference to Jewish people. Lots of comedians are Jewish and Jewish humour is very well-recognised, leading modern critics to speculate that oppression, suffering and ostracization and the trauma that comes with that are effectively dealt with in a community by laughter, comedy and "galgunhumor"- gallows humour, the kind of jokes made in a situation of utter despair (this is my favourite kind of humour!). Even Freud had a go at analysing Jewish humour, with characteristically batty results. As someone once said, the way to reduce the power of an enemy is to laugh at him. Take Hitler as an example. He was a terrible man, who committed terrible acts and deservedly goes down in history as one of the twentieth century's most evil men; and in doing so, still remains a figure of admiration for neo-nazi groups who view him as a noble martyr. Sadly neo-nazism is on the rise, with several extremely violent groups in Eastern Germany in the news recently for horrible crimes against foreigners. Hitler is viewed by them as a hero. One of the best ways of dismantling the icon of Hitler as some great glamorous hero is to laugh at him. And then suddenly he becomes a paunchy little man with a silly moustache who couldn't draw very well; hardly someone to be looked up to!
      The same could apply to the reasons why people create murderous dolls, especially the kind of campy horror dolls that Ringdoll and Dollmore do so well. It's not that murder is inherently something we want to associate with our dolls. But it makes it, somehow, easier to deal with if we see it through the eyes of an imaginary character such as a doll.
      On another note, there is the stylization of horror to be considered. Sorry to bang on about Titus Andronicus, but I've recently read a criticism of the play in which the author made the point that the horror (people being raped and having tongues and hands cut off, murder, mincing heads to be made into pies, etc, etc) is lessened, or somehow made more palatable, by the intense stylization of the piece. It's a very choreographed piece of theatre with explicit stage directions to create tableaux of horror that are somehow far more artistic than the basic play.
      And that, finally, brings me incongruously to Tim Burton. Even non-horror fans profess a liking for Sleepy Hollow and Sweeney Todd, and I feel that this is because the movies are beautiful, despite the horror. The cinematography is beautiful, the colour palate is deliciously desaturated, and, of course, the actors are gorgeous. So despite the blood and throats being cut and heads chopping off, it doesn't make such an impact because it's all part of the visual poetry of the movie. The same can be said for Dollheart's clothes- the horror is part of the beauty, because it is stylized and abstract from reality by the sheer loveliness of the set-up.

      Arashi222: I'm very sorry to hear of your friend. But you're right- people do have different reactions and it's very important to respect the fact that people may have gone through things you don't know about, so care is often needed when discussing these delicate subjects.
       
    8. Sorry I don't know if this has been pointed out but Sweeny Todd was an actually killer. I think this name is a comericalised one but there is actually a victorian barber who murdered people(not sure about the pie thing). The origin of surgeons is that they used to be sterotypically barbers as they orginally didn't need any qualifications (only recently found this out 0.o).

      But to answer your point, I think you might have just proved it. The 'demon barber' is a english thing like Jack the ripper. Though you say it's purely fictional(a lot of the stories create fictional elements). Someone in another culture particularly one of a different language may not know, I personally have not heard of her but I think that might be my age. However there is a difference to something happened in the past 50 years to a few hundred. Jack the ripper and sweeny todd are tourist points for england(as are other victorian murders and ghost stories) however this Lizzie sounds as if it really upset and affected many people. There is murder local to my area whom poisoned many children, it's a soft point for many though it is not personal to me and something like this would not affect me personally but I can see how it is insensitive.
       
    9. Lizzy Borden's case was over a hundred years ago and involved the ax murder of her two parents. Lizzy was acquitted of the crime and found innocent, so no, it's not something that has affected a lot of people recently. You can visit the house the murders happened in. It's a haunted bed and breakfast and thus it is also seen as a tourist trap. The fact that these locations are so popular speaks to the human fascination with dark and horrible things.

      My own mother, a little Polish housewife and grandmother who also collected dolls, was absolutely fascinated by the Jack the Ripper case and would watch any movie or read any book she could get her hands on concerning it. She even had her own pet theories.

      People are free to feel offended by the things they find offensive, but what they don't have is the right to then try and stamp out the offending thing or occurrence simply because they don't like it. Provided, of course, it's not something that should be stopped like abuse or hate crimes.
       
    10. Oh thank you, I wasn't familiar with it.
       
    11. I'm personally not offended, I mean it's an art and if the artist wants to make a Charles Manson doll or something that's their choice...I don't know how many will actually BUY said doll, but art is art. These dolls are not "toys" or anything so they're not intended for children
       
    12. I can difinatlly see where you are coming with bring offended by this.
      At the same time however, I think it's been so much in main streme media that emotional element and horror was removed.
      Giving that, I can see how people are not offended too.


      Also, America have a really, really strong fasination for death, crime, and the judicial system.
      A lot of Americans are obsessed with this stuff.
       
    13. Much like many people on this thread I thought about Living Dead Dolls. Some can be distasteful (in my opinion) however I actually own a few. E.g. Otis and Cindy from House Of 1000 Corpses. I didnt get them because I have a thing for killers, I got them because I like Bill Moseley (who portrays Otis in the film) and Rob Zombie. Sure Cindy is pale white, covered in blood and bruises, but she is kinda cool. She isnt a real person (the character anyways) so I dont find it offensive. I am a horror film nerd though 8)

      But I dont know weather I find it distasteful or not. DH probally didnt know she was real (to be fair Im from the UK and I didnt know who she was!) but its not like the outfit was based on her, it wasnt a set outfit with blood and other stuff. It was an outfit. Thats all. I mean DollHeart do have a nursery rhyme theme (take Solomon Grundy - Heck, he is even a Batman character if comic nerds such as myself remember. The rhyme was used often, he backstory was even based off the rhyme!) So I dont find a problem, if nursery rhymes are based off events like this (which they are) surely its okay, we all said rhymes like this when we were kids. Some beloved characters are based off events like this e.g. Solomon Grundy (Batman), Grell Sucliffe (Jack The Ripper).. the list goes on. Its become so mainstream people dont care anymore. :L

      I wouldnt get the outfit, purely for the fact I dont like it, not because of its connotations with the rhyme. :)

      EDIT:

      Just though, Thing like that are sorta...well..not as serious now (however they still are serious events, and they are not funny or jokey!). Take Burke and Hare...Simon Pegg teamed up with someone and made Burke and Hare into a comedy film with its main target market at teenagers with toilet humour and about them getting drunk. They smacked into walls, farted and got poop thrown over them. This was based on murders, a not funny subject, but (im guessing anyways) because it was so long ago, no one would get offended.

      Im babbling now...

      Overall yes, if it was based on something like that, horrible. But this wasnt, it was a nursery rhyme and I dont think they meant it in offence.
       
    14. There are some wonderfully acidic interviews with Mel Brooks (here's one) about this exactly. Brooks fought Nazis in WWII, and saw enough horror there to grant him license for a lifetime of fart jokes. He said he considered it his life's work to make fun of Hitler. Guy killed 6 million people, but then 30 years on down the road, there was this little ol' Jewish comedian, still alive & having the last laugh at Hitler.

      So, yes, he felt those detractors totally missed his point: "Of course it is impossible to take revenge for 6 million murdered Jews. But by using the medium of comedy, we can try to rob Hitler of his posthumous power and myths."

      He also (and this is one of the many reasons to love Teh Mel) explicitly acknowledged the power of disregarding boundaries of taste to achieve one's artistic ends:

      Spiegel: ["The Producers"] shows a dancing and singing Hitler. Isn’t that a bit tasteless?
      Brooks: Of course. But it’s also funny, isn’t it?


      Whoopsie! :lol: Sorry for the giggle, but oh did I splutter out my coffee when I read that. One is a leader of a cult of murderers, the other a rock star from Ohio who just likes to get up Middle America's collective nose. (Liiiittle bit different!)
       
    15. THANK YOU...I thought it was funny too.

      But to each their own...

      "Next."

      As far as controversial doll goes...you have the option to not look at things you may find offensive.

      I think using the ignore button is a FAR more effective. I invite you to please do so in regards to myself! ;-)

      Personally if you need an outlet for your pain & suffering...try theraphy...it actually works for most people who are willing to actually take action and follow adivce from professionals.

      I don't see how escaping into a doll world helps to actually deal with pain.

      I stand by statement that I am so surprised that so many posters seem to be so dismissive when it comes to taking real life acts of viloence and expounding it into a doll. Regardless if the woman was murdered...people were still killed.

      I wonder if she were still alive if she would think...hey it's great I'm in a nursery rhyme and they are making a doll out of it...

      As far as the nazi dolls...I HIGHLY doubt a mode of therapy for surviors or families of surviours would find it theraputic to play with a nazi doll as a means to "better understand" what happened.

      People do get their dolls for different reassons. I think it stange that anyone would, yes IMO, glorify violence.

      We each deal with out pain and suffering in different ways.

      I again state it is far easier to say...no it's fine until something horrific happens to you or a loved one.

      It's far easier to say "that's just how the world works" until it works on you and is knocking on your door. I, truly, pray none of you ever find your self ina situiation were you begin to realize what is being said.

      Perhaps it would be better for more people to get involved in real world causes vs. playing with a doll to better understand a situation.

      Dismissive and yes insensitive.

      I also feel if an artisit ONLY produces rainbows and sunshine they do what great art does...allows us to forget about how traggic the world is. I certainly understnad what the poster is trying to say and i greatly appreciate it. If more people empowered themselves this way by saying no...I will not accept it...I will spend my life trying to counter it...they are a TRUE artist!! BRAVO TO YOU! I's also say that is why these dolls are, for the vast majority, so popular...because they are beatuiful. Because they do represent ideals of beauty.
       
    16. Actually a lot of what is considered great art is not all peace, innocence, rainbows and sunshine. Now who is being dismissive? As for the rest of your post, it is quite insensitive while blaming others for being insensitive. Why is it strange that one's hobby should have a theraputic effect? That actually seems pretty healthy and normal to me. Whether or not a person has first hand experience with violence, we are still surrounded by it, and how do you know that the people who don't take issue with DH's outfit haven't been affected in some way by violence themselves? You don't. You are assuming that because you feel a certain way, that it is the one true right way to feel, but individual people are way to different for that. People really do cope in different ways, express themselves in different ways, are bothered by different things. The world has both good and bad stuff in it. Sometimes it's nice to focus on happy things for awhile, but it doesn't mean that the bad stuff isn't there -- ignoring it won't make it go away, and in some ways only makes things worse. We aren't being dismissive and insensitive because we deal with the world around us in a way that doesn't simply ignore might be unpleasant. People have given you plenty of valid reasons for why they are disagreeing with you -- that's not being dismissive, it just means your arguments have holes in them.
       
    17. Where did I say or imply to pretend bad things don't exist?
      Again...it is the perspective we take.
      IMO it is more productive to provide a counter to all the ugliness of the world.
      We need only to turn on the TV, read the internet, pick-up a paper, etc. etc. etc.
      The last thing I want to look at is more of the same thing.
      Perpetuating violence is what makes it worse. Accepting it as a means of self expression perpetuates it.
      It is my belief and as much as some of you may not like it.
      It is what it is.
      I choose to not ignore it but take a stand against it. I will not buy gore dolls, look at gore dolls, etc. etc.

      So if I decided to make a Casey Anthony doll...as a means to better understand something I do not...

      Every major publisher has refused to provide her money for telling her story for a reasson. Yet she was found not guilty...
       
    18. When you make it clear that you believe people should not address violent content in art, you are in a way turning a blind eye to it. I think I see what you are trying to get at, but taking a stand by not touching it as subject matter also runs the risk of lowering people's awareness of the issue and/or makes the art at some point more difficult to relate to because it is so divorced from reality. Have you noticed how many movies, novels, comic books, poetry, plays, etc etc etc involve violence in some form or other? It's because it's part of the human experience and it can't be simply done away with. Yes we can turn on the news or read the paper, but we also have to process and deal with these things. For you, that might be a matter of escaping it entirely, for others it is exploring these issues in an artistic medium. You can have what ever beliefs you like -- but I take issue with how you simply write off those who disagree as simply being dismissive or actually having the gall to proclaim what is true art or not.

      I do not believe that violent content will always beget more violence -- it's not quite that simple, because a lot depends on other factors such as specific subject matter (ex recent vs historical crime or neo nazi propaganda vs historical WWII movie) as well as the audience ( ex there's a difference between what might be appropriate for young kids vs adults for instance), not to mention that people are all individual type thing.
       
    19. Taco I appreciate your stand point.
      I don't think you do understand.
      I have not said nor implied that one should ignore it. Rather to take a stand against it. Hence my expression on my opinion.
      I do understnad it is an opinion.
      Just as it is an opinion that viloence or the portral of violence can be art.
      I do belive that discussion and portral of viloence can be used to educate.
      I do not see how making a doll, based on a viloent act is in anyway educational or in anyway provides a better understnad of violence.
      Again, no matter how many different mediums it appears in, in my eyes still does not make it acceptable. Nor in my eyes turn it into art. I belive violence, like anger, is something so easy to express hence why it is so prolific.
      U have you beliefs I have mine.
      It's a mute point.
       
    20. Agreeing with Taco here. Michael, I know what you are intending to say but your wording comes out as if to imply that artists who see or show the dark side of things are not "real" artists.

      I actually AM an artist and I recently sold a copy of a print to a friend's father. It was a gloomy ink of a dinosaur sitting on stage, holding a skull of his own kind and staring dramatically into it. It was simultaneously meant as a comedic mockery of Shakespeare, and a statement about dealing with death (the ultimate death of one's entire family line). This person that bought this is older and had lost a son, he surely in your opinion would have no reason to be attracted to that kind of work as he had to experience these dark feelings in his life. Yet he felt it gave a solemn vibe of acceptance and finality. To him it looked peacefull. So in short you CAN'T tell other people what they will see in art, even if those people have experienced the very tragedy that work is portraying.

      It's person to person. by taking a personal stand against what you consider gory or dark you're stopping someone from possibly experiencing something that lessens their pain or gives them peace. THAT'S the point people are trying to make to you.