OT/General Mobility vs Aesthetics.

Articulated Ball-Jointed Doll VS. Non-Articulated Statuette/Figurine

In my opinion, a doll-sized figure that is in one static, non-articulated pose is considered to be a statuette or figurine. A Garage Kit is a statuette or figurine. BJDs have their roots in Garage Kits, but they broke out of being static, non-articulated figures.

Both statuettes and figurines are considered to be a type of sculpture. For the most part, they are attached to a base, and are frozen in one pose. I do not consider a statuette or a figurine to be objects that can be played with. I do not call a statuette/figurine, a doll. I know that there are many cases where I have seen static statuettes/figurines called dolls, but I disagree that they are dolls. The whole idea behind an articulated doll figure is that the pose can be changed, and the figure can be played with. The articulated figure is not frozen in one pose, and is not attached to a base.

The more poseable the doll is, the more points of articulation it will have. The more points of articulation it has, the less realistic the joints will appear. When one decides to make an articulated multimedia figurative sculpture they are consciously making the decision to make joints. So right there, the aesthetics must include the jointing.

So, both the static statuette/figurine that is frozen in one pose and attached to a base, and the fully articulated ball-jointed doll are BOTH considered figurative sculpture, they are different types of figurative sculpture. The aesthetics are going to be different as well. With an articulated ball-jointed doll, the joints become a part of the aesthetic because a conscious design decision was made by the artist, from the beginning, to make a BJD.

Many BJDs are made by artists, and are considered objects of art. They have joints. The joints are a part of the BJD aesthetic.

As far as joint design goes, it is up to the individual artist how they make their BJD. There are single-jointed limbs, double-jointed limbs, floating joints, and combinations of the those in the same BJD, as well as other variations. The end result is a conscious design decision made by the individual artist. The people who buy such an object of art are those that agree with the aesthetics of the artist who made the BJD. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

(^_^)

 

I don't think it's an either-or situation... Fairyland dolls rank pretty highly for me for both aethetics and mobility. And then there's the SFBT-3, which is both the most poseable 'doll' I've ever seen, and has a really cool aesthetic of its own. On the other hand, I suppose that my Anson's poseability is somewhat limited by her petals, but her aesthetic is fantastic and it doesn't bother me.

Anyway, I think your jointing is looking very nice, and you should tell your boyfriend that if he doesn't like your choices, he can sculpt his own doll.

 

I am a fan of mobility, personally. Truth be told, I don't really care for the look of "hidden" joints. Being able to see the joint, to see how movement is accomplished, is part of a doll's beauty for me.

 

What Morgan said, if he doesn't like it, he can sculpt his own *g*

I tend to critique joints based on whether they achieved their design goals. So if the goal was to make joints inconspicuous or to have a retro sort of look, then it doesn't matter if the torso is one-piece or the legs can only bend so far. If the point was to have a number of naturalistic movements, then I'd want them achieved with the least clunky mechanism.

Though, sometimes, a design could be so unnecessarily complicated that it could be a thing of beauty all its own...even though I can't think of an example in the BJD hobby right now. (But I do remember an artist doll with a novel shoulder joint that moved the scapula and a strange hip joint that included buttocks...I just can't find the link now...)

 

The problem with valuing one over the other is that you WILL have to sacrifice one to achieve the other. And then you either have a doll that poses poorly but looks nice (so.... a fashion doll) or a doll that poses great but looks a bit weird (like that SFBT-3 linked above - which does look pretty cool, but if you wanted a doll to be a realistic underwear model, it's not the best choice). There is a balance to them both, and constantly in designing my doll, I've had to rework things because I can get something working really well for posing, but it looks like shit. Or looks good for part of the posing, but in some positions, looks really bad. Or you get a joint that looks beautiful, but has hardly any mobility and may as well just be a solid part (Minifee lower torso joint, for example) because so much has been sacrificed for the look that the posing doesn't work.

There has to be a balance to it, and unfortunately, that's the hardest thing to do, to find that perfect sweet spot that lets you make the shapes you want but still get the right mobility. We're dealing with rigid materials trying to approximate a non-rigid body, and -something- has to compromise.

I -do- like the look of hidden joints (the double joint in my doll's knee is hidden until needed, for example) or at the very least, minimized joints, so that the joint is harmonious with the doll's body and there's not a big "jog" in the contour from body part to joint. But there are very few places that hidden joints can be done, so most of the time you're stuck just making it look as if it fits the best you can.

And... yeah... Boyfriend should sit down with some clay and be asked to make a knee joint that can bend back on itself fully so a doll can sit on its legs. Let him see how difficult it is to make work!

 

To me, visible joints on a doll invite play, and I love that.

 

Hmmm...I always want a little bit of both. :XD Looking at knee joints specifically I've always preferred a single joint and cut under the knee like in Unoa dolls because I think it is the most attractive leg while standing. Another bonus for me is when the knee joint does roll out for sitting, most, if not all of the little channel for the strings remains hidden. However in saying that I think there are some dolls being made with a double jointed knee that keep the knee area really "clean", for example, the BeYours new girl body, the seams of the knee part blend in really well with the rest of the leg and are not unsightly like some knee parts can be. Of course I haven't seen the BeYours body in person and there could be some fancy lighting or subtle photoshop involved.

For the hip joints I also like it to be as clean as possible, However I do see the benefit of added mobility there so you can have the doll be able to pull her legs up to her chest. One thing though about hip joints....I have an old Asleep Eidolon girl body that below the hip joint there is a cut so the legs can swivel, originally I was ok with it, but I've come to really hate that joint because it makes the legs a little too slippery and it becomes hard to manage while dressing the doll. XP

For the torso joint(s) as long as the sculpt and the placement of the joint blend/mesh well all is good. Really I think there it's all about the sculpt. I've seen some under bust joints that I hated and others that I loved. Similarly a joint that cuts across the waist line can look good or bad depending on the sculpt, in Unoa dolls for example that's where the lowest point of the cinch in the hourglass shape is and it looks good to have the joint there.

Ultimately what I think it boils down to is the intention of the artist creating a thing of beauty. Different people will like different aesthetic, and that aesthetic will dictate the how, where, what, why of the mobility of the joint. This being said, I think above all else every joint should function with ease, because I've seen well designed single jointed dolls outperform dolls with poorly designed mobility joints. Also if a doll needs to be sueded right out of the box you've done wrong.