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

Anyone who's tried to make anything pretty on 3D program technology will tell you it's not easy. It's a whole different kind of artistry but the same care and devotion goes into it. The fact of the matter is that it would save little time and money in this craft, allow more room for machine and human error alike, and involve different sorts of work. The usual process goes design, sculpt, cast. With 3D programs it would go design, model in 3D, 'print', modify the head if necessary to have proper mechanisms, cast. It simply doesn't seem like an easy solution, even though I do think 3D modelling technology is something quite interesting with many uses, since the current way of sculpting a BJD has been developed and streamlined.

 

I think 3d generated dolls and sculptures should fall under a different genre of doll type. Not much different from how we differentiate abjd to fashion doll.

Proper use of computer and 3d imaging is also a skill. Even with handcrafted dolls you can see differences in sculpt quality. Using 3d to create a face can take as little or as long as the artist wants to spend on it, so it's not a good thing to prejudge that because it is 3d made it won't be as good.

I can see how 3d imaging can be improperly used for creating copies. I once created a 3d character by a using a commercially available base figure and adding commercially available morphs from another 3d artist combined with my own modifications (done legally since I paid for both) I got an email from the original artist asking me where he could buy the character I was using for my artwork since it was so unusual and he got an extreme chuckle when he didn't recognize that the character was partially made from his.

It is indeed more difficult to create symmetry by hand sculpting since with 3d you can work on just half the face then mirror the other side. After that you can modify one side slightly just so it's not perfectly symmetrical to give a hand sculpted feel.

One thing I find about 3d is it lends itself to mass market more. The equipment has high startup costs if you want to create a doll company but replication and creating of new doll masters to make molds from is rather easy.

Though for a singular 3 artist to have doll heads created in this way is quite expensive since the services that create 3d sculptures from 3d file are quite expensive then you still have to find a separate molding company.

 

Any tool can be used for ill -- phones, cars, computers, even one's bare hands. No technique or tool is automatically more moral than another. It's all about how you use it.

Can 3D programs be used to copy? Yes. So can your hands. Is it easier to copy with a 3D program? That depends on your skill set -- it's certainly not as simple as many people think it is. However, one can get a more accurate copy through the process, which I think is what scares many people.

I don't think that should be held against 3D designs or designers, though, any more than we hold hand-sculptors responsible for the proliferation of hand-sculpted bootlegs. It is not the process that is at fault -- it is the people behind the process.

3D technology, to me, is simply another technique through which artists can demonstrate their design skills. Sculpture requires a different skill set than painting, and sketching requires a different skill set than sewing. But all are still visual arts. 3D is simply the newest member on this list.

(That said, I should point out that I probably have a bias in this -- I used to love creating art with my hands, but I've been unable to do so for almost a decade now. Computers, though, I can use.)

 

I don't mind companies using new technology as long as their designs are original. The dolls themselves are still made by hand; molds have to be made for each piece, the seams have to be sanded, the eyes cut open, the doll has to be strung, the face painted, etc. I think of new technology as enhancing the artist's skills, rather than replacing them and I am not so concerned with the artist's process as I am for the finished product.

There will always be scammers who use whatever tools are available to make money from other people's ideas, so the doll community will just have to be alert and vigilant to avoid these products.

 

My father used to work with rapid prototyping and the 3D imaging and machining of aircraft parts. It was pretty cutting-edge and experimental at the time, and I remember being fascinated by how the process worked. A 3D model was built in the computer program, then the model was recreated in a vat of unsolidified plastic. A laser would solidify the plastic layer-by-layer based on the computer model. My dad brought home figures (I believe my parents still have a plastic dragon figure) they'd made to learn the process, and the detail was pretty amazing.

Would I buy a doll made the same way, as long as the artist designed the doll in the computer program him/herself? Why not? I love handcrafted art, but I don't have any issues with a different technique. It would likely give a different aesthetic feel, and that look may appeal to some but not to others. I don't think it will destroy the handcrafted BJD industry, since the artistry of hand-sculpting is something valued by many current collectors. I just think it might open up a new branch of the industry that some may like, and some may not. Personally, the very idea fascinates me. I've toyed with sculpting a doll, but my fingers are considerably clumsier than they used to be. Like Lizzard, I've pretty much stopped doing artwork by hand anymore, so the thought of being able to create a doll via computer imaging is intriguing.

 

As a professional artist that uses 3D in the workplace, let me tell you that it isn't easy by any means. I actually have a lot more trouble working in 3D than I do by hand. The process is long, and can be excrutiating, to sculpt a human face or body likeness. I could still do much better and much faster sculpting by hand.

3D modeling and 3D printing is just another tool and method one can use to sculpt. It's a different skillset that results in a similar product.

 

I am starting to use 3D modeling and let me tell you it's not as easy as it seems, and besides it's just another tool. If a company decides to use it it's their decision as long as they aren't using it to copy other molds and changing it a bit to sell them as their own original ideas ^^"

 

Well do you discount a piece of jewelry as not being "hand crafted" if the wax cast was done using a machine. You still have to do most of the process in making the jewelry. So I think it's ok to use a 3d model technology, but it's not really easy to utilize that sort of thing, but as other people said it's just a different media.

 

I like both methods, and don't think one should be any cheaper/more or less valid than the other. I have a friend who goes to an animation college, and she's done both sculpting and computer work. She's been at it for three years now, and it takes days of work (if not weeks, depending on complexity), to create a single model -- and that's for a cartoony one, not one with the level of detail a BJD head would require.

Personally, I'd love to see more artists employing the computer "printed" method. There'd be less chance of things going wrong ("I smushed the nose, need to do it over again!"//"It exploded in the kiln"//"Someone knocked the table and it broke!" --the list goes on), and things could be more smoothly corrected.

On the symmetry issue -- it's only as simple as copying one side of the face if you're lazy. Try that with any picture of a human face, and you'll get something that looks like an alien at best. It takes even more work to get it to look normal.

Note -- I disagree with the earlier comment that they'd have to be a different genre of dolls. As long as they follow the asian aesthetic, why should they be singled out? It'd be like allowing dolls that were sculpted via an additive method, but declaring dolls sculpted by a subtractive method "off-topic".

 

I don't think it matters which method is used--just because someone could use 3-D imaging for the forces of evil, doesn't mean that they will. It also takes skill to use different types of software and don't forget about the basic designs themselves. Both sculpting and using 3-D imaging involve artistry. What will make a doll company successfull, I think, will have less to do with the media used in their making, and more in the success of the overall design--is it functional, aesthetically appealing, etc.

 

I like the idea. I love working in 3D and hope to one day use the prototyping printer to make a doll. It seems like fun.

 

I respect Dollstown's concerns about piracy. Their concerns about digitally created dolls... not so much. Point by point:

If a would-be doll pirate has a 3D scanner, they can scan your doll regardless of whether you designed it in 3D software or sculpted it by hand. But that pirate is far more likely to duplicate your doll the same way you do: with a silicone mold. It's cheaper and easier.

I do (computer) 3D modeling at my day job. If the folks at Dollstown think it's easier to create a 3D model than a sculpted one, it's because they've never done it. The ability to create variants once you have a base model is the real difference...

...and this is a bad thing because? Personally, I like smaller dolls, but most of the sculpts I like are SD-size. I certainly wouldn't mind if they were available in multiple sizes. Wouldn't mind a closed-mouth 43cm Narae variant, either. Though again, I think Dollstown is underestimating the challenges involved in "simple manipulation" of digital models. Some things are easier... a lot of things aren't.

Really, the only legitimate concern I see is a pirate scanning dolls, modding them to be sufficiently different as to be unidentifiable, and printing the result. But 3D scanning and printing equipment is expensive... and modifying a sculpt enough to make it unidentifiable is likely to make it less attractive. Far easier to pirate the old-fashioned way -- make a mold, and sell your casts to people who don't recognize them or don't care that they're pirated.

Finally, even if digital piracy does become a real issue, it would apply equally to hand-sculpted and digitally sculpted dolls. Dollstown's attempt to bias people against digitally sculpted dolls will have no affect on digital piracy per se -- pirates aren't going to advertise their dolls as being digital. If Dollstown creates a standard for all companies to post progress pic of all new dolls, well, that may reduce piracy of whatever kind... but I suspect there will always be people who don't know or don't care.

 

If there are people that are concerned w/ which methodology was implemented in the creation of their doll, perhaps it could be a selling point of "handsculpt-born" vs "3D modelled-born". I'll admit I love peeking in and watching sculpting threads here, I get more excited about those dolls in particular because I could see the works in progress, you feel like you are more familiar w/ the doll on that level. *edit-at least for me I feel more familiar!*

Wouldn't it be a wonderful addition to have a pamphlet-book insert in with your doll showing the creation either way? I think that would be fascinating, especially right from the beginning with concept sketches Like how many people have changed something from the beginning of their concept sketch once they start working with it in a medium? I know I'm guilty of it!

 

I do 3d modeling and while it is a wonderful tool, it,s not a easy task to reproduce something in all the details...

Also you would need to made a REAL copy of the modeling and that is:

1) very time consumming
2) Rather expensive, Something the saize of an SD head would be around 300 to 450$ a pop to make a plastic rotoscoped head... and it'S not garrenteed that the software will give you a hollowed out head. So imagine the price for a whole doll. If I wanted to copy a doll I would buy one and make a master to make copies... it would be cheaper.

Even if I say this a 3D modeled boidy wouldn't be less artistic than a hand modeled one. Why... Cause it would still require SKILLS to make one.

 

A very interesting debate thread which I'm going to have to agree with most of the people who already posted. Dollstown's article mostly seems like a kind of paranoia on their part since, as many people already mentioned, the sheer cost of using a 3D scanner and Rapid Prototyping Machine to make a copy of a doll when compared to the easy method for making silicone molds.

Personally, I would love it if a company came up with a 3D designed doll. It might have the potential of revolutionizing the business as once you have a good base and a talented software operator one would be able to create more dolls a year just by tweaking their base. Of course, many of the dolls would end up looking the same, but many dolls by the same sculptor do due to the artist's style.

And as for digital dolls not being able to 'prove' that they aren't carefully tweaked copies of existing handmade dolls I have to say that this wouldn't be true at all. The software operator could show the doll along every step of the way by taking screen shots of his/her progress from the 'spherical lump' stage to the 'it's finally looking like a face!' breakthrough.

 

I think it would be perfectly reasonable to sculpt in digital 3D then use a Rapid Prototyping machine to create a slightly rough version of an original sculpt - at least for heads, hands, feet. Then they could be smoothed and refined by hand and normal molds would be made from that. I think bodies would be tougher because a lot is expected of joints - I don't know if it would be practical to sculpt a ball-joint body digitally. But maybe the basic pieces could be done that way then finished with hand sculpting at the joints and hand smoothing.

Carolyn

 

Cool topic! If you check in the Artist Subforum, Hedrus has actually had a 3d rendered head digitally printed. It's fascinating! I think it's a really cool technology....

That said, I would prefer to buy hand-sculpted dolls... just out of my own preference. I don't think that a 3d-created product is inferior (digital sculpting is hard!), just part of what I love so much about BJD is that they are sculpted by hand. I think that is part of their appeal, and part of why they are so individual. The natural human-introduced flaws that come from working things with your hands... and not being able to click "undo" when you mess up. I love that human hands were directly involved in every step of the process to make my dolls. I would support a company that did all their sculpting by hand... and I would pay more for their product if necessary.

I do think that the 3d technology does create sticky legal issues... and could easily be abused for the purposes of piracy. Let's imagine for a moment that I have purchased a CP boy body. Then I scan it and pull the scan into a program where I can digitally manipulate it.... I elongate the legs and arms by 25%, then I make the waist a little bit thicker. I have these pieces digitally printed, clean them up, make my own molds and cast up a few copies. Is it mine, is it original? Can I legally sell it? I have produced a body that people look at and go "Hey... that's FAMILIAR", but if you were to take side-by-side photos, you'd have to admit that the proportions were off to a degree that they could not have been directly recast. But does that make it original?

It brings up interesting ethical issues. The BJD community in general has a very narrow definition of copying; people only seem to view directly recasting as being copying. Whereas there are really so many shades of gray... "copying" could be anything from sitting down and sculpting directly from another company's sculpt as a reference (similar to a child "drawing" a picture of a favorite anime character by directly recreating, but not tracing, an official pic), to someone modifying an original head and recasting it, to digitally manipulating someone else's work into something that could not be easily traced. If more companies were to start using these digital technologies, I think people would have to reconsider what constitutes copying... It could be really interesting!

 

I think both handmade and digitally designed is fine.

But I think they should make it clear which method they are using to create their dolls.

As said, digital design and production isn't necessarily easier. Just different and less traditional.

So long as the end result is not a bootleg or copy (handmade or otherwise), and the doll is well made and fulfills its purpose... I don't see much of an issue between the two.

Edit: As also mentioned:
I would, however, be inclined to pay more for a hand sculpted doll.

 

Hmmm...even if someone like Jun Planning does use that technology, its no gaurantee that their dolls will be successfull. Their basic designs have to be appealing, their needs to be a certain level of quality that's kept, and the jointing needs to be functional. No matter how high or low tech they go, those factors are always going to be there.

 

As long as the design is original, it shouldn't really matter how the doll was created. I think people have a right to know which method has been used, but otherwise the dolls should be treated the same, hand-made or created using 3D technology.

(However, I admit that while 3D technology completely fascinates me, I do not have a very good knowledge base of how the process is carried out.)

 

as far as piracy goes, I'd be inclined to be less concerned about people scanning a doll into their machine and bootlegging it that way--as people have mentioned, it's more expensive than just making a mold from the doll--and more concerned about people pirating others' digital designs. these days one can find leaked DVD rips of movies sometimes even before they hit theatres, as people with access to the digital information can copy it fairly easily.

I like the DollsTown initiative to show a little bit of the sculpting process, because although it's hardly proof that a doll has been crafted originally it's certainly a gesture of good faith. plus it's really interesting! I'd love to see it on other companies' sites, although I don't think it would make a big difference in my purchasing habits.

I also don't feel that it's necessary to separate BJDs into digitally and manually rendered, so long as they still adhere to the "asian aesthetic." and when it comes to asymmetry...well, a good graphic artist should be able to build that into his or her 3D model! I can imagine that there's a kind of accidental, artless quality to some of the asymmetries found in hand-sculpted dolls that might be particularly appealing, but just because the potential for complete symmetry exists in digital rendering doesn't mean one should assume that all digitally produced sculpts would be perfectly symmetrical. so really, I come down squarely on the side of diversity! diversity and information! and pretty pictures of slightly creepy half-finished dolls!

 

This is a very interesting discussion. I have to admit that with all the digital base models there seem to be floating around the internet and in programs like Poser, there is the feeling that an all digital made doll might have had some "help". However, being in the process of sculpting a doll myself, I have to say it would be very nice to be able to "scan" in arm and leg pieces so that the two sides are at least the same size

 

That struck a chord with me.

Perhaps in the future, some dolls might be both hand sculpted AND scanned.

There was a doll recently that I thought looked like his face had been duplicated by half (can't remember where) but like when you hold a mirror down the middle of your face and you see the same half making a whole face....it's a whole face but it looks strange because both sides are exactly the same but reversed....just not quite right.

I do think however as the technology becomes more accessible and cost effective, that many companies will take advantage of the scanning method to create arms and legs in reverse to shorten the sculpting time. I could see it being used as a tool just like a knife sponge.

That said, I would hope that heads continue to be sculpted by hand since none of us are completely symmetrical and the "perfection" looks strange on a doll. There is no reason however that the tech should be discarded just because there is opportunity for bootlegging...imagine if they stopped making movies for sale for that reason....how would I get my LOTR fix?

 

Hm... This is a hard topic.
Well, when it comes to choosing what you buy in a shop, what section to you run to...?
Some people go to 'organic' and heck, that sounds fine. Others go to hand-made, right?
Think about it...
It's funny, since we trust machines to do a lot for us these days, but really, you'd go for hand-made first, right? Then again, maybe not.
As rage_razor said, we have to pay more for hand-sculpted dolls, but come on, you'd think the money is better spent.
Just think - though you'd be inclined to buy something hand-made, the computer you're viewing this from was made by people and machines...
So, you can copy designs; big deal! It's the person behind it all, in the end.
Computers can be used for good and bad. ANYTHING can be.
Munch on that statement for a bit.

 

to be perfectly honest, i loathe most applications of 3D techniques. perhaps this bias comes from the days i spent feeling maya tearing at my soul piece by piece while i tried to model and animate. i have to say the experience put a loathing in my heart, but there's something else that makes the idea of a doll (or art) created by 3D programs not sit well with me...

for me, something that is handcrafted (where i know the artist sculpted, painted, or drew a piece. where i can see the imperfections, thumb prints, paint brush strokes) has more of a life-like quality. that piece is alive to me, imbued with the soul of the artist. for me, such work is visceral, and because of that i appreciate it more.

don't get me wrong, i know people who work with 3D programs put just as much love and care into their work. i have a friend who is a modeller and his attention to detail is both bordering insane and breath taking. but i still cannot find it in me to appreciate this type of work as much as i would if hands were to physically craft it.

that being said, it must be noted that using 3D technology does not necessarily eliminate the process of sculpting by hand. most maquettes that are later used as 3D characters and creatures in film are first sculpted by human hands, then scanned. if doll artists were to use this technique, i'd appreciate their dolls more because i'd know there were real hands involved in the process.

i'll add that with that said, i think 3D technology would limit the appeal of bjds to me, whether it would to others is, well, up to them.

i don't see how advancements in technology would significantly hurt or improve the hobby because as i see it, computers only offer precision and symmetry- something that artists can already come pretty damned close to achieving via their own skill or molds. i think if 3D methods become popular, we could see more artists and companies pop up, but from what i know 3D sculpting software and hardware are really expensive, and using a company to do it for you is expensive as well, so i don't imagine too many artists jumping on that train.

as for copying dolls-that's being done by making molds already.

 

This is a very fascinating topic that I never realised. Does someone perhaps have a good link to information regarding these scanners to fully explain how they are programmed and worked to put into perspective the arcane artistry in using such technology? I have to say I am not clued up enough on this and feel quite ignorant.
All I can offer as opinion is that there is something sacred about the hand sculpted in most objects. To me, the imperfections are what make each doll unique and the idea of someone making the doll for me is very intimate.
However, there is also the question, how does this technology help health and safety wise for the workers who have to work with resin?

 

I think DollTown's concern is a large company could mass-produce such BJD and sell them at a much cheaper price. You could also scan in someone else's sculpt and replicate it, putting very little effort into the creation process. However on the other side, I think established non-bootleg BJD companies could use this for their benefit. They could hand sculpt the design, most likely the face, and then have the computer as their model. It seems to me that would save a lot of time, especially with mold-creation. And would be easier on body creation since like has been mentioned already, it would be easy to mirror and get good symmetry.

 

It's the same concern that's universally had with bootlegs in all the art forms.
I frankly don't think most serious collectors of BJDs are interested in dolls that are potentially bootlegs/mass produced. They will still be lining up to buy dolls from places like Dollstown. I can understand artists not wanting their work to be ripped off, but the reality is that Dollstown and other artists can only produce a limited number of doll heads and bodies. I have had trouble getting the doll parts I want from them for a long time because they have really short production windows. I am patient and willing to wait, then pay a higher price to get a real Dollstown, but a lot of customers wouldn't bother with that. See the "Anybody know where I can get a cheap dollie now?" thread for a potential prime example. That is who would be buying the mass-produced BJD, not the fans of the artists and sculptors.

So it's really two different markets and, unless Dollstown is somehow going to find a way to make cheaper dolls in large quantities itself, it probably shouldn't be too concerned - any mass-production is not going to cut into the Dollstown sales because people buying that stuff would not be buying a Dollstown in the first place. .

 

On the main topic of the thread, no, I don't feel it's going to "hinder the advancement of the hobby." People are still going to want to sculpt and make dolls by hand. Customers will still want to buy those dolls. It's more likely that new people will be drawn to the hobby who wouldn't have come for the hand sculpt but will come for a cheaper, mass produced and perhaps worse quality doll, so it'll just be a different market.

Overall, I have to say I don't really care about "the hobby" as some sort of en masse entity. I care about individual artists and hope that there will be enough people buying their works to allow them to continue, but when I see, for example, Bishonen House selling a lot of dolls to people who aren't even IN "the hobby" but just like those dolls as being very cool examples of art, I see no reason to worry about the future of "the hobby" en masse. Good art survives on its own merits, it's not dependent on "The Hobby" or "The Trend" or "The Fad" etc.

 

I'm all for 'fabbed' abjds.

My myself have little to no CAD skills, it's actually easier for me to make things in RL.

However, I look to desktop fabbing as the future. Yes, there will be people that abuse it, just as there are people who abuse photoshop to digitally trace images. However, I think it could lead to a lot of innovation.

I would love it if a few years down the road, people passed around custom bjd blueprints online. Massive collaborations, spanning the globe. It's relatively easy to program a digital stop, to make the files 'printable' a limited number of times by individuals. It'd be awesome if DoA all worked together to create a doll design that everyone on the site could help with, and then OWN. There are a lot of bjd fans that cannot afford a hand-crafted doll, and this would give them the chance to gain experience for when they purchase their truely special doll.

I'd pay more for a traditionally-made doll, of coarse.

 

Having worked with digital imaging and 3D software, I can definitely say that the tools themselves do not totally eliminate human craftsmanship. Vertices still have to pulled to form contours (by mouse, if not by hand), maps and layers still have to be shuffled and re-shaped to create form (especially if the model has to be aesthetically pleasing).

So in essence, the product is still "handmade"; the method of creation is just.... virtual (?) instead of using physical media.
I don't think they should be held on a "different level", but perceptions of their quality should be taken into consideration with slightly different criteria. Like 2D digital art!

Like others have mentioned, the nearest thing a 3D program can autonomously create is symmetry in an model. It can't magically make detailed forms by itself- that's all user input. So I don't necessarily think this will revolutionize doll-making by companies- merely correction of the final product.

In that light, I cant really see it affecting my decision to buy a doll purely based on artistic method.

Integrity, however, is a different story.

I can see where the fear of boot-legging could come into play, but judging by the some quotes of 3D printer manufacturers(a few here, and here ...would a upcoming company that needed this form of media (as a result of poor artist skills, or lack of creativity) really have the capital to purchase something like this?

Most of the rates these machines are going for start at about $18,900, going up to $32,200, not including the prices of the actual material to print the sculpt. Wouldn't that company already have to have been in business for a while (i.e. enough to time to correct mistakes on previous molds and generally improve in skill) to be able to afford this? (I dunno- can someone clarify this if I'm wrong? )

This is a pretty costly and round-about way of copying- I can't really see a desperate company going with this route if they're in it to maximize profit. They'd lose too much on this initial investment to recoup that cost later on and they've already got their reputation for..awkward products to overcome. I can't see consumers immediately hopping on the bandwagon because of this.

 

I don't know if you define 3D as "less worthy" art? I personally couldn't care less if the doll is sculpted 100% by hand of modelled in a 3D program as long as the doll looks the way I want it to look. And 3D is not a shortcut to anything O__o It takes time and loads of skill to be able to model something that looks really good. It's not like it's a push of a few buttons and then it's finished. It's like a person at school once told me, that digital art isn't real art since the computer is doing everything for you. As a digital artist I find such accusations rather rude u__u

 

I know this is old.. but I feel I should put in my 2 cents. I don't really like the article posted; they seem to not have much knowledge of the 3D process and seem to think you can just get an image and bam, a few hours later you have a good model. As many have stated, 3D modeling is very much an art on its own - just a different kind. I think the ease in symmetry is made up for by the difficulty of making good topology (the polygons the model is made up from).

Also, as other have said, it would be rather stupid to bootleg a doll using this method. The cheapest price I could find for getting a SD sized head produced was $200. There is also a lot of work involved because all proceses leave a type of grain that would need to be smoothed. Making a whole body would not only cost a small fortune, but would be very difficult to joint. Most 3D modeling programs are geared towards either engineering (like Solidworks) or art (like 3D studio). It is hard to mechanically perfect something more organic like this.

I have made a head - for anyone interested in the process. You can see the grain - and that is with the smoothest material I could find (ObjPolyJet):

I have to say - doing it one the computer probably took me way more time than it would have to sculpt. I just happen to be better at 3D modeling. The body I am making in clay because I can not afford to get one printed up. If I manage to make enough money I would LOVE to make a whole doll. I am a huge perfectionist and I am on a computer all the time anyway, so it really appeals to me. (I also have all my process files and my topology drawings and such to prove I modeled it from scratch).

 

Huh yeah it is an old topic xD But I guess i'll say something anyway...

I prefer hand sculpted things... I like traditional artforms.. I've done digital art for a time but have reverted back to traditional art because it feels good to have something in my hands, to have an original.

I have a love/hate relationship with new technology but I think an artform like dollmaking should be kept in its traditional roots. Its like the difference between a handsewn kimono and one sewn entirely by machine. Sure they might in the end be the same product with the same quality, but there's something special about one sewn by hand.. it's a part of the history of the garment and certainly a lot of soul is transfered into it because it has been worked with with the hands, without the aid of computers...

 

@Firefly5003. That is amazing.

I have neither a love nor a hate towards 3d sculpted dolls. The result is pretty much the same and both require a separate type of skill. I would find it stupid for the 3d designed dolls to be put in a separate 'genre' to ABJD. They would look and feel and tick all the required boxes for ABJD, no where does it say "must be sculpted by hand" very narrowminded in a technologically forward thinking world.

As far the hobby is concerned I do not think it would hinder or advance them, I already know some companies do this, As far as costs and other things are concerned it doesn't seem to be cheaper to do it either way it is however a nice way to get those from computer art to sculpt beautiful things without having to physically sculpt. As before, two entirely different art forms why should one person be disallowed to make art just because they cannot sculpt with clay? THAT attitude will hinder the hobby for sure.

 

Physical media artists have had this same argument with digital media artists for years when it comes to craphic programs like Painter. Usually, in the end, it is recognized that digital media requires a different sat of challenges and skills, and ultimately neither is easy to do. Physical media artists remain defensive afraid for no particular reason that they will become outdated and unwanted, and the world goes on.

I personally think I would prefer a hand crafted sculpt, for the different sort of life that direct contact with your media gives it.

 

The main thing that concerns me is whether the piece is original, and if the sculpt is appealing to me. If the bjd in question is original and I find it captivating, I wouldn't mind whether it came to be via human hand or 3D technology.

I like to think I prefer stylistically the quirky proportions of handmade, but say someone offered a 1/3 or 1/4 scale bjd made from a scan of an actual human with appealing "imperfections". Really, it always comes down to the sculpt and the artistic integrity of the piece. I wouldn't appreciate it if the 3D artist or company said "I sculpted this by hand", when they used 3D imaging.

At the same time I don't think 3D tech is inherently more inclined to tweaking existing sculpts. A good majority of the sculpts out there look suspiciously alike to me. I hold certain heads in my hands and see "Oh. That's a sanded and re-worked F-09, wow" or "Oh no, another re-worked Unoa". It's always a joy to see something that's completely original, but if you ask me, it's very rare, no matter how the doll was made.

Raven

 

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.