It is cool that we can agree on that. You know, I tried to appreciate the fight figures and I just couldn't. I must be missing something. I'm a never say never kinda guy, so maybe one day something will click and you'll start seeing posts in the 'wanted' section begging for rare fight figures. I hope not, though, because that way lies insolvency. I am aware of the origins of this message board and that's why up until now I've mostly kept my opinions on fight figures to myself. That opinion is kinda out of place here and I only mentioned it now to make a point. I'll put the lid back on it now.
there is some insteresting debate going on in this thread. it all comes down to personal taste and perspective. the skullbrain is 'just' a squished devil bado with boxing gloves, balzac is 'just' a re-hash of the misfits, gargamel is 'just' some old bootleg vinyls re-made to be a bit more appealing, rxh is 'just' some ninja turtle/dragonball characters with cut-off shorts, and godzilla is 'just' a dinosaur. im not trying to invalidate your opinion on the unkl brand stuff, its not my personal cup of tea either. i just think its interesting to note that everything that is popular here is crap from a different perspective, and the stuff many of us here consider crap is someone elses favorite.
I agree with you, Josh (as the last sentence of the post you pulled that quote from shows). And your RxH example is exactly why I don't like a lot of RxH sculpts - the DBZ influence just isn't for me. But where your examples differ from Unkl, IMO, is that Secret Base, RxH, Gargamel, etc aren't merely using building blocks to achieve their sculpts. I might not like the sculpts, but they're putting more thought and effort into it than it appears Unkl is putting into theirs. They're taking an influence and doing their thing with it. It's pretty easy to make an inoffensive design when you're just sticking together basic shapes - it's a lot more difficult when you're creating new shapes. Chronic is a perfect example - really creative and different sculpts that I respect despite not liking the sculpts. Anyway - as you said, diff'rent stokes! Just trying to explain why I think Unkl sucks, instead of just saying "they suck".
I wonder if Unkl toys are designed on a computer, or using conventional drafting tools? As with many "western" art toys, they appear to be, whereas by contrast Japanese monster toys tend to have an organic hand-drawn/sculpted look and feel ... because that's exactly how most of them are designed.
But some people just have BAD taste no matter how you cut it. However, on Unkl I can understand that some people would like it and chalk it up to different tastes, rather than bad taste.
the point i was trying to make is the good and bad taste are entirely subjective. there is no such thing as good or bad art, only good and bad based on some set of assumptions. one person's trash is another's treasure and all that. i think you could make just as strong of an argument for gargamel's zagoran being an uninspired, un-sophisticated design when you put it next to the original. same for smogun, the garg microman, etc, etc. (for the record, i personally dig most of gargamel's figures). to say that some designs are universally good or bad, or sophisticated or lazy or whatever, can only be true from a certain point of view. this is largely academic, and doesnt really matter in the end, and i dont collect unkl brand anyway. but im sure they work hard and are nice folks with good ideas, albeit from a different creative perspecitve than most of the folks here
I agree with everything you've said EXCEPT the above. I refuse to believe this. There is BAD and there is GOOD and no amount of argument can change the fact that something is bad or something is good. However, it's rare that something exists on these ends of the spectrum. Most everything falls somewhere in the middle where an argument can be made one way or the other and this is what makes up a person's "taste".
facts are either correct or incorrect. opinions are neither, and this is where art critique falls. if i said i didnt care for country music, and therefore everyone who makes and appreciates country music is flat-out wrong, i would be making a pretty offensively arrogant statement. what if two people look at the same painting, and one person loves it and the other does not. does that mean one of them is correct, and the other is an idiot? or just wrong? you can only take that stance if you acknowledge a set of rules or parameters. a piece of art (or music, or writing or whatever) that fails to achieve its goal could be considered a bad example of that type of art. for example, if i set out to paint a realistic portrait and end up with one big blue circle on the canvas, i did a pretty lousy job. on the other hand, if i were attempting to convey something else, that piece could be a success. some people will prefer to look at a realistic portrait, some will more appreciate the big blue dot, others still will enjoy both or neither. can you really say that any of them are flatly wrong?
Warning! Warning! One of THOSE xoco-posts follows... Josh is obviously correct about aesthetic assessments existing within the framework of artificial standards, if that's not twisting his words too much, but there's an extent to which some degree of aesthetics are "universal," the human organism being what it is. This is discussed a bit in Oliver Sacks' most recent book "Musicophilia" in which he talks about the neurological basis for why chromatic scales in music have an instant resonance for people around the world regardless of their cultural indoctrination. Plato and other "classical" thinkers had a bit to say about this that seems wise to this day too, at least in spirit. A person can somtimes see the grace and beauty in an artistic tradition with entirely different aesthetic standards from the ones that they know best or even prefer. As an obvious example, in western art, "negative space" isn't emphasized nearly as much as it is in traditional Asian arts, but a westerner can still appreciate that emphasis in Asian art, and see its beauty. (Is this making sense?) What I'm getting at is to argue a little against the idea that there's no such thing as good or bad art. From there it gets a lot more hairy, but as a gross generalization, I reject ideas like "art means whatever it means to you" or "all standards of good or bad are entirely artificial." That's only true to an extent. Factors such as asessment of whether or not the artist's intention was conveyed well, quality or finesse of execution etc. really do matter. An informed opinion is generally more valuable than an uninformed dismissal ... it's not all the same. Not all opinions stink. Some can seed their object with connotations, enhance the work, open eyes and minds and hearts. Conversely, a smart on-the-mark critique can devastate something that might have seemed neutral, had the critique not been considered. I keep coming back to the Mook manifesto, which truly is a manifesto in the tradition of early 20th century art manifestos, which were very passionate if sometimes a bit obscure and at times even silly. For example Brian or whomever wrote it makes good points about why platform toys lack the soul that the toys within the Mook have more of. It's not merely taste existing in a vacuum ... there are definable criteria of critique. The UNKL robot, to my eye, is aesthetically very good. It's not in poor taste. The proportions and concept are excellent and the execution appears to be great, too. However, it's not to my taste personally. There's a big difference IMHO. It's not bad just because little me doesn't like it. /pompous rant
Wow xoco! You should have the official skullbrain title of "person who puts it all in perspective." Excellant points!
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm trying to say. Whether something is liked or disliked doesn't necessarily have anything to do with whether something is Good or Bad (capital G/B denoting that it's a fact, not opinion). I dislike a lot of stuff, but I don't classify it as Bad - Cronic figures being an example from above. Someone can look at a Michelangelo painting and not like it, or appreciate it, but if they say it's Bad they are wrong.
Xoco nails it again. now get over there tot he Japan forum and write an analysis on the Junginan archetype of the one-eye lizard know as Zag and why every company in Japan feels compelled to release one. joshing you a bit cause I love your posts - but seriously any insight on the current Zag craze
the words of xoco just make everything so clear... well said, here here...!!! let's all have a beer and play with our favorite toys...!!!
i think i understand you, but i respectfully disagree, and think good/bad or Good/Bad are subjective. its a really fascinating discussion though! a nice change of pace from endless threads on the ass-kicking of RxH. if i start something with a capital letter, does that make it fact?
The Zagora thing is easy to figure out: no license fee for the character, more profit for the maker. D'ya think anyone is getting royalties from Real Head for Lucky Cat? ;p Incidentally (and back on topic), I've heard that licensing MaK products is not cheap, and that Yokoyama-san is pretty exacting when it comes to the approval process.
Sorry if this is just adding noise...but since art was brought up, I've got a question. What about that whole thread from the other day...which turned out to be a hoax or exaggeration about that artist in some bienalle who tied up that dog and starved it. If that actually happened and someone did that for the sake of art, would that be considered "bad" art? challenging art? I'm one to agree that "bad" art doesn't really exist(I think), different sure....but for some reason I can't wrap my head around the above situation. I must be missing some kinda perspective. On a side note...lol at data and the jungian analysis essay I've got some ideas as to why a male dominated society like Jpn, likes 1 eye'd lizards....but then again it's only one aspect hehe
me? i wanna know why you guys are sniffing all these assholes! yeah i know they stink but you only gotta smell one to know.
