The Stuffed Animal Review – a publication dedicated to the analysis of stuffed creature design and their larger worlds – is pleased to see you. Are you a new reader? Perhaps you might want to orient yourself before moving forward. A fuller explanation of The Review’s purpose can be found on the “Philosophy” page.
As for today’s post, welcome back to The Review’s guide to high quality stuffed animal design. The past two Saturdays introduced fundamental principles: the Axiom of Proper Abstraction and its corollary, the Corollary of Balance.
Remember your Axiom fundamentals. All stuffed creatures are a translation of a real-life animal. High-quality creatures take the essential characteristics of an animal as it is found in nature and abstract, modify, and distort these characteristics, rendering them cartoon-like and amusing.
The Corollary of Balance reminds us that this translation is an art that requires balance and elegance. It is easy to over, and under, do it – over-exaggerating features to monstrous proportions or simply xeroxing an animal’s real-world characteristics.
On to Stuffed Creature Design Part III, and The Review’s second Axiom, the Axiom of Essential Detail…
The translation of real-life animals to the realm of stuffed creatures requires attention to small-scale particulars. Essential details of real-world animals, such as specifically shaped and configured ears, eyes, snouts, wings, beaks, trunks, and fins, must be retained so the stuffed creature is instantly recognizable as a bear, duck, dog, cat, elephant, etc. Essential details give stuffed creatures an identity and personality, and help answer the question posed by the Axiom of Proper Abstraction: what makes a bear a bear?
Essential details must strike a balance between reality and distortion, just like the creature’s overall design. A meticulously translated wing or claw is best left for a natural history museum exhibit. But a poorly articulated wing or claw might look like nothing at all; just a stuffed lump of cloth. Some accuracy is required.
And not all features of a real-life animal should be translated. Particulars such as fangs, talons, scales, or whiskers are, at times, better left off. Essential details give a creature an identity, yes, but they also help give a creature amusing, playful qualities.
A designer, then, must think long and hard about what details to include, how to include them, as well as what details to filter out.
The Axiom in Action
We return to the elephant-orb from Stuffed Creature Design I for further explanation [Figure 1]. This little creature verges on “Over-Abstraction.” He is a tiny, soft orb, a design that has no relationship to a real-world elephant. He could easily be mistaken for a mouse. But this creature is instantly recognizable as a pachyderm because the designer included a recognizable trunk, billowing ears, and tusks. The tusks are an intelligent inclusion for they reinforce the fact that he is, indeed, an elephant. The other elephant highlighted in Stuffed Creature Design Part I has no need for ivory protrusions: he is more obviously an elephant in shape and form [Figure 2]. [Remember this is Tucker and Frazier, Review staffers. See Staff Directory for their profiles.]
 |
| Figure 1 |
 |
| Figure 2 |
The duck in Figure 3 is a similar example of the elephant-orb above. The designer chose to abstract the shape of a real-world baby duck into a sphere. If the elephant above is an orb, this creature is a hacky sack. This duck, however, is undeniably a duck because of his orange beak, subtly webbed feet, and tiny wings. It is important for this little creature that his details are well-designed: unarticulated orange stumps or misshapen lumps for wings could lead to an identity crisis. His well-crafted detail makes him a duck, allowing his abstraction to provide amusement. [Note: this is Mush, yet another Review staffer. Click on “Staff Directory” for more on Mush].
 |
| Figure 3 |
Let us look at an Axiom of Essential Detail failure. The creature in Figure 4 is very similar to the elephant and baby duck above: all three are circular distortions of a real-world animal. But what exactly is the creature in Figure 4? A hamster? A mouse? A gerbil? A guinea pig? The ears, feet, hands, and face are poorly articulated. They suggest “rodent” but do not point to a particular type of rodent. It appears the designer was more concerned with creating a ball to fit Ty’s Beanie Ballz line than creating a well-crafted creature.
 |
| Figure 4 |
Another potential mistake when applying the Axiom of Essential Detail is the translation of too many details, or the wrong details. Designers must be careful in choosing which features of an animal to include and which features to filter out. Two different Beanie Baby lobsters illustrate this statement. Pinchers, one of the original nine Beanie Babies, is a well-designed creature [Figure 5]. Simplicity works with this lobster because it helps translate a mildly frightening crustacean into an amusing and benign friend. H. Ty Warner wisely left out a lobster’s numerous pereiopods, or walking legs, which resemble a spider and, therefore, are creepy-crawly. Instead, he highlighted what makes a lobster a lobster: large pinching claws. But note how these claws are comforting, with their rounded, soft edges. And the long, probing, insect-like antennae of a lobster are translated into sweet black whiskers. It is the simple translation of essential details which makes this lobster cuddly.
 | ||
| Figure 5: http://world.ty.com/images/products/11514_lg.gif |
 |
| Figure 6: http://world.ty.com/images/products/972_lg.gif |
The shark in Figures 7&8 is a nuanced case study of the Axiom of Essential Detail. The designer veers close to “Under-Abstraction” with this creature. Unlike the elephant and duck above, the shape and proportion of a real-world shark is barely tweaked. He is an elongated, streamlined tube with pectoral, dorsal, and caudal fins, a fairly accurate translation of the ocean predator’s form. But this translation does not guarantee his identity as a shark. The essential detail for this creature is his red mouth and triangular felt teeth. Without this detail, you might mistake him for a dolphin. The particulars of his teeth also save him from blandness. Stitching the teeth so they jut out from the mouth was a subtle, but important positioning. They are reminiscent of a buck-toothed kid, giving the shark a clumsy, awkward appearance that is endearing. The designer also intelligently filtered out further details of a real-world shark, such as gills and secondary fins. Such particulars would clutter the design and render this shark dangerously life-like. [Note: this is Sharkie, a Review staffer. Visit the Staff Directory for his bizarre profile.]
 | |
| Figure 7 |
 |
| Figure 8 |
Concluding Thoughts on The Review’s Two Axioms
As you go out into the stuffed creature world armed with The Review’s Axioms it is important to remember two things. First, there is a fluid relationship between the Axiom of Proper Distortion and the Axiom of Essential Details. Designs that pass muster strike their own balance between proper distortion and essential features. If a design is sub-par according to one Axiom, creativity and skill with the other could save a stuffed creature from mediocrity, or scathing Review commentary.
Second, the Axioms are principles; philosophical statements on stuffed creature design that represent a general approach. For those seeking a high-quality stuffed creature, the Axioms will help you weed out atrocities and sharpen your eye for superb design. They are helpful reference points rather than rules or formulas that can be followed to a predictable conclusion. The two Axioms work together to shepherd one in the process of analyzing stuffed creatures.
Caveat of Brilliance
Can a stuffed creature adhere to the Axiom of Proper Abstraction and Axiom of Essential Detail, the and still not be brilliant? Absolutely.
This caveat recognizes the vagaries of personal taste and the magical qualities of individual-stuffed creature relationships.
There is a difference between an object being well-designed and an object being liked and admired. Two people eyeing a stuffed creature might agree the animal is a success under the Axiom of Proper Abstraction and the Axiom of Essential Detail. But one might label the creature mediocre, the other brilliant. The creature just did not “grab” the first person, while it has the other by the lapels. The “brilliant” label, then, is a matter of personal taste.
The ability of a well-designed stuffed creature to “grab” someone hints at a magical connection. Brilliant design is like love. There are no sure-fire step-by-step rules that lead to either. There is a certain spark, an indescribable feature beyond words that is the key to brilliance and love. There comes a certain point in describing a brilliant stuffed animal where you run out of adjectives. The only expression left is to hold out your hands and stutter, just…look at him. Ask someone why they love another individual and a similar conclusion may be reached: I…I just do.
The fundamental principles of high-quality stuffed creature design are now set in electronic stone, and will be archived as a “Core Principles” page. But there are still issues to discuss and ponder, such as fur, softness, size, and accessories. Next Saturday The Review issues a warning regarding the State of Fur in the United States.
No comments:
Post a Comment