原帖由 warxv 於 28-2-2008 04:01 PM 發表 http://www.toysdaily.com/discuz/images/common/back.gif
大姐姐: 再一次多謝你的回應. 呢編野只係有感而發,而且在不同時間用不同的心情寫下的,矛盾的地方其實很多.也情不用太介意. 玩具呢樣野範圍仍然很廣,有小朋友的,我們的hobby,火車,電玩,board game,真正的收藏級,由自己 ...
You are right, Art is an expressed form of the creator's interest. I refer some toys as ART because the original creator did used their personal interpretation to an already created character. Some toys are created as toys, but some are not, for some toys you can see the heart of the designer.
I think anything that required a person to design can be classified as ART. Whether it's a mindless/heartless piece of art or a touching piece of art it's still an art piece. Toy designer are artist, and it's sad when people don't realise that. That's why we cannot tolerate pirate copy of toys. They are stealing design, stealing art...
我間唔中都會同 d 玩具影下相, set 唔同既姿勢！重會幻想佢地打鬥中既情況！
雖然己經三張幾...但玩具的心, 至今不滅。
只怪總時沒有時間！:34:
好認同你呢句總結...
只要給小朋友最基本的玩具無需要發聲，無需要電動，給他們陪伴和想像的空間便足夠。
老實講,我細個果時...拎住一隻單色硬直超人公仔係手度舞下...都可以玩成個下晝....
我腦海入面就幻想佢會飛天,出拳,踢腳,射死光....都已經好滿足....
時代進步..玩具嘅雕功,上色,可動性,聲效,燈效都今非昔比....越來越精美....
有d產品直頭擺係度...入晒神望住佢都可以欣賞佢成個鐘...
現在,我依然會拎佢地上手舞一輪...set pose 重現佢地於故事中嘅情節....我就係咁樣去玩我d玩具..
以下係我嘅笑話一則...
之前最凍個幾日....我凍到玩具都懶得玩...坐在梳化,身體蓋住綿被....雙眼凝視住枱上嘅一堆星戰figure....
老婆突然話..."好驚~! 有人凍到唔願郁...但仍然用"大能"黎玩~~!"
哈哈哈~~~:DD
註: "大能"=原力(STARWARS 裡的"the force")
[ 本帖最後由 MAX 於 28-2-2008 06:00 PM 編輯 ]
原帖由 MAX 於 28-2-2008 05:58 PM 發表 http://www.toysdaily.com/discuz/images/common/back.gif
好認同你呢句總結...
只要給小朋友最基本的玩具無需要發聲，無需要電動，給他們陪伴和想像的空間便足夠。
老實講,我細個果時...拎住一隻單色硬直超人公仔係手度舞下...都可以玩成個下晝....
我腦海入面就幻想佢 ...
:DD 好正!你太太好明白你心啊~
再回下。
我有時都入d可玩性低的玩具，例如spawn，扭蛋…
擺設？都無位擺啦:die: 擺鬼擺馬咩~
見佢做得靚(可能只係重現到佢最型個幕…就忍唔住手了)
不過我諗我會繼續玩想玩既玩具。老左可能都仲會。
亦應該唔會諗咁多，可玩性同可觀性係唔同需求。兩樣都要滿足。:he:
不過近年真係玩少好多…:oh: 現實係，你玩唔哂出既玩具，睇唔哂上既戲…
可以玩時就玩啦。費事後悔…
娛樂應該係咁。思前想後的話…根本唔會開心。(當然玩到變煩惱就真係唔該檢討下:77: )
當有無限慾望而金錢和地方都有限，限制入境咪提高入境門欖。
(warxv兄，我都係想講就講，無咩起承轉合:64: 套你一句，隨心所慾啦)
原帖由 MAX 於 28-2-2008 17:58 發表 http://www.toysdaily.com/discuz/images/common/back.gif
好認同你呢句總結...
只要給小朋友最基本的玩具無需要發聲，無需要電動，給他們陪伴和想像的空間便足夠。
老實講,我細個果時...拎住一隻單色硬直超人公仔係手度舞下...都可以玩成個下晝....
我腦海入面就幻想佢 ...
之前最凍個幾日....我凍到玩具都懶得玩...坐在梳化,身體蓋住綿被....雙眼凝視住枱上嘅一堆星戰figure....
老婆突然話..."好驚~! 有人凍到唔願郁...但仍然用"大能"黎玩~~!"
So good point.
And for the last sharing,
:DD:DD:DD
老文 :
玩具當然最緊要happy,做人都要happy.
不過遊戲人生的人生觀唔係個個學得來,最少我就學唔來了.
Monutal:
仍然一句玩具層面仍然係好廣泛的,我們現在買的只係其中一少部份,我可以講產量唔多,不過售價高有市場所以不少廠商投入其中,導致我們布錯覺玩具已經轉形,可以講最少暫時未.無乜我地d玩具可以買100萬隻,但以前有忍者龜,有椰菜娃娃可以輕易達到的銷售量,一個小眾的市場雖然有影響力,但仍然未有能力改變玩具的存在模式.最少暫時仍然未得.
講咁大段野係想講明要大眾接受玩具係一件精品值一千幾百至一萬幾千已經唔容易,要佢地接受有art成份就難上加難,玩具其實係一個好界面去傳播藝術,因為互動性,親和力都係玩具的強項,用於表達感情的藝術應該係一個幾好的配合,可惜現在的玩具商業利益太大了,藝術如果出現在玩具上只會淪為搖錢機,只要你留心其實不難發現市面上有不少呢d例子的,港,日都係!
不過就我所知有一種玩具百年來都溶合了兩者,不過近年多只用藝術品的角度去看~[音樂盒]~有無想過音樂盒其實都係玩具?
你講toy designer are artist呢一句,我要講一句感激,因為我曾經都係toy designer.我由賣玩具到設計到生產都稍為做過一兩年,現在係一個單純的買玩具,玩玩具,介紹下玩具的人.不過正上面所講玩具牽涉到錢,在錢的主導下好多野都會變質,sic有幾多仲真係安藤,竹谷親自出手?山口式仲真係山口式?
設計一款玩具係要心血的,我仲有一款玩具的圖紙在電腦中,睇相睇到眼水都標埋,畫左幾個月一點問題就胎死腹中了...不過我認為一個成功玩具設計師的能力是玩的人感覺不到的,因為就係要做到在有限成本之下玩的朋友舒服,享受,可能會偶爾發現設計師花了一點心思,而你總不會發覺他如何偷工減料.
cclphx:
我跟你差不多,年齡都係,我都會幻想下邊隻好打d,邊隻係"武林"中排名第幾...
但都係總無時間.
MAX:
我係dark side的...
句總結係我老婆大人睇完編野寫的,佢教小朋友好明白什玩具對小朋友的意義,跟我們的好不同.
對住d玩具我都會想下佢有幾好打,故事中的招式可能未夠強,如果點樣可以更強一點,有沒有其他的能力運用方法,至於有d唔認識的角色就睇外形比個軍階佢,不過問題係現在家中軍團日多...
罪兄:
現在的門檻係地方,我堅持唔租倉,無地方就唔敢買,再買就要執屋捐d出去,呢條就係我的門檻及低線了.
其伙實又唔係玩得好煩惱,只係見有d人玩得好煩惱於是寫出來,心情不同,角度不同寫出來的也有不同,我只係見有d人玩得太執著,太片面,你仍然見到有d人回應我時仍然只認為我地玩的才是玩具,靚就足夠,甚至擁有已經足夠,咁樣多少已經偏離了玩具的層面了.
對著"玩具"時....把自己變番做小朋友...唔好諗咁多其他野囉...拾回"童真"...咁已經足夠...:61:
[ 本帖最後由 老文 於 29-2-2008 11:51 AM 編輯 ]
原帖由 warxv 於 29-2-2008 11:43 AM 發表 http://www.toysdaily.com/discuz/images/common/back.gif
老文 :
玩具當然最緊要happy,做人都要happy.
不過遊戲人生的人生觀唔係個個學得來,最少我就學唔來了.
Monutal:
仍然一句玩具層面仍然係好廣泛的,我們現在買的只係其中一少部份,我可以講產量唔多,不過售價高有市 ...
好哲學性既分析. :67:
謝謝分享當中睇法......:64:
原帖由 warxv 於 29-2-2008 11:43 AM 發表 http://www.toysdaily.com/discuz/images/common/back.gif
老文 :
玩具當然最緊要happy,做人都要happy.
不過遊戲人生的人生觀唔係個個學得來,最少我就學唔來了.
Monutal:
仍然一句玩具層面仍然係好廣泛的,我們現在買的只係其中一少部份,我可以講產量唔多,不過售價高有市 ...
Warxv, I do agree with you a lot of toys now are affected by Money. Price, production cost and marketing are issues with toy design since the first mass produced toy ever exist. But if you have been a designer I am sure you would agree that any designer are artist as well.
Everything has some value nowaday, nothing can get away with price. Even pure art form like painting and sculpture, they still have a price. The only thin that affect the "Art-ness" is the market size. Think about it this way, Furniture for example, can you call it a form of art? A lot of architect designed chair are classified as Art form. But it does has a very wild market, and production cost is a big issue that affect how the final product will be made out of. But no doubt, some carefully designed chairs have been treated as art. Let's take another example, a cup. There is a wide variety of cup available. Some are mindlessly created. Some are simple idea copy or cheap solution for budget cup. But some are innovatively designed. Can these carefully designed cup be called art?
If the above 2 example can be sees as art form, then why can't toy be treated the same way. Of course a lot of toys are mindlessly designed. Some are created just for money sake. But some are not. People collect antique because they thing the age and craftmanship of the items worth their attention. But if you look at all the antique carefully, back to their time, some of them may just be oridinary household items. It is time and the different in workmanship that make some people see them as a form of art.
This can again be applied to toys. If you look at some toys, some designer will use their interpretation and remodel existing figure. This is expressive form of art. To what degree, is entirely depend on the designer's will. But no doubt, if someone spend time to modify an existing character and remodel it into something that he/she think is more attractive, then it's a form of art. Some toy designer may not focus as much on the out look of the toy, and put a lot more mind into the transformation for example. This can be a art form again. The designer put his mind and heart to the transformation process is called a "Solution Artist". People will actually need to interact with it in order to feel the care the design has put into this toys.
Everything in to world that are created, someone must have put some mind into it. The word "ART" cannot cover them all, but people who respect the created product will see certain "ART-ness" in it.
講真,以前細個小學玩玩具真係好開心同難忘架,同而家好唔同,以前就你去玩玩具,但而家我諗係件玩具玩返你轉頭,check盒啊check有無塊面多條巴啊(花左),總之就做qc咁,bandai唔請你真係
If we look at both words Toy and Art in etymological sence, you will know the things (Toy) that most of the member in toysdaily collecting are not Toys.
In etymology Toy mean:
amorous playing, sport
piece of fun or entertainment
thing of little value, trifle
thing for a child to play with
tools, apparatus, stuff, trash
stuff, matter, tools
And for Art, it mean:
skill as a result of learning or practice
art, skill, craft
sense of "skill in scholarship and learning"
human workmanship
You see, Toys are in general mean things that not worth anything and trash. Due to the little value or even no value of the item, people will play around with it. After finish playing, they may not want it. But to us, the so call Toy that all the member are collecting in here, do have some meaning to them. They are no useless trash to us. They are piece of childhood memory. Some of the toy cost so much it cannot be see as toy. They are a creation of extended workmanship, skills, experience and study. Which in etymological sense, they are Art, not toy.
小時候玩具真係要黎玩:36: 還記得回力車同朋友仔在學校鬥快玩到要見家長:35: 超合金用黎同朋友仔打架 打到甩皮甩骨:35: 那時真的好好玩架,爛左唔見左就叫爸媽買過...現在...真係買左開盒放上飾櫃就算...睇見各大大的文章我覺得好對d玩具唔住...:63:
相信玩具能帶給個人什麼樣的感動與體認,任何物品都能買來玩或收藏,都是玩家才能去定位,在此不多做定論
每各玩物都有自己的故事與背景,就如同今日創作一各角色公仔,也需要完整刻畫出角色/個性/背景,在創作此時,已有足夠要素定位這是一件經過""設計""的物品,不論其魅力與吸引力如何,有人看對眼就會出高價買下,當然出發點不一定是作為商品,但我是認為玩具能給自己啟發的,不管是背景或造型或可動的設計,不管是當作擺飾或是養眼的女PVC...
個人覺得這是很主觀的認定法則,"玩具"是一敘述詞
不過材積真是大問題~~最近都改買小又好收納的玩具~可輪流放櫃上展示~
以上是個人意見~
things that manufactured by factory, can't call "arts" anymore.........:o
原帖由 kingeltshan 於 29-2-2008 03:09 PM 發表 http://www.toysdaily.com/discuz/images/common/back.gif
things that manufactured by factory, can't call "arts" anymore.........:o
But the design process is an act of art. You miss understand the term art meaning. Art does not have to be a single created item. Art is an product that show the exceptional skill to create that item. Will you call a designer chair an art form? If you say no then you are right in your own sense.