some call them pieces of art, some call them toys. what's your angle?

I voted "toys" because my shelves are filled with them, not art.

the person who sculpted my toys, designed the paint scheme, and then actually painted them IS an artist... not to be confused with someone who does arts & crafts.

they are toys and dollies...no discussion

Function vs Expression. A never-ending debate !
(I voted Art, to balance things up)

This is going to turn into the worst thread ever, isn't it?

Art!! I love horkey,Garcia,Pushead,Jay,Bratrud and Baizley etc... But I like toy.

Dolls or 'things' as my wife calls them.

kinda obvious

I call them toys.

However, I do understand why others could call it art.

Some toys are actually probably art too.

/thread

I collect toys, not art pieces.

Is this kid robot in 2002?

i'd say toys. if one of my friends that doesn't collect saw my collection, i'm sure they would ask what kind of toys they are, rather than what kind of art it is.

i can see where people would say they are "art" in a way. when gargamel does one offs or pushead handpaints his figures, it definitely feels more like an art piece than a toy.

but in the end, i still see them as toys.

I find it sad that we don't think of them as both. For me, to say AA or Rich or Paul are not artist is way too business man of the 60's. For far to long comic artists, toy designers and such were looked at like factory workers. I am pretty sure this was bullshit. If there is no art involved then we should all be pumping out masterpiece toys. I don't consider Joel's paintings, Rich's sculpting or Paul's airbrushing, to simply be work output and it saddens me people still treat it that way. I spent years learning to smith knives and swords and believe me, the best are artists of the highest caliber. There is a place were craft and art overlap and when dealing with such a creative craft, it is easy for me to classify our toys as both. Like I said on another forum, if there is no artistic component then we are complete fucking morons for paying popular art prices for pieces of plastic. Rare or not, the artist behind the toy makes the demand. I could put out a super limited piece tomorrow and I would bet there wouldn't be much of of a clamor over grabbing one. A quick look at a great toy and a crappy one should show the influence art has on the outcome. There should be a third voting option of "both".

Well, I've done a "Designer toy" and I can guarantee you no-one outside of the VERY small designer toy industry would call it anything but a toy....and I'm talking about the sportos, the non-open minded business professionals etc. I think if it's not actually associated with a piece of art before hand and is actually promoted as being directly linked to that art it's just a toy. Smash Tokyo is about to do a robot kaiju/sofubi that is from an art print but it's still going to be "just a toy"....the print was done to promote the toy, not to be arty.
There are platform toys that have designs on them that I think of as art toys but only when the platform is used as an actual canvas for "art" and not a specific design....and those are the sort of toys we don't often see here on SB.
Obviously, like Daimyo has pointed out, The people who paint and do the designs ON the toys are artists in their own right but then maybe we should say that what we own are "toys with art on them" but they are still toys.
I don't know, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

I say art.... I just can't really think of some of my "grail" Pushead pieces as toys.... Especially after what I paid for them. Toys are played with, these things sit in a glass case untouched and are stared at.... My wife calls them dolls when she's pissed at me...

I lean more towards them being toys but agree that they can walk a fine line towards art. In the end you can't really argue that they aren't a toy(although it would be fun to try), so they are either just toys or both art and toys.

Toy side:
I understand that an artist or designer is involved in the making of the toys we collect, but it is still a toy. You can pick any man made object that is made in production and it will always have 1 or a team of artists or designers that influence what it looks like. The level of artistry and craftsmanship may vary but it is always there in any product. Think about shoes, cars, furniture; some are well made and nicely designed and are also bordering on being called art among certain people.

Art side:
On this end you can argue that the toys we collect are mostly limited quantity much like sculptures that are cast in editions or prints. There are also the many artists that cross over mediums from painting to toy making so the line gets blurred further.

They are Toys. Labeling them art is wanky.

Good points all round.

That exactly. If you put a toilet in a museum...

How many of you actually play with your "toys"? Dis-play does not count.

(I'd vote collectable figurines myself)

who could look at this shit headed beast and not think its art ?!?

Ha Ha ウン面犬

Hmmm, if you buy toys and consider them as art, I guess that makes you a t-art.

Museum of toilets:

I want to go there with a busload of preschoolers who are being potty trained.

Without getting to analytical (I'll try) certain 'toys' are not meant to be played with, at least not hard....would you want to risk scuffing a $300 + toy? A fine line exists between art & toy, in reality all toys are art and in some ways much art are toys....if these things weren't creative and 'artistic' they would be boring. It takes a good amount of art savvy to create a toy. As an adult who loves vinyl toys, they are art to me and just toys...

i think of toys like prints- but they are just toys anyway.