Hi dke,

You pose some interesting ideas but I suspect they are may be just a bit too superficial.

While one cannot deny that feet are certainly make it easier to walk are they really the most important factor? I would say that a proper sense of balance is equally if not more important. People have managed to "walk" without feet but I'm not so sure they can without balance. (of course, picturing pure "balance" visually may be a bit difficult)

Likewise, you suggest that the size of our hands do not warrant the amount of brain activity dedicated to them. But there is more than one way to measure size. If you consider the number of muscles within the hand that require attention and the massive amount of sensory data they detect, then the hand starts to look rather big indeed. I don't at all think that the amount of brain devoted to this is "overly" huge. In fact, it's just right or the brain likely wouldn't have evolved that way.

Good eye-hand coordination is certainly advantageous. But throughout history we have had blind people that, all things considered, have managed quite well for themselves. In part this may be because humans are social animals and thus may rely upon one another to some extent.

You are certainly correct in believing that we have special neural areas devoted to the task of walking (at least in general terms.) But then special areas of the brain are devoted to most of our functions such as smell, taste, etc. You are also correct in saying that our brain processes are largely subconcious. But that too is as it should be. If we had to pause to consider every response we would be forever frozen. The brain simply gets on with the job as there is no need to trouble the conscious mind with petty details. This is why most of the time we do not fall when we stumble.

I could go on but to little point. I do not mention these factors because I want to nitpick. It is just that when the basic premises are flawed then the conclusion must be suspect.

Nevertheless, you are on to something. Just what I am not sure. There have been exceptions but for the most part the exaggeration of our bodily extremities has not been common in historical art. For instance, if one wanted to portray someone who was particularly brilliant it would serve to provide the individual with a big head. Someone who would never shut up (like me) might be pictured with a big mouth. However, these devices seem to have been used infrequently.

Perspective in some historic art seems curiously distorted to our modern eyes. But that is often the result of our misunderstandings. The size of a pictured thing was not always governed by optical laws but often by their significance. So a man of important stature might be painted as very much larger than the servant who was actually closer to the viewer- especially in non-western cultures. Maybe this technique was a precursor to modern caricature? I don't know.

It seems that caricature, with its outsized features, is a relatively recent phenomena (but I'm not absolutely certain about this.) Perhaps it is because of the improvement in our social conditions we can now afford to be amused by absurdities. Conversely, we are undergoing a period of rapid social, economic and technological change. The stress of such change often leads us to seek refuge in unreality. This is often signaled by a general interest increase in things occult, alien and, yes, even a rise in religous activity.

Overall I disagree with you in that I think outsized appendages are strange. From when we first opened our eyes as infants we began to assess our world and form our expectations. Anything that does not conform to those long held expectations will necessarily be new and therefore strange. (note that strange is not to be confused with "bad")

But I certainly agree with you in that we pay an extraordinary amount of attention to human faces. It is one of our primary methods of non-vocal personal communication. When we want an important conversation we prefer a "face to face" discussion. This goes well beyond simple identification- I can recognize somebody a block away simply from body stance and gait. But nothing beats facial observation for detecting substance instead of form in communication. The human face has considerably more muscles than those of most other animals. Therefore it is quite natural that it should form a basis for communication just as other many other species communicate with colour or odour. (I'm trying to imagine having a conversation by smelling and I'm failing dismally. I think I feel purple.)

Within our own little Poser world perhaps the enthusiasm for toons is simply a backlash to 3D realism (naked Vickie in a temple not withstanding.) Perhaps it is merely a reflection of our childish glee in anything perceived to be new and different. Or maybe it is just time for a change.

In the end you have a hypothesis, not a theory. But who knows- you could be right... grin.

So now I've spent all these words merely to say I haven't a clue what the proper answer to your question might be. I doubt I ever will.

I must say that your Shazam does appeal to me even if I do not know why. Certainly there is a huge advantage in being able to use the clothing accesories I've already purchased. The only reason I haven't purchased her yet is that I am not quite certain what I would do with her. Ah well... this never stopped me before so it probably will not now either.

It will be interesting to see how this thread develops.

• Jack