Hi Lyrra, and all the other's who asked the same question :) I find the question fascinating, and intend to provide my own so called 'reasons', but this is meant to be an open conversation about, and not a justification for one view or the other. I made Shazam because the style appealled to me, and not for any specific market considerations - Bratz or otherwise. In fact I didn't know what a Bratz was until somene else brought it up. So I wasn't trying to catch-a-wave, just using my existing talents to amuse myself. I'll have to say, the interest shown from other people was absolutely the impetus to create a full-blown product. If it hadn't been for the interest of certain specific individuals here at Rend, it would have remained on my HD along with the 100+ other ideas that I founds amusing but no one else did :) So why is it appealing? I'm not a psychologist so I'm guessing, but my own pet theory is this: When people look at each other they focus on the face. I don't mean boy/girl interaction, but day-to-day occurances at work, on the subway/bus, with your parents/ etc. There is a REALLY big chunk of your brain assigned with the 'look' of other people, and the largest part of that is with their facial features. Similarly, there is an overly huge part of you brain allocated to hand and finger manipulation simply because you need good eye-hand coordination to even exist. Perhaps not (and hopefully not) in this day and age, but the average person uses their hands and the individual digits so much that there has to be a significant amount of your brain allocated to handling it, no matter how subconscious that may be. Thirdly, the other most common human task is to move about, and baring accidents and deseases, the most often used method is walking. ... The most important aspect of walking is your feet, so I think you proabably have specially built neuronal nets to deal with that. So with those three facts, I think the most important parts to a person genetically are facial recognition, hand-eye coordination, and transportarion of your body/brain round and abouts where ever it wishes to go. So my basic theory is that people are interested in those things because they are the most important to them in day-to-day life. I think you're brain actually reseverves 'extra' brain cells to keep trak of some of those things. So... The big head isn't strange because it partially mirrors our own genertic/neuronal makeup of concentrating a LOT of our internal processing power on specifically that task. Similar for the hands... Although you don't spend much time thinking about what your hands are doing, they definately have control of a much larger group of nuerons than their size would warrant The feet the same - If you stub your toe and stumble, your brain and hands won't help much except to cushion the fall. If you happen to be being chased by 'something' dangerous at the moment, having the ability to 'fall nice' probably isn't as useful as being able to run fast. So that's my story... I think people are amused, fascinated, appaled, and reviled simply because that image played into their own genetic pre-delection and pre-focus on facial, hand and feet images. The two most common 'fetishes' are hand and foot, and if you have a fetish for looking at peoples faces, then you're just normal :) Enough of me, I'd like to hear where this goes...

Besides a software programmer it sounds like you could make a great pyschologist or neurologist! I doubt that most people put so much thought into making something like this. A some of the initial reactions may sound negative, but as someone who occassionally listens to classical music stations (as well as Jazz) I have often heard the announcer say (after playing a piece that has become a standard that everyone loves) that "when this piece was first played, critics panned it, audiences booed," etc. And then it goes on to become a hit and huge favorite! On the JAZZ note- Duke Ellington said, "If it sounds good, it IS good!" (You don't have to worry about what critics think if the public likes it anyway).

So you think we're just in search of our inner homunculus? If so, then whoever models this should be rolling in the dough. ;-)

I'm not sure that would pass the Duke Ellington test! (Also, that doesn't seem to be a "toon", but an extremely bad hit of acid! What are they putting that stuff, rat poison?)

I admit I couldn't quite see the appeal when these threads started. But - not being able to afford Shazam (or anything else for that matter) - when I tried playing with Vicki's proportions, I came up with this, which I find very striking. DKE, you have my total admiration for the work you've obviously put in on the hands, not to mention all the technical stuff. I had to fiddle and fiddle with the joint editor on Vicki's hands before I had anything even remotely passable.

To be perfectly honest, I've seen some GORGEOUS pixie/fairy type images featuring Shazam. I can see how the character can be appealing. She doesn't really appeal to me, though (at least not yet; as I see more of her I may change my mind a bit). I think it's mostly a "personal taste" type thing and also a "what you do" type thing... Now if there was a similarly styled MALE version, I might very well consider getting both, because I like to see well-populated worlds (and I like boys, what can I say ;). I can see some interesting gnome/pixie type images that could be done with the characters. I think it's a cool concept, and very well executed. Just isn't my cup of tea. Doesn't mean I think it's BAD tea or anything. ;) bonni

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

Hi Jack. Good points! I didn't mean to suggest that brain size was 'overly' allocated for hands/etc, since you are absolutely correct that it would have evolved differently. I also stand corrected that it's a hypothesis and not a theory :) And a bit superficial I realize :) Although I could be a little finnicky and say that since we are dealing with visual arts here, we are by definition dealing with the superficial :) The blind angle is a very interesting one I hadn't considered. I did work with a blind programmer many years back when I was working up in the far, Canadian North (basically equivalent to Alaska) He used to delight in our weekly power outages since he was perfectly comfortable in the dark, and he'd just wander around scarring the jeepers out of the rest of us stumbling around :) I never did ask him how much of his brain he used for facial recognition. Obviously he wouldn't need the visual processing facilities, but perhaps they use some of it for the touch/feel type of recognition. The whole neural processing area and how your brain is laid out in discreet areas to handle specific body part is quite fascinating. More fascinating is how the visual neural encoding is laid out in 3D layers. Then there is the whole memory thing, and how it encodes and cross references things in order to bring back entire scenes including visual as well as sounds and smells. I'm WAY out of my league there, and not certain it has any relevance to a particular art style. It would be interesting to see a nerve density drawing or illustration, just to see where the most heavily populated areas were. Likely the hands and face are fairly dense with nerves endings, although I'm not to sure if that would be true of the feet. I never realized the over sized proportions was a relatively new issue. Especially the caricature angle. I suppose I've always been subjected to it so considered it 'normal'. Mad magazine has been around since I was a little kid, and a significant proportion of newspaper cartoons and comix have always had at least a bit of this. It's a fascinating topic though, and I appreciate the comments. I certainly didn't mean to portray my 'hypothesis' as anything but a wild idea :) Maybe true, maybe not, but it's kind of an interesting idea to consider.

Hi Elizabyte. There definately will be a male version! The Victoria 1/2 version is just the first of four. There is also versions for M1/2, V3 and M3. These are all nearing completion and now that the V1/2 version has finally been released, I am working closely with DAZ on the release schedule for the other's. Personally I prefer the 1/2 versions since they are a lot easier on system resources, plus I have a TON more stuff for them than for the version 3 characters. The increased poly density does offer some additional possibilities though. The caricature angle being the most obvious of those, and there are discussions being held specifically on that topic. Thanks for the coments Karen. I think you did an excellent job there!

...I never realized the over sized proportions was a relatively new issue. Again, I must emphasize that this is purely personal observation. "Supersizing" did crop up occassionally, particularly in various forms of aboriginal art. Perhaps I should also say that my use of "relatively recently" encompasses the last couple of hundred years. I stress that my opinions given in my previous posting are mostly just that- opinions. ...Obviously he wouldn't need the visual processing facilities, but perhaps they use some of it for the touch/feel type of recognition. Which leads to another aspect all together, though related. It seems reasonable that the way an artist depicts the world would be affected by his/her senses as well as social sensibilities. Someone who is colour blind or extremely near sighted would likely have a very different impression of the world. We tend to portray people as beautiful, especially in the Poser galleries. But I recall when, as a youngster, I first needed glasses for my near sightedness. I was horrified at the ugliness of people with all those gigantic pores and blemishes on their faces. It took months before I would wear my glasses around people. How would I have painted them under those circumstances? Probably with really big faces LOL! - Jack

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=512188

Hi Elizabyte. Just for interests sake for people asking about male version's, here's a simple pic from back in October. He wasn't completed but was fairly close. I've had to concentrate on the V1/2 version since, but now can get back to him. AFTER I write those tutorial's people are asking for :)

jval- (Glad you mentioned the aboriginal art aspect-like what you have been adding- very thoughtful stuff!) --That's because it seems that ANCIENT cultures did a lot of caricuring and human body distortion- Hawaiian Tiki's come to mind immediately! BIG HEADS on little bodies. It seems some of it was actually done with a sense of HUMOR too, not just to be scary or weird. The whole Easter Island Aku-Aku statues are of course 90% BIG HEADS on little bodies- and these islanders were VERY SERIOUS about this. Especially to make the out of GIANT stone blocks and move them great distances in big arrays, all facing in the same direction. INCA and MAYAN cultures also show caricurized dolls and worship items. A great deal of INCA-MAYA art could almost be "characturized" as TOON ART! (At least from a layman point of view- and some fun-loving archeologists).

veritas... by aku-aku you're referring to the MOAI statues?? as probably you know, easter island belongs to Chile, my native country, so I know a thing or two about them :)

Okay, I gotta admit, he makes me giggle. :) He's damned cute. bonni

Again some interesting thoughts. Unfortunately, much of it is unsupported by evidence. Many, many people do have an automatic positive response to infants. But far too many do not. I am one of those who have absolutely no use for them. Now some may consider me aberrant but I am hardly alone. One need only look at the horrific record of child abuse within our society to know protective love of infants is hardly a universal human trait. India has one of the the world's largest populations and they have found it necessary to actually pass laws against killing newborn female infants. Tales of infanticide litter both mythology and religion. Traits that are truly evolutionary in origin are necessarily autonomic and not so easily eliminated by factors of culture or convenience. The similarity between infantile and toon head sizes may be a partial answer to toon popularity. But just as not everyone likes children not everyone likes big-headed toons. This would be unlikely if an opposing evolutionary imperative was indeed in force. While true that humans have become one of the world's most succesful predators it is precisely because of our "big thinking and frontal lobe activity", not in spite of it. Strip this away and we become simply another popular item on the world's menu. Nor are we the only animals with the ability to "speak" or pass on knowledge to future generations. Crows in particular have been discovered to have an exceedingly rich language within their own society. They use tools and individuals have even been observed to have favourite tools that they keep. Evidence suggests they will even travel long distances to vist friends or family. One member (female) of a snow monkey troop proved to be extradorinarily intelligent, probably a monkey genius. She discovered a number of new techniques such as washing food, etc. Not only were these procedures adopted by the troop they were susbsequently taught to future generations. Then there is the extraordinary instance of the humpback whale's song which can span oceans. Now I have no idea what they are singing but surely nature did not confer this ability simply because the whales had nothing to say to one another. These are just a few of numerous recorded examples. As far as we know, a cat cannot tell about a cat who lived a thousand years ago. BUt how is this a factor in "suvivability"? The world has millions and millions of species, none of whom intentionally recorded information for posterity. Yet by definition their survival has not been compromised. Indeed, we have species today that preceded the arrival of dinosaurs yet still remain virtually unchanged. There are considerably more biological families than "bugs" that are ahead of us in the survival sweepstakes. Nematodes and protozoans come immediately to mind, both of which exceed us in adabability, frequency and species longevity. Even grass has us outnumbered. It would appear that the ability to record information and history is not a requirement for a species to survive. However, I agree that humans excel in recording and distributing information and that this is possibly the single most important factor in our apparent dominance. One should also note that our period of dominance has been so short as to be merely a blip on the evolutionary or geological scale. There is no hard evidence to support a belief that it will last until the world winds down. Thus how significant recorded knowledge is remains unknown. Humans are not the only species that shares a common preliminary respiratory and digestive tract. Animals such as insects do breath via a completely different system than the digestive one. They have holes along their sides and oxygen sort of just leaks in (recent evidence suggest this may actually be a bit more complicated.) But mammals share a common blueprint. While this changes from species to species the variations at a fundamental level are rather small although the apparent diferrences may appear large. Reduced to its essence our elemental design is that of a hollow tube. I am not sure why you think that a shared respiratory and digestive path is a crucial requirement for the ability to speak. Certainly this is the way it has developed in our species but I can easily envision many alternative mechanisms. For instance, octopi are know to be exceedingly intelligent and to have remarkable control over bodily colouration. It is not too far fetched to ponder the feasibilty of such colour control as the basis of a language. We also know that the octopus' eye is remarkably efficient and this too would support such a possibility. In the end it is only a colossal human conceit that leads us to believe that there are always simple answers to apparently simple questions. While recorded knowledge is most helpful it is a mistake to assume that this knowledge is necessarily correct. For example, I recall a book published some time ago called The Secret Life of Plants. The experiments and conclusions it presented had the potential to reshape our view of the world. I believe even the BBC produced a documentary on the subject. But one fact was rarely seen published. That fact was that no other lab was ever able to duplicate the experiments and the results in questions. Nor was the experiment's author while under observation. One should not forget the fundamental principle of computer programmers- GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out.) The sad fact is that too many answers to fundamental questions merely give birth to new questions. The more we learn the less we know and I still do not know why big-headed toons are appealing to me. - Jack

I agree the historical humanity of people towards children is nothing short of atrocious, but I still think it is at least part of the answer. Obviously people are affected to different degrees, and I think it's more of a sliding scale rather than an on/off switch. When that gets far enough to the off side as to condone murder though, whether infanticide, genocide, or one to one, I suspect those people/societies have more serious problems to deal with. The world is overly abundant with serial killers, mass murder's, genocidal maniacs, and all kinds in between and beyond. I do think this points out that genetic evolution is as happy to mess with 'good' traits as with 'bad'. They say the line between genius and maniac is a thin one, and I suspect that may be true for the rest of us average people as well. Most do manage to control it though, and I think in general people really do have a protective affinity towards children. Part of it may be that they are immediately recognizeable as non-threatening, and so a person can comfortably drop their guard and 'study' the 'object'. Which often times can lead to noticing positive or appealing factors. I think there is also a human vs non-human aspect to it. For example, very few people would consider a T-Rex 'cute' simply because he has that gigantic head :) Quite the opposite, I think more people would find the Brontosaurus far more cute, what with their relatively tiny little head in comparison to body size. Similarly, I don't think the ancients would have been as fearful of running into a Minotaur if he'd had a tiny little head the size of an Orange :) The head is only part of it though, and Tolkien tapped into that when creating the Hobbits, which are generally considered 'cute'. They have the big feet and I believe big hands, (at least in the story if not the movie,) but with relatively 'normal' sized heads. The Tolkien Dwarves had larger heads though, and aren't generally considered as cute, except in a gruff manner. That could have as much to do with the way they were portrayed though, so would be more societal oriented rather than long term genetic. I'm not sure there's actually an answer to all this :) but it sure is an interesting topic. Enough so as to solicit differring opions anyways, and that's almost always a good thing.

...but I still think it [a general love of children] is at least part of the answer. Agreed and I think I said so. I suspect that the answer, if there is one, will not be due to any single factor. Rather it will likely be the result of many interacting social and biological responses. ...I do think this points out that genetic evolution is as happy to mess with 'good' traits as with 'bad'. Absolutely. "Good" and "bad" are human inventions. Evolution doesn't actually care one way or the other nor can it. Things that work for a species tend to stick around. Those that don't, don't. This becomes more apparent when one thinks, as I do, that a human being is simply a mechanism by which a gene perpetuates itself. Personality, intelligence, self-awareness are all mere side effects. I, for one, am rather grateful for these side effects. ...I suspect those people/societies have more serious problems to deal with. True enough. But long held customs or beliefs often originate from very real needs. From our distant viewpoint a custom may appear barbaric but this does not mean it wasn't necessary at the time. Generally these customs were the response to those serious problems. Survival requirements can be distressingly direct and pragmatic. So tell me dke... when you first started to develope Shazam did you ever anticipate it would lead to such a discussion as this? Grin... - Jack

Right :) Them gene's are nasty things. No morals or nothing :) And long held custom's and beliefs can be just as bad, or even worse. Sometimes I'm amazed the human race did survive. I don't think it's anywhere's near as resilient as most of us would like to think, and the juries definately still open on just how long that survival will last. Especially considering how determined we seem to be to annihilate each other, not to mention the environment. Not that I'm a tree-hugger, but I sometimes think the 'world' might be better off if/when the humans exterminate themselves :) "So tell me dke... when you first started to develope Shazam did you ever anticipate it would lead to such a discussion as this? Grin..." Or perhaps I had a burning desire to hold this discussion, and subconsciously created Shazam just to facilitate it? :) But absolutely not! I just thought she was cute :) My biggest surprise was that I was not alone in that, and find it pretty fascinating trying to understand what small aspects might add up to provide a more wide spread acceptance, and a generally positive response. Must be something generically understandable in it. If somebody ever figures out exactly what, then I guess we're in trouble - Kind of like one of those Sci-Fi/Horror stories where the evil 'machines/aliens/scientists' take over the world and enslave humanity by giving them exactly what they want :)

kayarnad- Nice to know you folks are taking care of Easter Island (or whatever the Chileans may call it. Your previous references were on Nauru- so I kind of thought that you must be living out there! First time to see someone working on a 3D Nauru-City idea!) Anyway- I called the Easter Island heads Aku-Aku because my brain no longer thinks as fast as it used to and I wanted to say MOAI, but couldn't remember how to SPELL it (Duh!) so I went with my recollection of Thor Hyerdahls (sp?) book back in the 1960's (?) called "Aku-Aku" But you are right, "Moai" has become the modern accepted word for these figures. I think Aborinal Peoples made big heads on little bodies because they came to the somewhat logical conclusion, at least for "representational" purposes, that the Human Mind, Intellect, etc., was all in the "Head" where our primary sensory organs are! (Does seem logical!) And our little bodies Supported our Heads, and our feet Moved our Heads around, and our Hands FED our Heads! What a REALIZATION! Politcal cartoons go back a century or two at least and you will find that BIG HEADS do predominate, so it was a a "representational" conclusion many of these artist-commentators had come to quite a while back, also.

Attached Link: http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news299.htm

You have to take several things into account. If MOST of humanity were hommiciadally cruel to children they wouldn't exist. If you'v ever gone "Awww" at picture of kitten... that's your genetic programing talking. While many animals can generate sound, only humans have developed the intricate language system. If whale songs were repeated, and the song outlived the first recorded singer of that song, that would be proof of information being passed on from generation to generation. Until that happes, there is no proof that the song contains any long term data, or that data is percived as language. The other feature of humanity is the ability to overwhelm our genetic responces with conditioned ones. I personally belive mankinds self destructive natrue is simple a housekeeping responce to our over population. We grow out of control, we get sick and die off to managable numbers again. As a population grows, there will always be an average number of mutation that change the rules. Criminal behaviour in many cases has been tracked to frontal lobe damage. Either post birth or genetic. We are also designed to be preditors. two eyes that face forward are solely there to "range" prey. Canine teeth exist to rip flesh and eat meat. We are Omnivours, so we don't have to kill ALL the time, but we are all designed to be killers. Society is the missing factor. No creature has developed a more complex society in the history of our world, and our social structure has become so prevelent that it is bound to be effecting our natural selection at this point. Even an animal can go "insane" where it act against it's nature of forms a fetish on a certain aspect of it's nature. We already live in age where scoial engeneering is practiced globally.

Attached Link: http://tlc.discovery.com/convergence/humanface/articles/mask.html#

This was a TV show on the Discovery channel, and was about a world-wide study by a doctor into 'measuring' beauty. Not really about 'cute' but pretty related. It's been a long time since I saw the show, but basically they sampled various societies and racial groups in an attempt to define a human standard for beauty that would be recognized by all. Not sure how much the site goes into the details because I only went there to get the 'mask' they developed that is suppose to define generic beauty. Also doesn't have much to do with over sizing body parts, or even cuteness, but at least a study on measuring the visual appearance of beauty, and an attempt to produce a generic and possibly even genetic definition. Like all such subjective works, the show seemed to have as many exceptions to the rule as matches :) There was also a similar show that used body shape silhouettes in an attempt to define the 'perfect' body shape on a world-wide, non-racial basis. Not sure if there's a site about that, but it did air on the same channel.

FWIW, I've read a couple of disconnected things that, in my mind, explain the overall appeal of Shazam. One is the big-head-baby angle and the other explains the large hands and feet. As jval has already pointed out, neither is universally definitive, but, in general they are probably sufficient for the majority and certainly suit me.

On the big head side, I once read an interesting article in one of my college literature/critical thinking/whatever classes, documenting the periodic change and intentional redesign of Mickey Mouse to conform more to the quantifiable standards of 'cute', more formally called 'noetism'. It cited the same arguments as ratteler about the oversized heads but narrowed it more precisely to the proportion of facial features on that larger head visible in all mammmals (puppies kittens and babies, a little past newborn stage, seem like ideal examples), and evidenced to an extreme degree by many (if not all) of Thorne's morphs: relatively large forehead and eyes, smaller features in the lower half of the face. Koshini captures some of this, though, the jaw is much more square, and the anime characters exhibit these same traits without the disproportianately large head. I expect Thorne's morphs to become extremely popular with Shazaam for that reason, and won't be surprised to see Maya Doll reworked in Shazam's direction when you get the AutoLoader tutorial out.

Another feature of Thorne's morphs, and something I find appealing in real life, is pouty lips. This is something more peculiar to humans and in maybe in the same vein of Rattler's other observation about certain actions, generating an 'Awwwww' response. Here it may be that style of lip hints at the pout a baby gets when unhappy & needing attention of some sort. I never read anything I can recall about this, it's just an observation.

The appeal of Shazam's hands and feet, and incidentally the Bratz', may come from another hard-wired response and the fashion industry. Most of the base female meshes out there ( as discussed in another thread ) conform to some ideal that can best be described as some variation of 'nubile'. I once read an old edition of John T. Molloy's 'Dress for Success'. He makes an argument for a man never letting his wife/girlfriend shop for him, because she'll likely buy clothes that make him more appealing to her. He then quantifies 'sex appeal' with a list of traits that could fit either sex, and explains why bell bottoms, flared sleeves, and other things more particular to men, contribute to the illusion of a slimmer, hence healthier, hence more appealing, waist. His argument, of course, being that none of this is appropriate for business, but is useful for successful dating. Anyhow they contribute to the sense of nubility and Shazam extends this fashion concept in a cartoony way to the hands and feet themselves.

So, we have exagerated nubility and noetism in one package and BAM! she's on my wishlist. :D I don't have V2 just V3 so I'm still debating on whether to wait, or to get everything I need now, including some of Thorne's morphs because, oddly enough, I don't own any of those either.

Well, when I say that parental care and loving is not necessarily automatic this is not the same as saying that the only alternative is to have a homicidal reaction to children. Many children have survived unloving parents. If I say I do not like someone it is a failure of logic to conclude that I must hate them. It may well mean I am simply indifferent. ...While many animals can generate sound, only humans have developed the intricate language system. But as I demonstrated, this is not so- unless I am simply lying or have been given false information. In fact, often the language is non-vocal. What is true is that humans are considerably more efficient in this respect and therefore our languages convey greater amounts of information, particularly abstract information. We are also more adept at storing such information for later retrieval. In these aspects I indicated complete agreement with you. ...there is no proof that the song contains any long term data, or that data is percived as language. My comment re whales was in response to your assertion that animals did not communicate, not the long term storage of such communications. There are many forms of communication, some more complex than others. But information exchange is the defining characteristic of language. I doubt that any serious student of animal psychology rejects the concept of animal languages. In fact, one definition of language defined by Webster's Dictionary is "the means of communication used by animals: the language of birds." ...The other feature of humanity is the ability to overwhelm our genetic responces with conditioned ones. Conjecture? ...two eyes that face forward are solely there to "range" prey. One could equally say that they are to range predators or potential obstacles while moving rapidly through dense environments. In any case, visual ranging via binocular vision is hardly a necessity for carnivores. The cat is one of nature's supreme predators. But the same gene that imparts its distinctive colouration to the Siamese cat has destroyed it's binocular vision. If you carefully observe this cat about to pounce you will see it shift it's head from side to side. That it is how it "ranges". This technique can be used equally well with eyes on the side of the head although the shifting would be somewhat greater. Furthermore, there are animals with binocular vision that are not carnivores- many in the simian family and related to humans. ...Canine teeth exist to rip flesh and eat meat. And compared to true carnivores ours are dismally inadequate to the purpose. Our molars, the ability to move our jaws sidewise and other aspects of our physiology all point to a design for chewing, which is not a feature generally found in pure carnivores. Our intestinal tracts are also very long compared to those of full fledged carnivores- a modification to accomodate our vegetable diet. We are not "designed" to be predators but omnivores. This makes us creatures of opportunity, therefore giving us greater flexibility and survival potential. Indeed, a great many humans past and present, especially in the "third world", consumed and continue to consume predominantly vegetarian diets- not necessarily by choice but by the decree of circumstance. ...Society is the missing factor. No creature has developed a more complex society in the history of our world, and our social structure has become so prevelent that it is bound to be effecting our natural selection at this point. This is a tough one. Societal influence can indeed be blamed or credited for many things. But the more we learn about other animals the more complex their interactions, or societies, are revealed to be. Certainly in many respects they are different, sometimes radically so. But less complex? That's a rather shakey conclusion. As for the prevalence of our social structure being bound to affect our natural selection that is also a tenuous hypothesis. The problem is that evolution takes time, and lots of it. When I said earlier that the portrayal of big heads was relatively recent I was speaking of several hundred years. In contrast, dke was thinking in terms of his(?) childhood. Veritas777 spoke in terms of 100 or 200 years ago and considers that quite a while back. The difference between our impressions was only a matter of scale and I was thinking of art history as comprising at least a millenia. Likewise, lasting social change also takes a great deal of time. In my own short life span of a half century plus in a limited geographic locale I have seen social changes come and go. They might almost be termed fads. Ancient societies have existed far longer than our current one only to fade away in time. Social engineering notwithstanding, there is no good reason yet to believe that our current social conditions will withstand either time or ourselves. Does the name Ozymandias ring a bell? If not, here are the conlcuding lines of Shelley's poem: ------ And on the pedestal these words appear: "My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings: Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away. ------- This was a poet who truly understood the nature of both time and man's arrogance. - Jack

I rarely watch television- don't even own one. The programs tend to be far too light for my tastes. But I have read various treatises on the studies mentioned by dke. The thing that struck me was that a great many of the "beauty" choices were similar despite the differing cultural and racial backgrounds of those doing the choosing. This implies that genetic considerations may be as or more important than cultural ones in choosing a suitable mate to perpetuate one's line. I don't recall that any firm conclusions could be derived but the results were far too suggestive to simply ignore. - Jack

Batronyx, For completely non-theoretical (grin) reasons I am intrigued by your mention of Thorne's morphs. Are they specifically for Shazam or of a more general nature? In either case, would you be so kind as to post a link where I could learn more about them? Thanks. - Jack

----Batronyx makes interesting points! Frankly, while I have spent a fair amount of time in Academia myself, I have learned that the real answer is just CUTTING TO THE CHASE, as they say in the movie biz! What are TWO MOST NOTABLE and UNIQUE success stories in Poserland? It's Thorne's Girls and Koshini! As Batronyx said Thorne's little chickies all feature these big head features- he was doing lots of this with P4 babes WAY BEFORE most others got close to this. Thorne's "problem" was that he got in hot water by some who felt he went "Too Far" with his very erotic little Pre-Teens! (I have all the great FREE Thorne P4 girls from years past, plus own many of his and Sarsa's little PS-PT chickies. They all feature the attributes we are talking about.- PLUS the "BIG EYES" angle.) Little Fox took this concept in a more "mainstream" direction and created a CUTE (and less erotically sexual looking) BIG HEADED little girl DOLL. It's been a HUGE success, and probably will continue to be on and on. I know DAZ thinks so. I think this is why they saw the potential in what DKE was doing. Some people said "UGH!!" or "Creep me Out!" when it first came out, but as the CUTE renders started rolling in, people began to change their minds and see that DKE WAS ON TO SOMETHING! Basically- Something that I could USE and even, GASP- The Horror- MAKE MONEY WITH! (HEH) I'm an academic turned REALIST!

Well oddly enough, I can't provide a link and need to learn more about them myself. I just see them in lots of fairy renders, and notice they're quite distinctive, but since they've been around for as long as I can remember, I believe they're general to the V2/millenium girls. I guess I need to Google :) If I find a source link before you do, I'll post it here.

Hi Jack. The Thorne morphs were around LONG before Shazam :) They are Pixie/Faeire type morphs, and extremely well respected by people in those genres. Thorne and sarsa have several items in the mareketplace here http://market.renderosity.com/softgood.ez?Who=Thorne http://market.renderosity.com/softgood.ez?Who=sarsa Some of their characters are based on MilGirls rather than Vicky 1/2, since that character gets used more often for Faerie type images. The MilGirls are based on the same mesh as the V1/2 models though, and so the morphs work for either.

Attached Link: http://market.renderosity.com/softgood.ez?Who=Thorne

Okay, Google brought me right back here! Esmeralda and Skye are the two I find most appealing, both for the Pre-teen Millenium girl.

Yes- but keep in mind that Thorne's Girls were years ahead of the DAZ V2 PT-PS girls. That's why PT-Vicky was created, to be the DAZ answer to Thorne's HUGELY POPULAR P4 Pre-Teens. Needless to say (But I'm Saying It Anyway) Look at Dark Whisper's SARA and 3DC Alexa, they are "very close" to Kim Goosseen's "The Girl", which are basically ALL responses to influences like Thorne's Girls. The Japanese are also heavy into these Pre-Teen characters now too and have cranked out a number of very cute PS-PT characters. I predict you will see more "MayaDoll" Pre-Teen character's based on a Kim Goosseen's "The Girl" look coming out in early 2004. (I say "MayaDoll" meaning their OWN GEOMETRY, not based on V2 PS-PT- so they can also sell their own character clothes, etc. And so- back to what DKE is doing- he offers us the option to do stuff like this with SHAZAM- taking the head morphs over and creating characters with clothes many of us already own. (I'm not running out an buying NEW CLOTHES for every new cutie that comes out! This whole "Unique Geometry" thing is already getting out of hand- and the response will be- SHAZAM!)

By the way- I just got Skye and Esmeralda (they are on SALE- --better hurry) with the idea of SHAZAM-ing them! I also plan to SHAZAM some Freebie Japanese PT-PS cuties too!

Ahh.. dke to the rescue! Thanks and thanks to Batronyx for the reply also. Now that I have checked out the links I realize the source of my ignorance- my lack of interest in children and, by association, fairies LOL! - Jack

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=508924&Start=19&Artist=Heart%27Song&ByArtist=Yes

I think Heart'Song beta tested for Shazaam because there are quite a few Shazaam images and some already have Thorne face morphs. The link is to one of my favorites: over the top cute and highly appealing, in spite of me not being into the fairy's and elves stuff. . . well. . . I like them but they're not my first choice of subject matter.

Hehe. I just now noticed I cross posted with dke. :)

Being a realist, there is NOTHING WRONG with "Over The Top" CUTE! It is Very Popular and Sells Like HOT-CAKES! I think the M2 version will also sell very well- but for obviously different reasons (at least for me anyway)- which are creating Wild and Crazy-Looking toon characters like Yosemite Sam, etc. (Looks-Like... I Know he's a copyrighted character!).

...What are TWO MOST NOTABLE and UNIQUE success stories in Poserland? It's Thorne's Girls and Koshini! Really?! I would have guessed Vickie, swords and temples... grin... (okay, that's 3). Seriously, until now I was unaware of Thorne's work. I did just buy Koshini but only because of Capsces morph package which provides great caricatural (is that a word?) potential. I do have Sara because she was free and am toying with acquiring Shazam and Alexis. I have always wanted to try "pinup" styles but to little success. I guess my head just doesn't work that way. I'm hoping that a more cartoonish style will release the Flood Gates of Creativity LOL!!! Or maybe I'm just inhibited. whatever, I do have to find a way to make them look older. - Jack

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=483919&Start=37&Artist=Heart%27Song&ByArtist=Yes

Here is what Heart'Song is doing with Z-Tooning. This is the kind of stuff I'm working on.

Actually- that wasn't SHAZAM- Just Z-Tooning!

Veritas, I hope you're following this thread, because I'm sure is lost behind so many new posts... no offense taken, at all! I'm almost sure many people in Chile are not even aware that Easter Island ("isla de pascua" for us chileans) is under Chile's soberany, which doesn't amuse native eastern islanders, by the way... which I ever had enough money to go visit the place, though, as only wealthier people in Chile can really afford going there. But don't get me talking... theories abound that aliens helped place those big statues there... there were not enough trees in the island as to roll the statues down hill as some american movie suggested, and "reasonable" theories are so fragile, that thinking of alien intervention makes much more sense. Seriously. Plus, the shape of those statues is really weird... while they look human-like, there are also theories that it might have been the natives' idea of how these aliens looked like. PLUS PLUS... ALL statues look at the ocean, no statue is facing inland whatsoever... of course, there more theories about it. But that's another topic... just wanted to mention that as a country, Chile has also some links to alien ancestry as so many others in the world.

oh, and the Nauru thing... Nauru is a fiction island I'm building with 3d Apps to be a base land for my graphic novel, but the name and basic idea is ripped off a real island/country called Nauru, located next to Australia, which is, incidentally, the smallest republic in the world (and you thought Monaco was small).