Dynamic poses vs. Static poses

What got me thinking about this was seeing the beautiful Brigitte Eberl bowing horse model. This is, of course, a piece of artwork sculpture - really finely done, showing incredible skill. It's beautiful!



But what struck me about it was this: I probably would not have wanted it as a child, even at the height of my horse figure collecting craze. Nor would I have cared for this AAA cat I got recently, even though I love her now:



The reason was because they are difficult to play with. I always played that my little plastic creatures could talk, and they went on weird little adventures and what not, and so having one that was always "doing" something so inarguable like scratching, bowing, grazing, bucking, perched in a tree, leaping, etc. meant that one couldn't as easily be pretended to be doing literally anything else. It would be hard to make that cat climb a tree outside, for instance, while this cat could be easily made to do just about anything:



I was a big fan of the standing models, or walking/running. Upright animals that were looking mostly straight ahead or to one side or another. Sitting was also alright if not as good. Lying down was doable, depending. I could make rearing horses work because you can sort of run them on all fours. Even my Breyer collection leans heavily into the more static vintage models and away from the more ambitious newer sculpts. Somehow the more boring the pose, the more possibility for imagination was inherent in it - a blanker slate, with less restrictions on what that animal is forever doing.

Another great example of a series I did not like as a kid was the Kitty in my Pocket series, because almost all of them are attached to something. How do you play with a cat that is forever inside a box or wrapped in a scarf? Here is a sample (image is from Etsy):



That was for play, but there is a difference here of course between play and display. Really dynamic figures are fun to have on the shelf as piece of artwork (even though they are often harder to fit, haha), but I've found I have a hold over affection for the more "boring" figure poses. I am not as drawn to the more exciting ones even now, as someone who does not play pretend with her figures (well, I set them up on my desk and look at them all the time while I work, but that's different. ) The Play Visions small animal sets are literally perfect for my tastes. Most of them are pretty stagnant poses that line up well beside each other, with LOADS of individuals to have as different characters. I can't believe I somehow missed them as a kid, they are a dream series.

I know this is mostly just nostalgia speaking, but I was just curious if anyone else had thoughts on this comparison! Would you have been disgruntled by the above cat and horse figures as a kid, or were you always a figure collector and not a toy collector, as it were? Do you like really interesting and unique poses for models, or do you, like me, like lining them all up next to each other in a similar looking row? What's behind the preference for you?

I only ever had one batch of animals when I was little enough for imaginative play rather than display, they were plastic Britains wildlife/zoo (or possibly knock-offs, they came from a yard sale - we were a pretty poor household and there just was no budget for brand new toys).
I'd play with them on the back lawn, setting up scenes and having predators chase prey or rivals fighting for dominance, re-creating reasonably realistic behaviour like I'd seen in nature documentaries - though I'm sure I probably had some impossible meetings like giraffes stalked by tigers, or sea creatures swimming in the same pond the elephants used as a watering hole

I don't remember sparing much thought for the poses, except being a logical child it's likely any head-down-grazing animals were the ones which got caught and eaten, but the running ones got away?

I don't think I'd have wanted them all stuck to or wrapped up in accessories like that Kitty set though, less because it limits play but just cos it obscures the animal part of the figure, and animals themselves are more interesting than plastic knitting or blankets!

These days, I'm not really biased; I'll appreciate the artistry and balance of a dynamic pose, but enjoy the calm straightforwardness of a standing horse, too. As long as they're well sculpted with the right proportions and good detail, there's plenty to admire, whether it's still or captured in action.

And with horse companies tending to repeat-release moulds in lots of different colours over the years, it's entertaining to have conga line displays of matching poses, even if they don't all match : one shelf can be half cantering to the left while the rest are standing facing right, and the next down is a row of galloping horses held up by one foot on a base, and so on...

Oh I certainly got into collecting because of all the toys I played with as a kid. My mom bought me Schleich & Safari figures and I always like figures that were standing and had heads pointed forwards. Birds were my favorite and I always liked ones with their wings out so they could ''fly''. Now that I'm older and I primarily collect, I really love more dynamic and interesting poses. I love to do outdoor photography so a figure with more movement is always fun. I also like to display them on my shelves and a figure just looks much better in my opinion stretching, climbing, or running, rather than sitting.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who felt this way!

Very interesting thoughts, Jill. Yes, I agree, I wouldn't have been so keen on the beautiful bowing horse as a child. The cat would have been OK, though I'd have preferred it if it had been sitting without scratching. I don't think this affects my preferences for animal figures as an adult, except that I am still not so keen on bases. I think this is partly because it always seemed very odd to walk or run with an animal that had a clump of earth on its feet. A simple base is OK, as I can imagine that it doesn't exist, but I don't like more complex bases.

I used to run races with my animal toys and running animal figures are still my favourites. Even if they don't run, I think I prefer animals that "look" fast, though it is very hard to explain what makes them look fast. For example, my Britains baby crocodile was a much better runner than any of my horses and my avatar was the champion of them all .

In the comparison of static vs. dynamic poses (LOL), I like a mix of both. For example, if I have a group of related birds on a shelf, it's nice to have a couple perching, a couple flying, maybe one on a nest. Don't want them all to look like static stuffed museum specimens.
If the pose is dynamic, it should be realistic and not too exaggerated.

For me, I personally prefer "blank slates" as well for my regular sized figures.

Playability aside, I like the uniformity and tidiness of a a lineup of figures in neutral poses. That way, all aspects of the anatomy are properly captured and not distorted; therefore I can better display the unique characteristics each animal, along with comparing and contrasting the features of organisms in the same (scientific) family. E.g. Ceratopsid horn and frills variations, Suids, Tapirids etc.

A good example of my dilemma would be the BEAUTYofBEASTS tapirs. Incredibly unique poses, and some of the best Tapir sculpts I've ever seen. However, it all comes back to the poses... Especially those that are lying and sitting down. And as @Jill has pointed out, the more unique the pose, the less flexible it is in a display.

The Mountain Tapir will always be stuck in a Flehmen Response.
The Malayan Tapir will always be stuck in a sleepy, yawning posture.
The Lowland Tapir will always be stuck in... whatever it's doing.
(the most flexible one would be the foraging Baird's Tapir & running calf)

With the Malayan and Lowland forever having it's limbs compressed, distorted and obscured underneath it's body. Good for very specific scenarios, but does not fit my personal preferences.

FlaffyRaptors wrote:

The Mountain Tapir will always be stuck in a Flehmen Response.
The Malayan Tapir will always be stuck in a sleepy, yawning posture.
The Lowland Tapir will always be stuck in... whatever it's doing.
(the most flexible one would be the foraging Baird's Tapir & running calf)......

(Remember sound )

As far as I can remember, I always played the same ways than nowadays, no real stories, just displaying animals and enjoying the pose, the sculpt, it was enough for me to dream and let my imagination wander. I wasn't too much on "very dynamic" poses but I always liked to have different poses for a species. 
I enjoy more unusual poses now since some can bring more life on a "too static" shelf.

Susanne 

When I was a child and I played with the figures of animals, in the end I found more practical the simple poses of stillness, even the figures in drinking or grazing position, lying down, the foreshortened necks or the bases that united several figures or gave stability to the figure alone, bothered me... But now, as a collector of "concept and showcase" I definitely value the moving poses more. There are always exceptions, but generally it is like that...

Reading your thoughts, Jill, makes my head spin with childhood memories ( They say they become more clear with age ) .

I could write a novel, but will make it short and agree with most of what you say.
Well, we could get around it, as the poses were part of their personalities.
Like the mare who was always eating, but could still cry "Careful ! Careful !" to her foal

But basically, I think we mainly played with the walking ones

This may also be why I am not so enormously fond of the Kitan Club Nature Technicolour models with the brown wood-like base, or the new Birgitte Eberl horses. No matter how fantastic they are, there is absolutely no play in them

Well, the horses could bend down to say hello to a mouse, but that would be a bit boring in the long run

Susanne, I understand your point about the KC with wooden base, I was not a fan of it, too much desktop model's style for me. Despite this, the sculptures are so fantastic, the painting so great that I felt to resist  I would prefer them with a more simple base though.

The same for Bottlecap Kaiyodos, whenever the model can do without the Bottlecap to stand up, it can count on me to remove it.

I understand also Ricardo's point about the "many animals on 1 basis", with a few exceptions I still dislike them.

This is a really interesting topic and I loved reading about your views because it was exactly how I felt growing up and playing with my dog figures! I always favoured the more static/ boring poses, standing/ running front on- the ones which could be used for as many purposes as possible! And like you I still find that I have that bias now, subconsciously 'preferring' models in these positions, but definitely now that I collect them for more different reasons I have become much more appreciative of different poses! Great topic though, it's so nice to have something I've always thought without really realising it put into words!

It's interesting that many of us felt the same way or at least similarly as children, and also interesting why some people did not! As a kid I probably assumed everyone played with toys the same way and then you find out that is absolutely not the case at all.

I agree with everyone who doesn't like bases, especially if more than one animal is on it. As a kid that was especially bad because they couldn't separate and interact. As an adult, I just like the free standing ones more - possibly still because of nostalgic holdover. If they have to have it to stand up, I at least like it to be as subtle as possible.

@FlaffyRaptors I agree about those tapirs. They are really amazing! But not so much to my taste, either. I could see if I were a tapir collector specifically and had a wide variety of representations, or if I was a sculpture collector for sure. But I do like mine to feel like toys, and very clearly those are not intended to be toys.

@rogerpgvg I love that the crocodile of all things was one of the fastest, they are such low and flat figures and hard to "gallop".

very interesting conversation here!
I have never distinguished between play or display, even as a kid, because each animal I own, no matter the material it is made from (plastic, porcelain, crystal, wood) is a Beauty! and I love it's aura and it's life force! so I spend my time just looking and admiring them
I cannot keep away from figures that I see as beautiful. I don't ever remember playing with my animals, as in making them move and interact in a scenario, except for once. And all I can remember about it was that I had lost some figures in the sand in my backyard in Africa and feeling huge relief as I managed to find my black horse! I was about 6:) and later when I was about 10 I made a diorama on a huge piece of plywood (1mx1m or bigger?) of the countryside with paper mache for my animals to live on and have some grass and room. I made hills and meadows for them. I think I preferred to place them somewhere they would be happy and then I would just sit back and admire them
I still do this now. haha
I really love figures that hold their head in a certain way. Though most of their poses are static.
I too prefer figures without bases and once spent alot of time with a scalpel removing the bases off the Newray animals

This subject is very important and the pose of a figure is something highly debated when a company starts a project for a new figure.
It is important the playability of a model when it is supposed to be a toy.
Though, the way figures are sold also contributes a lot to promote certain tendencies.
Starting with Schleich and similar brands, the standing pose with the animal facing to one side was the most common. Why if it is not exactly the most playable pose? I remember a kid complaining about Schleich gazelle and previous cheetah because it was silly to play a hunt when both figures were looking at the sides.
This pose was common among these brands because those are mostly shelf toys. It doesn't mean exactly kids buy them to put on shelves but that these figures are sold in shelves. So, they need to display well and mostly they must stand firmly. The standing pose facing to one of the sides is perfect for both aspects and it does not remove completely the playability.
A different example are the figures sold in display cases where they are limited to specific measurements, Funrise Horses were sold like that and figures tend to have very similar poses, standing or walking, sometimes facing one of the sides but just slightly. All poses are playable and it allowed them to be displayed in a compact case and easily transported.
Figures sold in capsules also have their poses influenced by the fact that they need to fit in a limited space and they should retain a decent volume. Thus, depending from the animal represented, the pose will adapt to the ovoid shape they're confined to. Gashapon figures and Yowies are known examples. Obviously, if the animal is a snake, they can't make it stretched, likely it will be a densely curled up snake. If it is a figure with a long tail, they will curl the tail and sitting poses are quite common. The goal is not the playability but to offer a decently sized collectable toy.
Another influencial point is the life style of the children. Now kids are most the time at home and technology are their main focus. Probably the pose of a figure is not that important but the interactivity it offers. when I was a boy, I used to play outdoors and the important for a toy was to be dynamic and durable. I don't remember playing with the traditional animal toy figures but I remember the cowboys and Indians horses having dynamic poses. No standing, grazzing, bowing or so. Most of us did not have a place to display our toys, mine were stored in a bag. So it was not important how they displayed. 20 or 30 years later it was different. Most kids were not playing outdoors daily as my generation, they had their own rooms or playing area at home and playing was not always necesarily wild. I remember seeing kids just building a neat farm with animals perrfectly displayed where the most important was not the action but to build a neat place. So, poses are almost a science on its own.
I think our collecting style also influences our choices. If I am a synoptic collector and I only want a single figure for each species, it is natural that my choices go to more natural or conventiional poses. Though, if I am a collector without this "limitation", I will naturally enjoy a unconventional pose like this bowing horse. Now think about a kid or a collector building a farm with a single horse, will the bowing horse be the choice?
Now that I am a more mature collector, I tend to enjoy unusual poses but when I started collecting, I disliked bases and my favorite pose was the walking one, mostly with felines, my favorite subject when I started.

@Roger you bring an excellent angle to the conversation! I suppose the idea that the figure sometimes has to fit into a certain package has occurred to me obliquely, but I'd never really thought about it. I knew intrinsically that the Yowie fish all had curled tails because they had to fit in the capsule, but I hadn't given thought to how it shapes the looks of the series as a whole. And also why that limits Funrise animals to mostly square standing or sitting. Breyer meanwhile customizes the box size to each model, so there is a lot of flexibility.

@Sunny I tended to cut bases off, too, though not carefully! Especially those chicken and geese families that were all on one base together, I would snap them apart - which often cost them legs in the process.

Fun to read how different we are

I have never minded if a model was supported by something "natural", like grass under a goose og weeds supporting a thin-legged bird.
We very rately played "farm" or "zoo", so what was the problem ?
Really I never noticed at all, until somebody mentioned it here on the forum some 50 years later.

As a child it never occurred to me to put them on shelves. I had one shelf, and it was for my books
Good old days !!!

My 2 cents on this topic...

As a child I loved nearly any model I could get my hands on. I adored my uniquely active poses just as much as static. If not even more than... but I was the kid who always picked out an animal figure I DIDN'T recognize the species of than one I did (for example, my very favorite dolphin toy as a child was Safari's old pacific white sided model). So I appear to be tue exception to the rule.

As an adult collector, I still like a mix of both for display. Too many birds with open wings can be hard to display but they definitely are more interesting in general than simple perched style models. And as Jolie pointed out, if you do photography with them it is nice to have models with variant poses (individuals within a herd, postures of one individual for a story style set of photos, etc.)

Lastly, from an artistry point of view, I like unique models like the bowing horse above. I can't afford such nice collector's pieces, but if it were smaller scale and more affordable I would love to look at it and compare it to others that are similar. That's why I have "herds" of species. Each of my grizzly bears is different in posture, texture, fine detail or lack of, proportions, and shapes. And I enjoy each one as a true grizzly depiction regardless. My favorites from childhood was Schleich's old standing male, sitting female, and standing cub. Still are.

Anyway... those are my disjointed thoughts.

This topic has had me thinking... as a child I didn't have access to a lot of different types of models. It was Breyer horses, Marx dinosaurs (and very few of those), or Hong Kong knockoffs of Britains type models. I had and enjoyed both static and dynamic where possible, but only the Breyers offered more than static models. The static ones probably received a bit more of my play. While I did engage in imaginative play like Jill describes, one of my most common activities was putting things in lines endlessly. Static works better scratching that itch.

Saarlooswolfhound wrote:

I can't afford such nice collector's pieces, but if it were smaller scale and more affordable I would love to look at it and compare it to others that are similar.

Just noticing this point, I'm not sure how big or expensive you think the WIA horses are, but they're almost the same scale as CollectA and Mojo (if not identical then close enough that a mixed herd would work fine for photos or display) and they only cost about £2.50/$3 more than those more mainstream brands, so they're in a similar price range.

pipsxlch wrote:

This topic has had me thinking... as a child I didn't have access to a lot of different types of models. It was Breyer horses, Marx dinosaurs (and very few of those), or Hong Kong knockoffs of Britains type models. .....

You have a point there. So imagine little Denmark 16 years before : I could "choose" the Reislers that the toy shop had the couple of times a year I was in town. After app 1964, I could chose among the handfull of Britains she had, and later ( still these days ) it has been Schleich, Schleich, Schleich. And *beep* expensive they were

BUT then the internet came

pipsxlch wrote:

While I did engage in imaginative play like Jill describes, one of my most common activities was putting things in lines endlessly. Static works better scratching that itch.

That IS a good time. The human mind certainly does love its patterns and order. One of m nephews used to play "traffic jam" with his cars - just lining them up one behind the other.

SUSANNE wrote:

BUT then the internet came  

A game changer for collecting for certain. A dangerous one.

Thank you everyone for sharing your thoughts! It's always interesting to see where we are similar and where we differ, and how that changes over time.

George wrote:

Saarlooswolfhound wrote:

I can't afford such nice collector's pieces, but if it were smaller scale and more affordable I would love to look at it and compare it to others that are similar.

Just noticing this point, I'm not sure how big or expensive you think the WIA horses are, but they're almost the same scale as CollectA and Mojo (if not identical then close enough that a mixed herd would work fine for photos or display) and they only cost about £2.50/$3 more than those more mainstream brands, so they're in a similar price range.

I was thinking these were more like peter stone models or something. My mistake! But my comment still applies to brands/makers similar to that then. :)

I love dynamic poses, my only objection is that they are often unstable or require some sort of stand which ruins the effect. It's a catch 22.....

As a child playing outside with my Starlux, my Singapore copies of Britains and my few Elastolin/Ougen I prefered the standing walking poses more adapted to play all kinds of behaviour. I Prefered most "neutrel" standing poses.
Now, as an old child collector, I also like more dynamic poses, and as an old player, I appreciate to have different poses for the same species that allows me to shoot my animals in different attitudes and so, to tell my little stories! :)