This one typically goes along with the one about the duck’s quack:
Who ever got the idea that a 7’2" woman was “life-sized”? I mean, how did they arrive at that height, by measuring her nose?
Also, except for the height those used to be almost my exact measurements, (well, my waist was 22") and you know what? Not once in those years did anyone ever comment on my amazing physical resemblance to Barbie. In fact I looked dumpy (although no one every said that, either). Now I see what my problem was, I just wasn’t tall enough.
It depends upon what method you use to determine Barbie’s scale. If you compare Barbie’s head to that of a “real” woman, her body scales up to the 7’ 2" that you get in that particular bit of e-mail fluff. If you use a different body part, say the width of the shoulders, you’d get a somewhat smaller size. No matter what size you use, you get a very thin-waisted, very busty woman with a very long neck.
But it isn’t really fair to scale up a doll to human size. When rendering humans scaled down as dolls, action figures, comic book characters, etc. Certain changes are routinely made for artistic effect. Take the size of the head. On a real person, male or female, the body is 6 to 6 1/2 heads high. An action figure or comic character routinely has a body about 8 to 8 1/2 heads high. Why? Mostly because it “looks right”, and a larger head, though technically more realistic, doesn’t look right.
Likewise, certain characteristics get exaggerated when you construct human figures at a small scale. Women have a narrower waist and more prominent breasts than men, so these aspects are exaggerated to make them more obvious on the smaller scale used for dolls, comics, and other smaller depictions.
Scale these up to full human size, and they do indeed look ridiculous. But they aren’t meant to be human size in the first place.
A cursory web search of this topic reveals that today’s Barbie in its original incarnation was sold as a novelty “gag” gift for men, a doll of fantastic proportions that are not exactly scaleable in any realistic sense.
The premise “Who ever got the idea that a 7’2” woman was ‘life-sized’?" is false; these “life-sized” measurements were derived from the doll. The doll’s proportions were not derived from a “life-sized” model.
I was just wondering what possessed them to say, “If she were life-sized . . . she’d be 7’2”."
I mean, if I were going to try to scale a Barbie to life size I’d start with something realistic. Okay, she’s a long-legged girl, so on the tall side. Maybe 5’10". Now, assuming she’s five ten, what’s her waist measurement? (Just as an example.)
Or maybe, "Okay, she’s wearing 4-inch heels, can’t be higher because her feet are so small in relation to her head, so therefore . . . " Etc.
When you scale a non-scale model like Barbie™ you pretty much have to pick the dimension of your choice and scale everything else the same way. You could pick chin to eyes or something but whatever you choose it won’t be proportional to a real person. It’s apparent that whoever did the scaling did so to give plausable bust, waist and hip measurements. If they scaled those same dimensions to a more reasonable 5’8" her torso measurements would be 31"- 19"- 27". Perhaps they thought that those dimensions showing her unusually skinny have less impact than scaling her so she’s freakishly tall.
Padeye addresses this question, but here’s an example.
The problem we face with scaling anything is one has to assume the “life-size” of one dimension and derive all of the rest from the model or vice-versa.
The “novelty, gag gift” doll of freakish proportions from which Barbie was based was estimated to have an 18" waist which was subsequently adjusted by the US manufacturer to a more “realistic” 22". I would have to say it’s safe to say that the 7’ 2" height estimate is based on a fixed “life-size” waist of 22" because all the other measurements seem about proportional.
Say, however, we assume a “life-size” height of 5’ 10" instead of a “life-size” waist of 22". The “life-size” waist then shrinks to less than 20."
So, if you want “life-size” Barbie to have a 22" waist, she’s 7’ 2" tall. If you want her to have a waist of greater than 22," she must by greater than 7’ 2" tall, and if you want her to be less than 7’ 2" tall, she must have a waist less than 22."
At least part of the reason for the absurd bust-to-waist ration on Barbie is that her clothes don’t scale well; you need to make the waist smaller to allow for the relative thickness of the cloth. If you were to take a pair of Barbie-sized blue jeans and blow them up to life-sized, they’d be something like an inch thick.
This is a little misleading. I don’t think the creator of Barbie would name a novelty “gag” gift for men after her own daughter. “Original Incarnation of…” is different than “Inspired in part by…” Unless you consider the original incarnation of Star Wars is a 1950’s samuai movie directed by Akira Kurosawa.
When I was in junior high, a couple of students constructed a life-size version of Barbie for a science fair. (I believe she was made out of styrofoam.) It impressed everyone, from the judges to all the teenage boys , and they won a prize for their efforts. I didn’t get an up-close and personal look at her (being about fourteen, I was still somewhat apprehensive about approaching women ), but from across the gymnasium she looked just like a real Barbie doll in all her proportions. (And boy, what proportions they were! )
I believe my science fair project that year was a working example of Archimedes’ Screw.
, and they won a prize for their efforts. I didn’t get an up-close and personal look at her (being about fourteen, I was still somewhat apprehensive about approaching women