Jenna Gilley, Associate Curator of Exhibitions
The season of hot pink is drawing to a close…or is it? Now a radical shaper of our cultural zeitgeist for over six months, Barbie, and her signature pink, is ending the film cycle with controversial nominations (and non-nominations) at the Oscars on March 10th, a day after the doll’s 65th birthday. It is surprising that a film whose protagonist is older than most viewers’ parents continues to have such an impact; yet, that is the story of Ms. Barbara Millicent Roberts (Barbie’s full name). As some readers may know, Ruth Handler developed the doll in 1959 as an alternative to baby dolls, which she believed promoted girls’ roles as mothers and/or caregivers. Barbie was an alternative–a beautiful teenage fashion model who could do any job she set her mind to, including caregiver. While in a sense Barbie achieved this goal, her unrealistic proportions and fantastic lifestyle also led many girls to feel inadequate. This dichotomy is one of the reasons for Barbie’s continued relevance: artists such as Andy Warhol, David Levinthal, and Cindy Sherman have drawn from the toy’s glamor, sexuality, and performative nature to inspire their work.
The FWMoA is not immune to this global phenomenon. Barbie is currently featured in several works in our Scholastic Art & Writing Awards exhibition and in our archives of classic toys, one of the more unusual of the museum’s collections. Let’s take a look at the mid-century lunchbox set from our collection, showcasing Barbie’s first rise in pop culture, and several photographs from Carroll High School senior Cooper Leming’s Senior Art Portfolio, Beauty, which focuses on the stress of being beautiful in today’s society.
Mattel was founded in Los Angeles by Harold Matson and the husband-and-wife duo Elliot and Ruth Handler in 1945. As we know, Ruth would go on to develop Barbie six years later. While the company and toy buyers alike were skeptical that Barbie would succeed, the toy sold over 300,000 copies in its first year, and has only continued to increase in sales. By the 1960s, Barbie had three careers: fashion designer, flight attendant, and nurse. In 1961, Mattel released Barbie’s greatest “accessory”, her boyfriend Ken. The following year, Barbie got her own home (radical for a single woman) in the first iteration of Barbie’s Dreamhouse, complete with buildable paper mid-century décor and college pennants. By her 5th birthday in 1963 she had a best friend, Midge, 64 outfits, a national fan club, and a growing range of merchandise.
Mattel, Inc. and Thermos LLC, American, est. 1948; American, est. 1904. Barbie Lunchbox & Thermos. Vinyl, plastic, metal, glass, and cardboard, 1963. Purchase with funds provided by the June E. Enoch Collection Fund, T22.014.a & .b. Photo courtesy of the FWMoA.
In the early ‘60s, Mattel partnered with the famous container company Thermos to produce a line of lunch kits. The example in the FWMoA collection, above, was made in 1963. It includes a lunchbox and matching thermos, both featuring a side profile of Barbie with her signature blonde ponytail and painted lips. To her right, four different looks showcase the doll’s diversity and sophistication, prepped with the best outfit for any occasion. The art style is similar to that of a fashion illustration, with wavy, painterly lines and sparse applications of color. The thermos’ primary color of a fiery red exudes boldness and maturity, like a glossy red lip or a Louboutin sole, quite a departure from other pastel, floral girl’s lunchboxes of the time. Similarly, the lunchbox is not made from common tin but shiny, black patent leather. With a matching handle, it resembles a luxury handbag more than an ordinary lunch pail. It seems that Mattel’s first venture into Barbie merchandise were doll cases featuring compartments to hold the doll and purchased clothes. When opened and stood on end, it fittingly resembled a closet, emphasizing Barbie’s role as a fashion doll. This lunchbox takes much inspiration from these first cases, with similar illustration style, colors, and even materials, as the cases were also produced in patent leather. Therefore, it was likely one of the first non-doll related items that the company produced (followed by a record player!).
Barbie’s reception was sugar and spice, and not always nice. Critics questioned her position as a role model. Some of this was due to her being a successful, single woman with no desire for marriage. Others feared that children would become too sexualized. After all, Barbie was modeled directly from Bild Lilli, a German doll often purchased as a bachelor party gag gift and who originated in an adult comic strip. Lilli was confident, clever, ambitious, and, yes, a tease. Many of those traits followed Barbie, whose similar mature looks, complete with miniature nylons and makeup, posed her as the pinnacle of femininity and female sexuality (isn’t it interesting how the two blur?).
The most worrisome and persistent issue with Barbie came from her bombshell body proportions. In 1963, the same year of our lunchbox, the outfit “Barbie Baby-Sits” came out with a tiny diet book which advised: “Don’t eat!”. The same book was included in another ensemble called “Slumber Party” in 1965, along with a pink bathroom scale permanently set at 110 pounds. As a fashion doll, Barbie was built as a caricature of the fashionable silhouettes of the time, from the nipped in waists of the ‘60s to the waif-like bodies of the ‘90s. Although Barbie has evolved, and now comes in petite, tall, and curvy, even today, a life-size standard doll would measure 5 feet 9 inches tall with a 36 inch chest, 18 inch waist, and 33 inch hips. According to research by the University Central Hospital in Helsinki, Finland, with these proportions, Barbie would lack the 17-22% body fat required for a woman to menstruate. 92% of American girls have owned a Barbie, meaning that most have grown up projecting their fantasies on a doll with proportions she physically can’t (and shouldn’t) achieve.
Cooper Leming, Grade 12, Carroll High School. From left to right: Just to Survive, Make Better, and Perfection from the Beauty portfolio. Photography. Gold Key – Art Portfolio. Nicole Croy, Educator. Photos courtesy of the FWMoA.
These are the issues addressed in Cooper Leming’s Senior Portfolio, fittingly titled Beauty. Each of the photos feature a jumbled collage of nude Barbies arranged with dismantled body parts, rhinestones, clothing, makeup, googly eyes, and tiny babies. The Carroll High School senior states, “This portfolio is about the eternal struggle to be beautiful and the difference between society’s views versus our personal values of beauty.” Just to Survive was the first work made by the artist, and it became the jumping-off point for all subsequent works. On the work’s chaotic nature, Leming states that the tone is supposed to resemble “a bustling hour getting ready to go out”. All of us (women especially) stand in front of our closets in the morning wondering which self to present that day. This action calls back to Barbie’s chameleon-like nature, which changes depending on what outfit she wears. The addition of makeup can complete the transformation, so to speak, covering flaws, changing features, or adding an alluring sparkle. It is also notable that the center, whole Barbie is the “stereotypical Barbie” to quote Barbie film director Greta Gerwig. Blonde, blue eyed, thin, and white. Leming earned a Gold Key and Juror’s Choice Award for their complete portfolio, and two other awards for individual photos. Three of their works are currently on display in the FWMoA galleries.
Whether you are or aren’t a Barbie girl, we all must live in a Barbie world. As a toy, she revolutionized what a girl could play with and aspire to; as an icon, she has undoubtedly shaped our culture’s perception of beauty and femininity. Therefore, personally, I am glad to have her in the museum collection as a key footnote in history, pointed toes and all.