This might be surprising if your concept of cartoon characters is based on American models. Sure, all kinds of improbable things exist in American cartoons that we don’t think twice about. Walking, talking animals – that’s so normal it’s boring. Sponges that wear pants, whatever. But not usually a fillet of fish that gets on Twitter and says “Please eat me, I’m delicious.”

But for the last few decades at least, cute characters that are live, walking, sometimes talking, foods, have been totally normal in Japan. And it turns out they have historical precedents that go WAY back.

Anpanman: The Granddaddy Of Modern Food Characters

Anpanman: He’s your classic superhero. He wears a cape, he fights for truth, justice and the Japanese way. And… he’s a bread roll with sweet bean paste inside.

His friends are other types of bread – plain sliced white bread, buns filled with melon or curry – as well as humans who apparently see nothing odd about the situation.

Anpanman apparently never gets stale. After starting as a manga in 1973 and as a TV show in 1988, it aired its 1,000th episode in 2009and its 25th movie in 2013.

Anpanman also set the stage for using these characters for merchandizing, having been used to promote almost every conceivable product including other foods (isn’t that kind of like cannibalism?). I’ve even seen him on boxes of okonomiyaki mix, which isn’t something I imagined was marketed to children.

Perhaps Anpanman’s most direct modern descendent is Kogepan – modernized in part by making him the emo version. Unlike the cheerful, pink-cheeked Anpanman, he’s full of existential angst: Having been left in the oven too long, till he’s burnt, Kogepan is depressed about no one wanting to buy him. Yes, instead of rejoicing that he’ll escape being eaten, he’s miserable that he can’t fulfill his life’s work as a bun. He drowns his sorrows in milk, which makes him drunk.

Like Anpanman, Kogepan’s friends are all different kinds of bread, but his relationships are far more conflicted. He’s jealous of the pretty, unburnt breads, the Kireipan, and I can’t blame him – the cheerful little strawberry breads annoy even me.

But bean paste buns are far from the only walking, talking foods, as we’ll see on the following brief journey through Japanese foods, characters and history.

Beyond the Bun

Traditional sweets like Anpanman have always been big in the food-character market. In another animation from the 1970s, a taiyaki, the fish-shaped pancake filled with beanpaste, comes to life and swims in the ocean:

およげたいやきくん

Later in the 90s, three dango brothers and their tango song had a huge hit:

だんご三兄弟

Nowadays though, almost any food can be made into a character. It’s easy to make fruits and vegetables come to life by giving them faces and arms and legs. From just one company, San-X, there are over a dozen, including Amagurichan, a chestnut who’s impatient to be eaten, Mikan Bouya, a mikan (a citrus fruit like a tangerine), Mamepyon, a family of peas, and Soreike Otamachan!, an onion.

Elsewhere we find an NHK character who is a bitter melon and the incredibly adorable Nameko mushrooms.

Prepared dishes can come alive too. In the picture book and anime Oden-Kun, all the different ingredients of oden are made into creatures: you’ve got your boiled egg, your various fish cakes, and your chunk of daikon radish:

Fusion Food

Food character designers often go beyond giving a fruit or bread a face and limbs, resulting in strange, unnatural chimeras combining food with other creatures. A simple example is Momobuta, who’s a cross between a peach and a pig:

Hokkaido, too, has been all aboard the hybrid food train. The northern prefecture is known for a few main things, one being a bear, the other being various types of food (salmon, melon, onions, to name a few). How do you combine those things? Oh, let me count the ways.

First, let’s start with this melon-higuma mascot mashup.

Okay, so maybe this one’s not as “kawaii”

From there it can go many different directions, including bear+salmon, bear+onion, bear+crab, bear+squid, so on and so forth. Koichi happened to have the bear+crab and bear+squid combinations on hand and took a picture:

My favorite food-creature combination, though, is the San-X characters Nyan Nyan Nyanko. These little cats were presented in various scenarios over the years where they were incorporated and/or transformed into every conceivable dish and type of cuisine.

Their first appearance was a festival theme, where they were various traditional foods you’d buy at festival stalls, like takoyaki:

Next came traditional sweets eaten with green tea, which of course also had a cat in the cup.

Over the years they appeared as dim sum, burgers, onigiri, bubble tea, school lunch, sushi, Western sweets like cream puffs,… just about everything you can think of.

If you think too hard about this, it ought to be incredibly gruesome. Instead, it’s adorable. With every limited edition iteration you could buy stationery, stickers, plushes and what have you, so it is sad but good for my personal budget that the cats appear to have been retired in 2010 after ten years of appearing as various foodstuffs.

Classical Characters

Anthropomorphic food turns out to have some pretty ancient precedents in Japanese art. What’s funny about the early examples is that they also seem to presage another Japanese invention: the TV show food battle.

In the 15th century, a fashion started of illustrated stories of battles between food characters. In the Shoujin Gyorui Monogatari, an army of vegetarian foods, Shoujun, led by the lord Natto, battled against the seafood army led by the lord Salmon. The vegetarian army won, killing the lord Salmon in Nabe Castle.

The picture above is a similar battle from 1859. Although these stories are humorous, this one is said to have a pretty serious historical context: a cholera epidemic. The vegetarian foods won the battle this time too, supposedly symbolizing the fact that they were less likely to spread cholera (presumably because cholera is a water-borne disease).

Other Edo-period anthropomorphized food includes this lovely dancing ear of corn:

There are also precedents to the food-creature chimeras. The famous folktale of Momotaro, the Peach Boy, is about a boy who was born from a large peach floating in a stream. There’s at least one illustration where he is half peach, half boy

Maybe that version didn’t stick because it was too hard to believe that anyone was desperate enough for an heir to raise that creepy creature as their own.

Modern Battle of the Food Characters

With all this as background, it no doubt seemed totally normal for Sanrio to decide to have a new character contest where all twenty of the candidates were some kind of food, or something combined with some kind of food.

Fairly standard sorts of contestants included dog-mochi sweets, panda rice balls, an egg, and my favorite, a long negi onion.

Others were really stretching it, if you ask me, especially some of the food-animal fusions. Yeah, a giraffe’s horns do look a little like mushrooms, but if you have a whole bunch of mushrooms growing out of a giraffe’s head, it just gets creepy:

And I love tanuki like nothing else, but I cannot accept the combination of a tanuki and kiritanpo, a cylinder of pounded rice that a specialty of Akita and Aomori prefectures:

And the public seemed to agree with me that those were overdoing it, because the winner is the one that’s the foodiest of all. Kirimi-chan the salmon fillet has nothing added but tiny dots for eyes and a line for a mouth, and a tiny body. Simple, like Hello Kitty’s expressionless face. In fact, she might not look all that out of place in one of those fifteenth-century battles of the anthropomorphic seafoods.

So although she is brand new, she’s way more old school than anyone probably imagined.

Bonus Wallpapers!

[1280x800] ∙ [2560x1600] ∙ [Animated 1280x800]

[1280x800] ∙ [2560x1600]

[1280x800] ∙ [2560x1600]

Japan’s special take on cute is unique enough that we even borrow the word “kawaii” in English to talk about it. But although there is some cultural variation in the details, cute is very much a universal concept, and you might be surprised at the fundamental role it plays in human psychology.

What is Cute, Exactly?

What makes something cute? Think about how characters and toys based on animals look compared to their real-life counterparts. Compare the bear above to this teddy bear:

Or take our friend the ubiquitous tanuki statue and his wild cousin:

…versus…

What are the differences? The snouts are shorter (in some teddy bears it’s gone, or close to it). The head and eyes are big and round. The legs are stubby and rounder and generally, everything is softer and more rounded than in real life.

But why are these the particular features that turn a dangerous animal that could bite your head off, like a bear, into something that makes us go “awwwwwww”? Scientists have actually thought about this subject, starting with the zoologist and ethologist Konrad Lorenz in the 1940s.

Lorenz proposed that the features that make up “cute” are all characteristic of human infants. We coo and squeal at the sight of heads that are large for their bodies, little button noses, and chubby, soft bodies. It also doesn’t hurt if the critter has a floppy, clumsy gait like a human toddler.

Basically, the more a a cartoon character or animal is like a human baby, the cuter it is. One interesting thing that shows this is the importance of round forward-facing eyes like humans have. An animal with eyes on the front of its face, like a panda, looks cuter to us than one with eyes on the sides of its head, like a horse. (If you don’t believe it, check out the next photo, which shows that if you want to turn a a horse into something absolutely horrifyingly cute, you move its eyes to the front of its face.)

Why The Short Face?

Lorenz theorized that there’s an evolutionary reason that these characteristics make you want to grab something and cuddle it. Human babies need a lot of care. If you’re a giraffe, your baby can stand up and run within moments of birth. If you’re a frog, you dump a whole bunch of eggs somewhere and get on with your life, figuring at least one of your hundreds of offspring will manage to survive on its own. But if you’re a human, your baby needs constant attention for months.

So the reason we go “awwww” in response to babies has an obvious evolutionary explanation: the people who reacted that way to round, soft creatures with big heads had babies that survived better. Those babies grew up to have more babies, and passed on the genes for wanting to cuddle things that look that way. On the other hand, the people who didn’t react that way to cute features would be more likely to leave their babies lying around in dangerous places, forget to feed them, etc. So resistance to cuteness would tend to eliminate itself from the gene pool.

This response is now so ingrained in our brains that we react the same way even when it has no evolutionary advantage to our species. We’re just as smitten by pandas as by human infants, despite the fact that they have no benefit to the survival of the human race whatsover. And we even create stuff that has those features, like Hello Kitty, sewage-treatment-plant mascots, and teddy bears. So if you’re one of those people who thinks all that cute stuff is stupid? Blame it on the babies.

This Is Your Brain On Cute

Psychologists have actually experimentally tested Lorenz’s theory that those specific features of “cute” result in a care-giving impulse. One study, for example, manipulated photos of real babies to make their heads more or less round, etc, and found that photos with more of those characteristics were rated as cuter, and made subjects feel more strongly that they wanted to care for them.

But research has also shown that cuteness has other effects – both positive and negative.

There’s one recent study out of Japan that’s probably going to be good news for everyone reading this. You’re on the Internet, so the odds are high that you spend some of your time at work looking at photos and videos of cats – or, if you’re not a cat fan, of whatever other cute animal floats your boat.

No doubt you try to hide this apparently time-wasting behavior, but instead, maybe you should send your boss a link to this article titled The Power of Kawaii: Viewing Cute Images Promotes a Careful Behavior and Narrows Attentional Focus. The research reported shows that looking at pictures of cute animals might actually help you to do your work better.

Two different kinds of tasks were used in the experiment. One was a game called Bilibili Dr. Game which is like the American game Operation. If you’ve never played, it’s a game where you have to remove very tiny body parts from very small openings on a “patient”, using very tiny tweezers.

The subjects played the game, and then they were shown photos: Either of dogs and cats, or of cute puppies and kittens. Then they played the game again, and the people who saw puppies and kittens got better scores the second time around. They also took longer to play the game, so the researchers concluded that seeing cute animals made them do their work more deliberately and carefully.

If your job doesn’t involve the same kind of fine motor control as the game of Operation, you may think this study won’t convince your boss to count looking at Cute Overload as work. Never fear! The experimenters also used another task, which involved looking for certain numbers in a large matrix.

Subjects also did better on this task after looking at photos of puppies and kittens, so the researchers concluded that cute animals made people more attentive. And there’s no job that doesn’t benefit from careful attention, right? So surf away for the those cute kitties.

Cute: The Dark Side

Other research has shown that the effect of cuteness isn’t always so benign. If you’ve ever told a baby that it was so cute you wanted to eat it up, you’ve experienced the effect studied in another recent study: cute animals actually make people feel more aggressive.

Subjects were shown a slideshow including cute baby animals, animals in silly situations, and “neutral” adult animals. One group was asked to rate how much the photos made them want to squeeze something or give an aggressive “want to eat it up” sort of response. The cute pictures made them feel that way more often. Then, another group actually put their money where their mouth was: they were popping bubble wrap while watching the slideshow. They popped an average of 120 bubbles when looking at the cute photos, compared to 100 for neutral ones and 80 for the silly ones.

Cute Clouds The Mind

Maybe being more aggressive at popping bubble wrap seems like no big risk, but there are lots of real-life situations where our uncontrollable response to cuteness affects our judgement about important matters.

For example, you probably wouldn’t hesitate to walk right up to a cute little Chihuahua and pet it, while you might cross the street to avoid a big dog. Turns out you’ve got it exactly backwards. There are fashions in what breeds are considered dangerous, but from German shepherds in the 1960s through Rottweilers and Dobermans to pit bulls nowadays, the breeds considered dangerous are always large ones. But the truth is, as this study showed, the dogs that are most aggressive towards humans are cute little guys: Dachshunds, Chihuahuas and Jack Russell Terriers.

Even professionals who work with animals are not immune to the bad influence of cuteness. A paper in the journal Conservation Biology showed that cute animals are much more likely to be studied by scientists and to get funding for their conservation. Apparently even scientists aren’t attracted to animals because they’re important to their ecosystems or more endangered: it’s more important that they be fuzzy, with 500 times more published studies on large furry mammals than on slimy little amphibians.

Cute animals also cloud our judgment about our fellow humans. An experiment in France found that women were three times more likely to give a guy their phone number if he was walking a cute dog, and another showed that a panhandler more than doubled his income when he had a dog.

So if you always considered “cute” to practically equal “harmless,” maybe you better think again. I have to wonder, how many other ways is cute messing with our minds that science hasn’t found out about yet? How is this affecting the psychology Japan, the “Kingdom of Cute”? Will they all just one day snap and eat each other up?

You know, that Hello Kitty…. I always thought there was something a little sinister about her. Now I know why.

Bonus Wallpapers!

[1280x800] ∙ [2560x1600]

Additional Reference:

• New York Times: The Cute Factor

While living in Japan, Hello Kitty was unavoidable. My fringe awareness became a full on, hyper-focused red alert of Hello Kitty presence. She was everywhere. And I mean everywhere like Christmas music the day after Halloween. She was on my student’s pen cases, my co-worker’s desk, my friend’s shoes, jewelry, cups, refrigerator magnets, smocks, spoons, hats, cars, everything! I was suffocating in Kitty-chan. But the suffocating wouldn’t have been so bad if everyone around me didn’t love the suffocation so much.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t begrudge a character just because it’s popular. But with Hello Kitty I couldn’t understand for the life of me why she was popular. And I had (at the time) two good reasons why she shouldn’t be.

1. Her design is too simple. White face, two dots, yellow nose. Boring! Great character designs like Bugs Bunny or Gundam Zaku have some complexity or originality to their form. They involve something substantial and imaginative you can hold onto.
2. She’s not _from_ anything. We western-types like our vacuous media characters to have a source, like how Mario is from a video game and Spider-man is from a comic book. A lot of characters I like are paper thin in their depth of character but at least I can say, “I really like the cereal they’re from!”

But despite having nothing to hold onto, a lot of people, many of whom I respected as individuals, held onto Hello Kitty for dear life. So what was I missing? Let’s address these gripes in order.

1. Her Design Is Too Simple

My first complaint was that Hello Kitty’s design was too simple. And therein lies the problem, right? Unless you consider what draws us to cartoon characters in the first place. When you strip an image of its details (shading, texture, etc.) down to its essential elements, it becomes less specific. It is no longer a picture of one thing but a representation of that thing.

This is clearly a picture of Tom Hanks. He may be mistaken for someone else, but generally, most people will know this picture represents Tom Hanks.

This still may be recognized as Tom Hanks, but if you look at it in a different way, maybe it looks like someone you work with. The realistic details have been stripped away and now the image may represent a wider range of types of people.

As we trim away the details, he becomes more ambiguous…

And more able to represent anyone.

Now we are about as nonspecific as you can get. A few dots, some lines and a circle. This is incredibly simple and anyone can draw it. But whose face is being depicted? Is it male or female? Old or young? Without the artist giving details about whose face has been drawn, it is up to the viewer to decide what is being seen.

The less specific the image, the more power the viewer has to interpret it. What do you see when you look at Hello Kitty? She is a simplification of a cat, but what kind of attitude or style is she emitting? Visual storytelling guru, Scott McCloud, has this to say about the cartoon form, of which Hello Kitty is a part:

“The cartoon is a vacuum into which our identity and awareness are pulled, an empty shell that we inhabit which enables us to travel in another realm. We don’t just observe the cartoon, we become it!”

More than likely, what you’re seeing is you! What does Hello Kitty look like to you? Is she cute or sassy? Grown up or childish? Fun or chic? It mostly depends on who you are and what you want her to be. Her blankness draws you in and allows you to interpret her, and then wear or own her in the style you choose.

But in essence, all cartoons can do this. This interpretation of representation is vital to the cartoon form. So what makes Hello Kitty different?

A Game of Cat and Mouth

Hello Kitty’s ability to be interpreted is taken one step further than, say, Betty Boop or Tintin. The advantage Kitty-chan holds is her lack of a mouth. The reason for this is summed up best by Yuko Yamaguchi, the current character designer (meaning “boss”) of Hello Kitty:

“[She doesn't have a mouth] so that people who look at her can project their own feelings onto her face, because she has an expressionless face. Kitty looks happy when people are happy. She looks sad when they are sad. For this psychological reason, we thought she shouldn’t be tied to any emotion – and that’s why she doesn’t have a mouth.”

The power of Hello Kitty’s interpretation now extends a layer deeper, beyond our idea of what she represents into our idea of what she is feeling. This gives her life in our minds, in a way that “mouthed” cartoons can’t. What Mickey Mouse is feeling at any given moment, not counting his situation or environment, can be clearly seen through his mouth. Hello Kitty, lacking this feature, could be feeling anything at any time! And thus whatever we may be feeling can and probably does get transferred onto her face.

2. She’s not from anything

What about my second gripe, the one where I say that Hello Kitty comes from “nothing”? Well, that too is remedied by her inane face. The same way in which she absorbs the interpretations and feelings of her viewer, she also absorbs the surroundings of the designs she inhabits. Put her in a pink dress surrounded by hearts and butterflies, and oh! She is so adorable! Put her in black and white on a designer wallet and how retro chic she becomes! Oh, and put her in a Godzilla costume. She looks right at home there, too.

No matter where you put her that’s where she belongs. And that’s why she can’t “be from” something. Her lack of definition works for her yet again. She’s from “nowhere” and “everywhere” at the same time.

INTRODUCING! Mr. Rounded-Edge Rectangle Head Man!

So there it is! I have unlocked the secret to the multimillion dollar success of Hello Kitty. Coincidentally, I am proud to announce my new character, Mr. Rounded-Edge Rectangle Head Man!

I’ll be putting him on cycling gloves and fanny-packs, so get ready to mail me all your money!

No dice?

Oh wait, I forgot. There is another pair of creations by Sanrio that are not nearly as popular as Hello Kitty:

Patty and Jimmy! Despite being simplified and having no mouth, these two are hideous and unpopular. But they got the formula down, so what’s the problem?

This Little Kitty Went to Market

Kitty-chan’s design, genius though it may be, was not enough to bring her billions right off the bat. Even though she had early success, there was a long process of good luck and good decision-making before she really started raking in the fanbucks.

Hello Kitty creator Yuko Shimizu was tasked with creating six characters for Sanrio in 1974. Among these was an unassuming white cat. Shimizu was keen enough to realize that simplicity was important for the characters she designed, but she didn’t understand the impact of removing Hello Kitty’s mouth.

“I couldn’t express the mouth in a cute way, so I decided not to use it.”

That was the genius move that set Kitty apart. A happy accident. The decision behind the defining feature of this iconic character was a lack of decision.

But Shimizu’s indecision was fruitful and her character was immediately successful among young girls. In the beginning, Hello Kitty was only printed on small gifts like stationery and watches, usually sitting on a couch or cutely flying a bi-plane. The following fifteen or so years saw a steady decline in popularity for Kitty-chan. She remained a mildly popular children’s commodity until the children began to grow up.

In 1994 Sanrio launched Hello Kitty’s “Face Series” to extend her appeal to an older audience. Sanrio had spent twenty years selling Kitty goods to children and had begun to grasp the power of her meaningless face. The attachment of kids to this character was strong and it would be foolish to let that attachment weaken as they grew older. The “Face Series” was Sanrio’s first attempt to market Hello Kitty products to teens and adults. Oh, and it worked. Big time. Biggly large time.

Sanrio continued its smartness in the early 2000s when it conducted research which concluded that one third of people shopping in the U.S. were over eighteen and shopping for themselves. Surprise! Five-year-olds have no money. This led to Kitty goods which encompassed more sophisticated items such as lingerie, guitars and designer watches.

At the present time, Hello Kitty has become empress of the merchandising world. Her malleable visage graces everything for everyone, from dollar bin tissue boxes to designer purses. She is bought by grown women with a sense for high fashion and young girls who “wike kitties.” This cat’s power is astounding.

The White Queen

Do I still hate Hello Kitty? Not at all. I’m not a fan in the traditional sense, but I find the unintentional genius of her design and the business acumen with which she was put to use utterly fascinating. The power of the consumer to mentally project whatever meaning they want onto your product means you lose control of your product, but gain control of the consumer. You basically have the power to sell consumer’s selves to themselves!

The concept of this kind of power inhabiting a modest white cat makes her seem so much more formidable. She has a great power to grant the comfort of her world built around one’s own wishes, but with it maintains the control of all who love her. She is no mere mascot, but a queen! Not dark, but beautiful and terrible as the dawn! Treacherous as the sea! Stronger than the foundations of the earth! All shall love her, and despair!

Or perhaps that’s just how I choose to interpret her.

Sources:

• TIME Magazine
• Buying In by Rob Walker
• Understanding Comics by Scott McCloud
• Wikipedia

[hr /]

Bonus Wallpapers!

[1280x800 - Teal] ∙ [2560x1600 - Teal] ∙ [1280x800 - Red] ∙ [2560x1600 - Red]

It seems the question was posed in the Crime Suppression Division in Bangkok recently: What better way to teach our law enforcement officials a lesson than through public humiliation? And, truly, what greater shame could be inflicted on a staunch, over-bearing asian man than to having to wear a hot-pink accessory depicting Hello Kitty, Ambassador of All Things Cute and Girly? It seems that when the Thai want to teach you a lesson, they really get you where it hurts.

Starting this month, police officers guilty of minor offenses (such as littering, being late to work, or parking in an off-limits area) will be forced to wear Hello Kitty armbands for a day. Sadly, while wearing the armbands they will not be made to go out in public, instead they will be confined to their division office for time-out.

The goal of all this, of course, is to ensure the officers feel suitably ashamed of their actions to not repeat them again. “[Hello] Kitty is a cute icon for young girls,” says the policy’s mastermind, Pongpat Chayaphan, “it’s not something macho police officers want covering their biceps.” Well done, sir, well done.

Apparently, they tried this trick earlier, but instead of the armbands being pink, they were in a sort of manly plaid. They didn’t work, though, as the police officers they were issued to took them home as keepsakes (which boggles my mind). Only one of the original ten given out was returned afterward. That’s when the Crime Suppression Division decided to bring out the big guns, I suppose. Maybe they figured, If it worked for Darth Vader, it can work for us. Sound logic, if you ask me.

Source (and photo): CNN and The New York Times

* Not really. Pretty much just since this month.