Making peace with my hate for Sonny Angels

The aesthetic of the season, especially going into spring, is the “suburban girlhood” theme. It focuses on a childish hyper-fem, with pastel pinks and matcha greens. It’s reminiscent, focusing on warmer vibes and carefree activities, like building fairy houses and journaling on a page covered with cheap holographic stickers. My only issue is their token consumerism item: the Sonny Angel. 

Sonny Angels are collectible figurines, selling for around $10 each. They’re, as the name suggests, baby angels with a poised stance and their hands being slightly propped out. Each angel has a signature hat that corresponds to the series they reign from and their rarity. For example, they released a fruit and vegetable series, where the figurines could have hats that resembled a strawberry or a head of cauliflower. In quick observation, the Angel figure does match the suburban girlhood vibe well. Their uniform beige skin tone, only being disrupted by a small pair of angel wings on their back, make lining them up for display a religious experience. 

The official Sonny Angel website describes them as “little angel boy[s] who likes wearing all sorts of headgear.” They say “He is always by your side to make you smile.” I am not smiling, but they are. Each angel has the same expression, where they have a light smile atop their chubby blushed cheeks. They all look ominously to the side. Their expression is similar to other (mostly vintage) dolls and baby angel imagery. But those collections were beloved, so what is my issue with Sonny Angels in particular? 

The fault of Sonny Angels is they attached bodies onto the face, pushing a more realistic and human-like vibe onto the original angel concept. It would be strange to sell naked baby dolls, so they market them as angels; the issue is they lack features that ensure that it’s obvious they are angels. Personally, that’s my main critique--they rarely have clothing. There are half-exceptions such as special edition collections, where the Angels have different shirts, but even including those, there are no collections where the Angels have pants. 

The main demographic of the figure is unclear; I don’t think they’re intended for children as they aren’t flashy and quite monotony. Kids love to imagine, and the Angels have a consistent design that they wouldn’t appreciate as much as other figures that have movable limbs or additional clothing items that could be swapped around. Sonny Angels seems to be very intentionally designed; the colors they use are bright but not neon and they rarely use specialty materials like glittery gel or metallics. These are design choices that kids could be drawn to, but can’t keep their interest. The intended demographic is most likely older teenagers to young adults, who can enjoy collecting dolls again without being uncomfortable in the childishness. But then, I return to the idea that the concept is a little strange. The concept is, once again, figures of babies with no clothing. 

Rather than complimenting the aesthetic, the angels create a new one. Right now, it’s tiptoeing between nostalgic and fresh, as seen in its ambiguous intended demographic. It feels like it’s made to appeal to those growing up and moving past fragments of childhood, yet it wants to hold on to the colorful pieces of life and appreciate every event. I think the uniformity of the figures is meant to match the maturity of the people who buy and display them. At the same time, the colorful fruits and animal headgear are an ode to the childishness that we don’t have time to appreciate anymore. Even if weird, the concept feels like it’s trying very hard to be pure to the theoretical children who buy them. Even if teenagers and beyond end up collecting them, they have an illusion of a kid's doll that appeals to an aesthetic that focuses on innocent childhood experiences.