LEGO as an artistic medium?

[-R8-]

I recently came across an interesting article over at the Brothers Brick, written a few years ago. It is an editorial about how the community interprets LEGO creations as art, and brings up some philosophical points that delve into the potentiality of creations being considered 'art.' Here is the link: click

The article and the ensuing discussion on TBB got me thinking about whether LEGO can be considered to be a viable form of art. If there is a consensus that agrees that it is indeed art, then more questions are raised: is there any set definition for 'LEGO art?' Can any definition of art with a more conventional medium (ie paints, clay) be applied to LEGO as well?

Can we consider LEGO creations to be art, or are they simply an example of a fine display of craftsmanship? Or is introducing the entire notion of art into the hobby taking it a step too far, complicating a hobby that should be what it is - a toy?

[Fallenangel]

A picture's worth a thousand words...

[Legoman]

Definately can be art. Nathan Sawaya is one of the more recognised Lego Artists around, I'd suggest checking him out

[Hoboman]

I think asking if Lego can be used to create art is like asking if clay or paint can be used to make art. The fact is, almost any medium can be used to create art. There is not question that it can be used to make art.

The reality is, it is the artist that makes the art and the medium is just what they use. So my little Lego MOCs are not art (trust me here) and neither is the clay pot I made in the 1st grade. But I have seen wonderful art made from clay, paint, steel, copper, and yes, Lego bricks.

[Yatkuu]

Interesting topic, I would not claim that my MOCs are "Art" (certainly not in view of the creations of this guy!) but in my opinion art is about expressing your feelings and ideas trough a medium - whether it's a music instrument, paint or bricks it does'nt really matter. And from that perspective then, yes I would say that any MOC is a form of art.

Now the problem is that the perception of Lego by most people does not go any further than considering it as a toy - period. There is nothing we can do about that and afterall...it is what it is... so the question should perhaps be "can we make art out of a toy?" - I'm guessing most people here would say yes...but again, our opinion is a little biased.

[Miss Kyle]

Lego is absolutely a medium of art! I don't want to start a discussion about what is or is not a valuable kind of art, but when it comes to materials, Lego is perfect for the big and the small scale. I think every MOC is a little piece of art, because people turn their ideas into something visible. If you do it with paint, a pencil, wood, stone or Lego doesn't matter. Nuff said

Edited July 26, 2011 by Miss Kyle

[snefroe]

i agree with the writer of the article on Brother's brick.

however, the question that should be answered is: what exactly is art? how do you define "art"? to me, Lego is just a tool, as any other object can be used to create art...

[SilentMode]

The main reason I got back into Lego was to use it as an art medium. At the time I was into sculpting on top of vinyl figures with Sculpey, but otherwise I struggle with three-dimensional creations.

[-R8-]

I certainly agree that LEGO can be used to create art. However, what I was mainly getting at was what defines a LEGO MOC as art.

For example, is a replica of a car with amazing accuracy still considered art, or is it just a technical achievement? Does there have to be a message that was conveyed by the creator in order for a LEGO creation to be art? Or is everything made out of LEGO art, sets, MOCs and everything else?

Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough in the opening post.

[def]

The main reason I got back into Lego was to use it as an art medium. At the time I was into sculpting on top of vinyl figures with Sculpey, but otherwise I struggle with three-dimensional creations.

I think you're talking about it as a creative/craft medium as opposed to an artistic one. Art is about technical skill, but it's also about the ideas behind it.

That said, Lego can definitely be an artistic medium, since everything is an artistic medium in context. It just takes a person with vision to utilize it as such. Unfortunately I'm not that person

I certainly agree that LEGO can be used to create art. However, what I was mainly getting at was what defines a LEGO MOC as art.

For example, is a replica of a car with amazing accuracy still considered art, or is it just a technical achievement? Does there have to be a message that was conveyed by the creator in order for a LEGO creation to be art? Or is everything made out of LEGO art, sets, MOCs and everything else?

Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough in the opening post.

You're really getting into the difference between art and design. There is a general umbrella of 'art' that gets used where, for example, cereal boxes are art. But a lot of artists take issue with that definition, since the world of graphic design is generally considered hollow by them. It depends on you, I guess. For example, if you see a great car or bridge, do you consider it art? Compared to something by, say, Picasso, do you see them as different categories, or variations of the same kind, like apples and oranges?

Personally, I think MOC designers have a lot of skill, and a lot to respect, but if there's no idea behind it, I'd call it a sort of craft. But once that MOC triggers something more than, "How did they do that?!" I would call that art.

Something like this says something to me, beyond ha-ha or that's cool:

Unfortunately it doesn't say any more than the original pic would have.

There is something innately artistic about Lego to me though... The notion that the whole world can be filtered into this tiny plastic parallel. That artist who someone posted at the top of this thread with the yellow bricks, he's incredibly gifted, but I don't see why he couldn't have done that with a different medium and captured the same message. I prefer the use of Lego at minifig scale and the concepts that triggers in a person.

[Brickdoctor]

I would have to agree with the writer on TBB, but I also agree with def in that I think the problem is that a lot of us are confusing the terms 'art' and 'artwork',

The creative arts (art as discipline) are a collection of disciplines (arts) that produce artworks (art as objects) that are compelled by a personal drive (art as activity) and echo or reflect a message, mood, or symbolism for the viewer to interpret (art as experience).

and the terms 'art of LEGO creating' and 'LEGO creations as art', where the definitions "skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making friends>" and " an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ building>" can be applied to the former and the latter is what the TBB article is referring to.

[22kane]

Definately can be art. Nathan Sawaya is one of the more recognised Lego Artists around, I'd suggest checking him out

I followed this link this morning and was amazed at this guys work. He obviously makes a living building these works and they are quite impressive. I'm curious what his life size figures go for. Can't be cheap I'm sure. If I had a couple extra million laying around I would definitely buy some of his work.

[Hoboman]

However, what I was mainly getting at was what defines a LEGO MOC as art?

What is art? Is this MOC art? The answers will be different from person to person. What makes art, art is highly subjective and while we might agree to the theoretical answers mumbling something about feelings and stimulation of the emotional brain, once we leave theory and start to look at specific MOCs I think is where we will fail to answer your question.

From my point of view, this is one of those extremely subjective questions that can never be defined.

[SilentMode]

I have an artistic background (i.e. I used to specialise in art subjects), and now I'm confused.

[Aanchir]

I think there's no question whether a MOC can be considered "art". The only thing that really separates LEGO as an artistic medium from things like clay or paints is that there is more design work put in by others in advance to produce the medium itself. And that can hardly disqualify them from being art any more than the nature of Marcel Duchamp's Readymades.

In high school art classes, I was taught three criteria for art (obviously, ones which not everyone will agree on): good design, aesthetic experience, and human intention. Obviously all of these are extremely subjective. Even "human intention", which seems simple enough, has had its meaning tested by artists like Marcel Duchamp who demonstrate that choosing a subject demonstrates intention just as well as creating it from raw materials.

Nobody really questions whether Nathan Sawaya's masterpieces are art, and even the LEGO Master Builders' works at LEGOLAND parks could easily be considered art. But what about a set, or a MOC designed along similar terms? Obviously, sets are made to be mass-produced, but how is this different than a linoleum-block print? Sets are designed by teams rather than individuals, but how is this different from filmmaking? Sets are designed according to functional as well as aesthetic terms, but how is this different from certain types of "kinetic art"? I think the question isn't "when are MOCs art", but rather "when do MOCs stop being art?" And I would personally argue that they only stop being art when the MOCist stops designing them for an artistic purpose.

Whether they're good art is another matter entirely, of course.

[Pingles]

Now I find myself asking "What do *I* consider to be art?"

The first time a Lego creation crossed over from cute gimmick, neat model or fascinating engineering into ART was the abandoned building of Mike Doyle.

Not sure what made that tug at my heart more than my brain and I don't think I could define it adequately.

Fascinating.