Brick Testament: Education or Exploitation?

[gylman]

I also feel as a Lego fan, we all need to either petition his work or express our feelings directly to him. Lego toys are not meant to be used in such ways. Even though they are a hobby to us, they are still a toy to a child.

I agree with Asuka. While I dislike his work because I find it to abuse a child's toy that I love - as you have stated - the last thing I want is censorship to become acceptable on religious grounds.

We got a taste of that a few years ago, and it is unacceptable in a modern world.

[tedbeard]

... Paul probably did not intetnion it to be sexual.

See, this is where The Brick Testament is not just silly fun, it can educate as well.

Clearly you are not aware that Paul is the source cited most in defence of homophobia by Christians. His letters are often used to support arguments regarding appropriate sexuality.

If the Brick Testament actually gets people to read the words then it has done a great service to mankind. He adds no violence or sexual content that is not already there. In fact, overall he is quite restrained (perhaps constrained by the medium itself) as the books of the bible are full of sex and violence.

Someone mentioned the scene after the great flood. Seriously, what would you expect after the waters receded? Blooming flowers and pastoral scenery? I would expect bloated corpses and fields of mud and detritus. Skeletons are actually less messy than rotting flesh.

[xenologer]

Consider this:

Suppose someone made lego vignettes that made fun of say, Scientology or Mormons.

Would you still be complaining?

[Joebot]

What a person does with their Legos in their home is their business, but when that person decides to take it a step further and begins showing certain degrading images to the public, that is wrong.

I am definitly shocked at his work. I will say some of his models were very well created. But he needs to respect all people of the world.

There's a HUGE difference between saying, "This offends me and I won't look at it," and saying, "This offends me, so therefore NO ONE ELSE should look at it." The first is simply expressing your opinion. The second is censorship.

What the Rev. has created is art. Art is intended to invoke an emotional response. In you, that response was to be shocked. In others, the response might be laughter, or anger, or any of a hundred other things. It doesn't matter. The point is that the Rev. got a response, and therefore his art was successful.

As for the Rev.'s choice of using Lego blocks ... ah, therein lies the genius of his work. Legos are children's toys. He has subverted their intended use to show scenes of graphic violence and sexuality. Likewise, the Bible, with its graphic stories of murder, torture, and war, has been watered down and told to children as pleasant little morality tales. The Rev. has turned that whole concept upside down by using Lego blocks as his artistic medium. It's brilliant in its way.

-Joebot

[gylman]

Art is intended to invoke an emotional response. In you, that response was to be shocked. In others, the response might be laughter, or anger, or any of a hundred other things. It doesn't matter. The point is that the Rev. got a response, and therefore his art was successful

As for the Rev.'s choice of using Lego blocks ... ah, therein lies the genius of his work. Legos are children's toys. He has subverted their intended use to show scenes of graphic violence and sexuality. Likewise, the Bible, with its graphic stories of murder, torture, and war, has been watered down and told to children as pleasant little morality tales. The Rev. has turned that whole concept upside down by using Lego blocks as his artistic medium. It's brilliant in its way.

. It's brilliant in its way.

-Joebot

My impression is that the often bandied about notion that art is supposed to "provoke" is usually used by artists who lack the talent to create real art, which in my opinion is supposed to make you look at the world in a different way or a deeper way(beyond the surface). These individuals use shock value to substitute for real vision and creativity, and milk the publicity to gain money / notoriety.

I can be provoked by a poke in the eye. That dosen't make it art.

That is not to say that art must make me feel good. Look at Guernica - that picture captures the horror of that bombing in an incredible way. It makes me feel that horror. But its a great piece of art.

So, is the Rev's work art? I think it is on the edge between art and exploitation... for me, it does not provoke deeper thought or perspective. It just makes me feel vaguely revolted, the same way roadkill does. Roadkill is not art, although someone somewhere probably has tried to suggest that it can be.

However, I don't disagree with Joebot's comment, but I would take away some of the superlatives, like "genius" or "brilliant". It's actually kind of obvious, not subtle at all. The Rev redeems himself, though, because he clearly does have skillz.

[Asuka]

I can be provoked by a poke in the eye. That dosen't make it art.

Are you sure? There

[MatthewUSA]

I do understand what some of you are saying about censorship. But by using "Lego toys" for his art, some of his images and work has taken a childs toy to a sadistic level. This is what I was trying to get at earlier. These types of images can either stay in his home or he can broadcast these to an adult audience. He does not have the right to promote such images to children. Parents need to educate their children about these certain images, not him.

Plus the audience he is obviously trying to relate to is children. I understand that some of you would say that he isn't, but look at this in a parents point of view. A parent is going to think that teaching a child about the Bible with Lego toys is perfect. Children can relate to Legos and they are familiar with them. But when parents see the contraversal images, then the "Rev" becomes sick and dimented. This is what I am trying to convey.

[Norrington]

Matthew has a point, the audience is children in some cases, but ONLY the books. The parents are more likley to look in the children's religous section than the internet for religous lessons. I have skimmed through the books, and to put money in his pocket, "the Rev" has edited the books to make them appropriate.

[xenologer]

But by using "Lego toys" for his art, some of his images and work has taken a childs toy to a sadistic level.

I wouldn't call it 'sadistic' exactly, a more accurate term might be 'hilarious'. :-D

This is what I was trying to get at earlier. These types of images can either stay in his home or he can broadcast these to an adult audience.

Now, one problem here is that there is no 'broadcast' per-se anyplace on the internet. The Client computer issues a GET command to the server, who then responds. No data is transmitted unless the client first requests it. It is not the same as a man on a street corner shouting obscene things; you only view what you first request yourself. Do not enter websites that you don't like; its a simple choice.

Parents need to educate their children about these certain images, not him.

Good parents should take an active part in education and use internet filters to keep their kids out of websites they do not find appropriate. Thus these funny funny websites are no longer a problem for them and more entertainment for me.

Plus the audience he is obviously trying to relate to is children. I understand that some of you would say that he isn't, but look at this in a parents point of view.

I'm not convinced he's trying to relate to children, much of the humour on the website was adult in nature or subtle and would not make a kid laugh the same way it did for me. :-D 'family huddle!'

I'm fairly sure its an AFOL audience here.

A parent is going to think that teaching a child about the Bible with Lego toys is perfect. Children can relate to Legos and they are familiar with them. But when parents see the contraversal images, then the "Rev" becomes sick and dimented. This is what I am trying to convey.

I'm not sure from this last part if you are for or against his work. It can be interpreted either way.

But I'll stress that its important for parents to actually read/view things before blindly assuming anything about how appropriate it is for kids. Even Legos, even the Bible, and *gasp* even Harry Potter books.

[tedbeard]

He does not have the right to promote such images to children.

What utter B.S. He does no such thing. His website is very clear that the images are intended for a mature audience and he makes very explicit warnings about the content. Either you have never even visited the site or you are blind. In either case you have not a leg to stand on.

It is indeed the parents responsibility to teach their children. It is also their responsibility to monitor internet useage and decide what is appropriate. Of course, if you object to the images then I assume you also object to children reading the bible since all the images are simply renderings of the stories contained therein.

[Shadows]

The most amusing part of the conversation is that we're now debating the medium being used, as opposed to the stories, and it's the stories that are the most objectionable. So, to divert us from that fact, let's argue that he's corrupting children, or a toy, instead of just admitting that the problem is the violent and immoral nature of situations depicted in the bible.

I was more disturbed by the man who built an entire Nazi death camp in LEGO, including fake packages. Can I argue that he shouldn't have done it? No. It happened. It's real. Millions of Jews as well as other races, ethnic groups and others were slaughtered. We can prove that. I wonder what happens if we apply the same logic to the bible.

Oh, and on a similar note, I remember hearing about the 'disturbing' fake package image being spread around depicting Mohammed having sex with his underaged wife. Apparently it was enough to get LEGO to issue a statement indicating that they weren't involved and that it was clearly not a legitimate product.

So before you cry that it's only the Christians being hit, look around, and then ask yourself some simple questions.

"If what he is presenting is accurate, no matter how inconvenient to think about, is it really wrong or is it more wrong to candy coat the bible into something it isn't?"

If you don't like what he does, don't buy the books, don't give the website hits, don't promote the site to others. Just don't try to take away his right to present his work, which at this point is perfectly legal. Don't like his freedom to do that? Change the law, but remember the potential consequences when someone comes along who disagrees with your views.

[dviddy]

I'm not going to vote, because I too think there should be a third option:

3- Both. It's good to get people thinking and pondering, but the way in which it is presented is unbalanced and lacking in taste.

"If what he is presenting is accurate, no matter how inconvenient to think about, is it really wrong or is it more wrong to candy coat the bible into something it isn't?"

I think Christians do the world a disservice when they claim the Bible to be all about God's love and sacrifice, and about men being at peace.

We should tell it like it is:

It's a book that chronicles men and women as they wrestle with what it means to be human, all the while wrestling with the perfect words of God in an imperfect world.

It's full of the shortcomings of being human: rape, murder, thievery, incest, and everything evil under the sun.

It's full of the wonders of mankind: peace, love, brotherhood, community, service, and all that comes with it.

I think it's good that the "Rev" seems to be attempting to create dialogue within the community, and I, as a Christian, encourage questions and doubts, because I don't think we do anyone good when we leave things like this out of the equation.

However, I find the presentation in a lot of these to be rather tasteless (such as the slavery, and marriage ones posted here earlier).

I'd wish he created scenes from the 'good' parts of the Bible too, but I think that might undermine his point.

<<DV>>

[Bonaparte]

I like the MOCs and scenes of the Brick Testament.

They are very well build and have "some" historical meaning.

I have many doubts about the historical accuracy of the Bible itself, so why not take some freedom when using it as a source for MOCs