[MOC] Strange Fruit

[Captain Dee]

I think everyone naturally has a negative initial reaction - and anyone who doesn't is probably a psycho. It's just a natural reaction to the irrational, sadistic hatred that fueled those violent acts. The perpetrators' reasons were numerous, but hatred was always the root, and as we still see to this day, hatred provokes powerful reactions. But Martin Luther King, Jr. knew that fighting fire with fire wasn't the answer, and neither is powerful backlash against this depiction the best way to address it. This topic was briefly locked yesterday - and then unlocked, which makes me think the powers that be must have discussed it themselves before reaching a final decision. Censorship seems too aggressive and limiting, especially considering the polite conversation we've been having - and I suspect it's the reason the topic was unlocked. I commend whoever made that final decision.

Blufiji, I'm glad you spoke up. I agree fully with your response (I also thought about Gary's battle scene) but I'm especially glad to hear from an African-American. You certainly lend a valuable viewpoint, even if everyone doesn't agree with you.

One more point: the ghosts as Klansmen. What's all the fuss about? I looked up several old photos and I'm convinced the ghost pieces make the best depiction of the white robes and pointy masks of the official Klan uniform from the 1920s (when it was standardized). TheBrickAvenger obviously wanted to create an accurate depiction - and I think he did the best possible. I can't come up with any other combination of parts that comes close. Sure it's uncomfortable - because it's reasonably accurate. A solid white minifigure wouldn't look realistic and, crucially, wouldn't provoke the necessary response.

[TheBrickAvenger]

Thank you for your comments, your encouragements, your notices, your critics, remarks, in brief, thank you for your reactions because it is also for what I waited in my approach, I like that a creation can arouse the embarrassment, the emotion, the debate, the dialogue or the reflection.

There are many points of view which diverge in these various comments, I thus suggest you in my tour giving yourself mine, giving some explanation my personal approach. I preferred to wait for a few days so as to make mature my own reflection, a reflection which I was able to consolidate by reading your comments. (Some people blamed me for having added a description to my creation, it would seem whether it is necessary finally double !)

What I wished to make here ?

On no account it was a question of glorifying or of making the apology of this sad period, of these lynchings, either even the thought or actions of the members of the Ku Klux Klan. On the contrary, by choosing to represent this poem (that I adore because it marked me when I was younger) I wished to take place in the same line as Abel Meeropol or Billie Holliday, in the line simply hostile to the ethnic conflicts, and to any shape of racism. This poem, this song, are symbols of the fight against racism and they will later allow to end in the emancipation, in the equality of the rights for the Afro-American community.

Why did I wish to make it now ?

This creation is pure product of the fact that I shall call a "combination of circumstances", I had the idea 2 years ago, by building the Haunted Lego House , one of the ghosts had fallen to the ground, on profile and the head of the suit immediately reminded me the hood of the members of the Ku Klux Klan. Unfortunately in the time I had neither the necessary parts, (in particular parts, wedges for the trunk, as well as the leaves), nor especially the time to build and I had thus buried the project by registering it simply in my "to-do-list".

Many more events then took place, following the attacks of Paris last January I terribly wanted to express what I felt but I was incapable to create and then has my life "caught up" me, I had other occupations and once again lack of time. And then there was the affairs besides the Atlantic Ocean on the death of Afro-Americans following police exactions, the trial, in France, of policemen in the Zyed and Bouna affair, I said to myself that it was the perfect moment to carry out my idea. The current event still agrees with me unfortunately with the publication yesterday of a picture showing two policemen of Chicago posing with a black man, suspected of traffics, made up as hunting trophy, wood of deer put on the head...

You understand from now on my motivation and the context.

Legos, freedom of speech, art and its role...

In my family my father draws but I did not absolutely inherit from its donation result I quickly turned) to Lego, it is my way of expression. It is incredible all that we can represent with these small bricks. They are obviously before anything else toys for the children, it is their first purpose there, and there is thus this shape of innocence, unreal in the toy which I adore, it allows actually to escape and to leave the reality. But I use, and we make it all here, Lego as a material, in the same way as we could take of the paint, the wood, some clay, and it is where I find that highly-rated artistic intervenes, when we use the innocence of the toy to depict something sad, of dark, when the lively colors of bricks Lego (here the yellow and the green) allow to give life to the blackness of the poem.

Some criticize the absence of message, there is well and truly one, the same message as symbolizes the poem and the creation is the simple representation, or rather my full of imagery, free interpretation to you and I encourage you to make it, to represent under other forms this poem as well as other poems !

Others criticize the choice and the use of the ghosts, what you call ghost is for me only a phosphorescent white part, a part of suit tidied up among thousands of the other bricks. As I said it and as you make it, I use Lego as a material, when I create any initial part can end in a different purpose from the moment she allows me to reach the purpose that I settled, the one that I look for, here the realism. (Whips for roots, object which aims at hurting and which represents here the nature, the levers for the field, the mechanical object in principle which here also represents the nature, the hands for branches, organic parts once again to represent the nature, and thus the suits of ghosts, innocent at Lego to represent here the getups of the Ku Klux Klan.)

The theme is sad it's true, but why to refuse to represent it ? To bury it is not the solution, to forget would be an error, we have to face this history, look at it in the eyes to improve our acts tomorrow. We cannot be outraged( here and look with admiration at the diorama on the Napoleonic conquests in Spain on the Frontpage of this Forum, compare simply the number of deaths …

The slave trade, the Rwandan genocide, the holocaust after that? But I say yes and I so wish for it if it is done properly, why not go as far as compiling all these creations in a history book completely realized in Lego so that the children of the whole world who become identified with our small favorite bricks can get acquainted with the History ? The artistic representation with Lego sets then of all its sense, to shine, to educate, become enlightened, to learn, to discuss, it is necessary.

I study law, and I am thus attached as many of the others to the principle of the freedom of speech, Article 4 of our Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of August 26th, 1789 which has in France constitutional value and thus allows, under certain limits, to express us, to represent etc. Since it is intelligently made, since we stay in the debate, the dialogue, the censorship adorned me to be an error, and I am satisfied that we can exchange here again. I shall end my words with a sentence of Spinoza, by hoping to have clarified my intentions: “Not to laugh, not to cry, not to hate, but understand.”

Thanks to all!

[Captain Dee]

Good explanation - and good judgement in waiting to post your own reply. I've been supportive of the concept from the beginning, but I would still like to offer one small bit of advice: if you build another uncomfortable or controversial depiction, it just might be helpful to offer your personal position on the matter when you first post it. This should eliminate questions regarding your intentions or purpose and likewise minimize criticism of both you and the subject matter. Don't assume that everyone will understand your purpose! You're a brave soul for doing this and I support your efforts within the proper context.

[TuftedDuck]

I have nothing to add to what has been said before here other than to say well done to TheBrickAvenger for prompting the conversation. You can't escape history but yes let's hope we don't repeat the mistakes of those who came before.

[MiloNelsiano]

Good explanation - and good judgement in waiting to post your own reply. I've been supportive of the concept from the beginning, but I would still like to offer one small bit of advice: if you build another uncomfortable or controversial depiction, it just might be helpful to offer your personal position on the matter when you first post it. This should eliminate questions regarding your intentions or purpose and likewise minimize criticism of both you and the subject matter. Don't assume that everyone will understand your purpose! You're a brave soul for doing this and I support your efforts within the proper context.

On the contrary, I think posting his intentions ahead of time would have prevented seeing people's opinions on this topic. If art is supposed to arouse a reaction, it's often more interesting to see the reaction without influencing it by explaining it.

Edited May 30, 2015 by MiloNelsiano

[Captain Dee]

MiloNelsiano, I agree with you to a point. If TheBrickAvenger had included the entire lengthy reply as part of the original post, then obviously most of the rest of this conversation never would have happened. I was thinking of a simple statement, not more than a few sentences, which should serve to minimize the most negative and critical reactions. This type subject matter will always provoke a response, with or without a personal position on the matter, but I find it troubling when people rush to judge the creator rather than simply analyzing the work itself. That's what I was suggesting he could avoid while still leaving room for discussion of the actual subject. I'm confident that stating one's basic position wouldn't stifle the conversation.

Edited May 30, 2015 by Captain Dee

[MiloNelsiano]

Fair enough!

[notaromantic]

No.

Why?... Well, the challenge of "art" lay in its symbolism. The good artist knows that the creation itself must be capable of evoking that "emotion, debate, dialogue, and reflection" you refer to - again, art does not require context be given, art does not require its footnotes or attachments. Billie Holiday's "Strange Fruit" is strong enough, artistically, to be able to do exactly that - evoke a response, a very human, and sometimes base response, without the listener ever even knowing what its about. But the sympathy of emotion generated by that response, that is what gives the listener the inertia to find out. Art opens doors like that - with tenderness, or with acidity, but never in such a literal way. And to tackle a subject matter which, going into it, one should be aware of its controversy, and thus take extra precaution to portray their scene with an extra finesse.

The skillful artist will lob it out there, on its own merits, to make or break itself. And I believe your need to not only attach both the lyrics and the historical synopsis to the initial post, and then, to make your second post a testimonial to the matter, might be an indication that you knew the piece needed it, or else it may not be seen for what you intended...

But, I think, that is exactly why many of us here, also fellow "artists", do not yet tackle some subjects - because we know we better do them well, or not do them at all. Because someone out there can do it with a lot more credence and with a lot less shock. And someone out there, who perhaps is a lot closer to the experience of it or the residue of it, may have the vantage needed to do just that - and to avoid what many artists so woefully forget: That in doing so, it is entirely possible that you will accomplish only one thing with our young and careless sincerity: Re-victimizing a population. There are a reason some things are offensive to some people. We should never forget to respect that in our endeavors to reopen and parade wounds for the sake of a shock-and-awe art piece that is intended to benefit the artist more than his or her cause...

The freedom of speech is but one of many freedoms we enjoy, and employ. As is the freedom of touch. But to be touched, as to be be spoken to, is a very subjective thing. There are ways to approach people, and to speak to them, without offending them. Sometimes, yes, art does need to be its juggernaut - and it will find its ways to be so. But sometimes, that's the last thing it needs to be.

As someone else mentioned, your work here was too literal - too simple - and there was not enough thought put into it. But then again, I think you knew this, and you know this, otherwise you would have omitted all explanation. I think you attached yourself to a cause to lend the piece a weight it does not itself have. You should not need to defend it. Think Bansky. He does this kind of thing better than anyone, and it becomes what it should be - a message, embedded without being cursory.

And none of this is to say it is not a good build - because it is. I've actually grown very fond of the base and the wheat field. Another poster mentioned that you should've used plain white minifigs rather than ghosts. And I agree. That would've posited the colors against each other, while retaining the same shapes - which artistically, does point out the irrational nature of discrimination, and it heightens the paradox of the entire situation: We are all the same. Why?

I don't know. Perhaps a question to you, the O.P... Tomorrow, another poster here shares a build which is completely offensive to your own point of view, lineage, or morality, and perhaps simply as a means of having their work noticed, kind of like cutting in line in the lunchroom. Tables turned, do you still stand on these same laurels?

Oh, and - I've thought about it, at one time. I would've went in this direction:

http://www.bricklink...Item.asp?P=x107

with

http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItem.asp?P=3626bpb0184

or

http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItem.asp?P=3626bpb0187

or

http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItem.asp?P=3626bpx137

Edited May 31, 2015 by notaromantic

[PaddyBricksplitter]

"A picture is worth a thousand words."

This familiar statement communicates the idea that a complex series of "messages" can be conveyed by a single image. What those messages are however is not always clear.

We ask are selves "What does this mean? Why did the person do this? As we can see from this thread a clearer explanation was sought in this case and TBA furnished us with one. We breathe a collective sigh of relief when we see he was earnest in his intentions.

Polish artist ZBIGNIEW LIBERA courted the same controversy with his Lego sets of the Holocaust. The same questions were asked "Is this appropriate using a child's toy to depict such a serious subject?"

What is an appropriate medium for such shockingly horrible subjects? Chalk? Paint? Text? Or a comic book? Art Spiegelman's Maus which depicted the Holocaust in comic book form featuring cartoon animals instead of people. He was a comic artist and used the medium he knew to convey the story of his families wartime experiences. Just like Animal Farm, it's never going to be comfortable reading and perhaps it never should.

Next we say "Is this the right place to display such a thing?" Well we decide that, where is the "right" place is.

I for one do not like this image but I would defend TBA's right to post it. Just like all those images of Lego World Trade Centre buildings or Lego crusades or Iraq or WW2. I feel uncomfortable seeing them but that is just my opinion. I don't think they should be censored. As a AFOL community or culture we should be able to tolerate such images at least.

[Captain Dee]

My prior statements have generally been defensive of the concept of posting material such as this but I have largely ignored the issue of artistic expression. I have never really appreciated Lego as an art form; I enjoy studying history and I especially like viewing realistic historic Lego depictions. But I don't usually view these depictions as "art" even if it was the builder's intention. This depiction is reasonably realistic and I like it as such (even though the subject itself is historically troubling) but I don't view it through the lens of "art."

I think most of the differences regarding art expressed in this conversation can be condensed into one simple phrase: real versus abstract. I prefer realism. It is indeed a form of art, but a very literal, rigid, predetermined form with little room for interpretation. Realism generally provokes a very predictable reaction. It relies less on the artist's creative intellect and more on his creative abilities. It usually doesn't challenge the viewer to ponder the meaning because the meaning is freely expressed. For this reason some art critics refer to realism as a "lower" form of art.

Abstract art is decidedly less realistic if it is realistic at all (think modern art). It isn't bound by literal, defined constraints but is instead open to any form the artist wishes to employ. Because it lacks recognizable definition it may evoke a wide range of unpredictable reactions, and this cognitive stimulus is often recognized as a "higher" form of art. Abstract art is to physical expressions the way free verse is to poetry: loosely defined if at all, leaving the artist free to explore.

So which form is better - or even correct? That ultimately must be left to the viewer to decide. I've already stated my preference. Notaromantic accuses the depiction of being "too literal" and for failing to adequately portray itself - and I agree totally from an abstract point of view. Without regard for our respective viewpoints - real and abstract - one might think that we, the viewers, deeply disagree. But with regard to our personal positions I think both views are correct. The depiction is reasonably accurate (realistic) which satisfies people like myself while leaving wanting those who prefer the greater depth of expression and interpretation afforded by an abstract (less realistic) form.

Then there are other personal positions beyond art to consider. Jreacher expressed distaste for depictions of this nature based on his experience as a veteran. I can't argue against that; different people have different sensitivities and one is not necessarily right or wrong.

I recommended a disclaimer of sorts to protect the builder due to the fact that racism and hatred are depicted. Generally art need not be explained or defended by its creator, even when the subject is controversial or offensive, but again - race requires a softer touch. A sentence or two could easily serve this purpose without negatively influencing the interpretation by the viewer.

Overall this has been a very interesting conversation, and I applaud everyone for being so courteous and polite. I often find anonymous discussions like this on other sites to be vulgar and crude with their hurled insults and profanity. Mature conversations such as this are one of the nicer attributes of Eurobricks!

I wasn't going to leave another comment on this topic but notaromantic's well-written reply compelled me to consider the source of our different views. You'll never be accused of being notanartcritic, and I assume you would prefer a more abstract form.

The Klansmen are just difficult to portray accurately; the ghost makes a good mask and robe which conceal the form beneath while lacking the correct color or point on the hat, and the white hat/printed head combo doesn't truly conceal the head and provides no robe. It's a tradeoff. From an abstract perspective you are correct in stating that solid white and black minifigures without any other form express the concept well.

Ultimately we don't all think alike. If we did I doubt if art would serve any purpose.

[PaddyBricksplitter]

Well I certainly didn't expect a discussion on what constitutes art and the right to freedom of expression when I logged into Euro Bricks today. I appreciate that it was allowed to continue and reach a conclusion of sorts.

What I find interesting is that some consider Lego creations as art and others do not. Perhaps that would make a good topic for the general discussion section?

[Regenerate builder]

That could be a great discussion. I think Lego can definitely be used as an art medium and actually have that in mind when I build my Mocs vs playability.

[Captain Dee]

I don't have a problem with the concept of Lego as an art form - I just don't usually view it that way. This particular depiction was obviously created to be a form of art so it's difficult to ignore. I build for face value but everyone is free to do otherwise.

[PaddyBricksplitter]

I will create a thread in general discussion regarding Lego as art. I'm interested to hear what people have to say on the subject.

[Legocity2713]

Great build. It really is a great image to the poem. Good work my friend. :thumbup: