Purism

[2GodBDGlory]

Well, since this topic got bumped up again, I might as well give my personal opinion.

To me, the primary goal of building Lego is to have fun, with a secondary goal being to impress/inspire people. Therefore, it really depends what I am building. If I want to build a small, fast, fun RC car, I have no problem using hobby RC components, because this particular project is biased toward goal #1, and more power is more fun! However, if I am building a big, complex supercar or truck, my priorities get swung more towards goal #2, so I keep it much more purist. That said, I am never totally purist. I often use a compact 7.4V camera battery for models, knock-off buggy motors, orthodontic/Rainbow Loom elastics, disassembled shock absorbers, and painted light-bluish-grey panels. In my complex models, I suppose my goal is to accomplish my functional goals within what is possible with Lego. Sure, you might not be able to make the same model in light-bluish grey without painting stuff, but you could probably do it in orange more or less, and I am just too cheap to buy several thousand orange pieces for something like that. The same goes for the buggy motors. Small rubber bands are very convenient and fairly well accepted, and disassembled shock absorbers are still, to me, Lego parts. Can't you even buy the individual parts on Bricklink? As for that camera battery, I usually try to keep it in my "fun" models, or ones where I need two batteries to make it work.

[Andman]

Everyone has his own opinion about how much of a purist he want to be. What's the point of judging each other? Live and let live.

[2GodBDGlory]

Here's an analogy:

Technic is like chess (not just in planning several steps ahead). Some rules are required to have fun, but some rules may be more fun than others. For example, I believe that chess queens used to move just like kings, until someone decided that it would be more fun to play with fast-moving queens. Say my buddies and I like the old rules better, so we decide to play with wimpy queens. There's nothing wrong with that, but we'll never win at tournaments if we play by the wrong rules.

Just like that, if I think it is fun, there is nothing wrong with my building with custom parts, but my work can't be compared fairly with that of purists, since we are playing by different rules.

So, the bottom line is that each builder has to decide first what "rules" are the most fun, personally, and then whether it is worth it to play by different rules than everyone else.

1 hour ago, Andman said:

Everyone has his own opinion about how much of a purist he want to be. What's the point of judging each other? Live and let live.

Because the questions listed above are subjective, not objective, there is no reason to judge builders who play by different rules, we just need to realize that their models cannot be equally compared.

[Pvdb]

 

Interesting discussion.

In the past I have used non Lego parts to finish off a model, but I was never particularly satisfied with the result, because I had not met the challenge of finding a solution with the Lego parts in front of me.  So, for me, if I am building a Lego MOC and taking it seriously then it is not going to have any 3rd party parts in it, or broken/cut parts either.

However, if it is just about having a bit of fun at home, then why not use a 3rd party control system, or something.  

As for 3rd party stickers, I am not really sure.  I never use stickers on Lego even when building a Lego set, but I can't deny that a few of the MOC presented over the years have looked great with their custom sticker sets.  So for me, as long a the MOC looks great with or without the non Lego stickers then I think there is no issue.  

 

[msk6003]

On 12/7/2020 at 12:07 AM, jovel said:

For the people who consider themself as a 100% purist:

Do you use app's that are not official created by lego to control Powered up / Mindstorms?

But touch control is suck.... only 51515 app support "offical" gamepad control.

[howitzer]

Very interesting topic with many valid points of view.

I think the bottom line to keep in mind here is that Lego is a hobby and each of us are allowed to choose whatever constraints they feel are appropriate for themselves. So it's nobody's place to say that "this is wrong" or "you shouldn't do that" on someone else's hobby project.

As for myself, I choose to limit my building only to parts and materials that are manufactured by TLG and are easily available - no obscure parts that have gone out of production decades ago or are otherwise very expensive or hard to get. Few exceptions that I allow for myself are third party hose, string and rubber bands, as those are obviously stuff that TLG can easily produce in any size/length they need without significant investment in moulding and some of them also tend to degrade over time and are hard to replace from official sources. I also try to make my builds in such a way that they only use TLG-legal connections and building techniques. I can of course change these constraints on a whim, I'm not obligated to ask anyone's permission on how I conduct my hobby.

With the above being said...

For MOC instructions that are sold for money I expect that there's no parts modifying, third party parts or TLG-illegal building techniques - or if there is, the seller should be very clear on how the MOC in question diverges from the purest forms of purism so that the buyer knows the specifics before making the purchase. For example, they should provide the full parts list, along with explanations for any possible modifications on parts so that the buyer knows what they're paying for. Freely provided instructions are again another matter, as the prospective builder can inspect them before they start to build.

[nerdsforprez]

5 hours ago, howitzer said:

no obscure parts that have gone out of production decades ago or are otherwise very expensive or hard to get.

 

On 12/6/2020 at 4:42 PM, Andman said:

bout how much of a purist he want to be

 

On 12/7/2020 at 3:27 AM, Pvdb said:

with the Lego parts in front of me

The idea of Lego "purism" is a moving target and so poorly defined.  Even TLG doesn't believe in Purism as they continually churn out new Technic elements year after year.  These aren't obscure appendages, but important connecters, panels, etc. that continually change the face of the hobby.  

Consider this; there are AFOLs who now take a year or longer to build a MOC.  Can you imagine taking such time, trying to complete something within the confines of what is considered official Lego a year ago, the pain, agony, time and perfection only to have them release an official piece that facilitates your build 10X just a few days or weeks after you took a year or longer to complete the same thing?  

[Pvdb]

3 hours ago, nerdsforprez said:

Consider this; there are AFOLs who now take a year or longer to build a MOC.  Can you imagine taking such time, trying to complete something within the confines of what is considered official Lego a year ago, the pain, agony, time and perfection only to have them release an official piece that facilitates your build 10X just a few days or weeks after you took a year or longer to complete the same thing?  

LOL....  that happened to me when Lego brought out the orange gear shift piece.  I subsequently binned the MOC and started again, and am still working on it (very slowly as also finishing off a house extension!!!)   

[nerdsforprez]

5 minutes ago, Pvdb said:

LOL....  that happened to me when Lego brought out the orange gear shift piece.  I subsequently binned the MOC and started again, and am still working on it (very slowly as also finishing off a house extension!!!)   

 Yea - and I get it.  I get the thrill of doing something within the confines of certain rules.  And responses on this page are certainly more balanced and well-thought than some in the past - I like them in that they seem to articulate the fluidity of the concept of Lego purism.  In the past it, at least to me, seems to have been interpreted by most as a black and white concept; whereas right now it seems to me much more fluid....

[howitzer]

5 hours ago, nerdsforprez said:

The idea of Lego "purism" is a moving target and so poorly defined.  Even TLG doesn't believe in Purism as they continually churn out new Technic elements year after year.  These aren't obscure appendages, but important connecters, panels, etc. that continually change the face of the hobby.  

Consider this; there are AFOLs who now take a year or longer to build a MOC.  Can you imagine taking such time, trying to complete something within the confines of what is considered official Lego a year ago, the pain, agony, time and perfection only to have them release an official piece that facilitates your build 10X just a few days or weeks after you took a year or longer to complete the same thing?  

Wasn't the whole point of this topic sort of to have a discussion about what is purism and what it means to different people?

I don't think the term applies to TLG even on a conceptual level. New parts, colours and even connection types have been made throughout the history of Lego and that won't end as long as the company is around. So yeah, sometimes some new part gets released that makes the old designs obsolete, but that really doesn't happen that often (what functionally novel parts have been designed since, say, 2000? Not many.) and even when it happens, well, that's life. Technology, design and society on the whole marches on.

[nerdsforprez]

1 hour ago, howitzer said:

Wasn't the whole point of this topic sort of to have a discussion about what is purism and what it means to different people?

Once you've been around the forum long enough you realize the intention of a post and where it eventually goes are certainly not the same thing and completely independent of one another!  

Seriously though.... in terms of "purism" I think historically it has been (unfortunately) fairly black and white.  So no, I don't think there is much discussion, or at least historically, of what purism is.  Either you build with all Lego or you don't.  If that is not the case any longer, well that is a good thing as far as I can tell.  

But. ... in terms of what it means to different people I do think we have to be somewhat cautious.  I mean, it seems fairly fashionable nowadays to put your own spin on pretty much anything.  Describe things your own way.  I don't find this very scientific or functional.  I think we have to somewhat avoid it.  So at least some guidelines of purism I think is needed.  Like not gluing things, cutting or modifying actual parts, etc...

[Jeroen Ottens]

2 hours ago, howitzer said:

Wasn't the whole point of this topic sort of to have a discussion about what is purism and what it means to different people?

I don't think the term applies to TLG even on a conceptual level. New parts, colours and even connection types have been made throughout the history of Lego and that won't end as long as the company is around. So yeah, sometimes some new part gets released that makes the old designs obsolete, but that really doesn't happen that often (what functionally novel parts have been designed since, say, 2000? Not many.) and even when it happens, well, that's life. Technology, design and society on the whole marches on.

Actually LEGO does have a concept of purism. It is called ‘the system’. Any new part that is added has to be vetted and approved by the LEGO parts system committee. I had a big discussion at the time about adding a 45 degree brace to a new brick (two 1x4 technic bricks that are perpendicular to each other). It was a deviation of the squareness that defined most of the bricks up until that moment.

The funny thing was that in the end the part was approved, but I didn’t need it on my model. Later I found it was used in other models made by other designers. Which shows that in the end this part actually was indeed generic enough I think.

There is certain logic to the parts in the way they are designed (like thin liftarms with axleholes will have the axleholes at the endpoints). That logic only very slowly changes, it is just applied to new parts every year.

[Zerobricks]

13 minutes ago, Jeroen Ottens said:

Actually LEGO does have a concept of purism. It is called ‘the system’. Any new part that is added has to be vetted and approved by the LEGO parts system committee. I had a big discussion at the time about adding a 45 degree brace to a new brick (two 1x4 technic bricks that are perpendicular to each other). It was a deviation of the squareness that defined most of the bricks up until that moment.

The funny thing was that in the end the part was approved, but I didn’t need it on my model. Later I found it was used in other models made by other designers. Which shows that in the end this part actually was indeed generic enough I think.

There is certain logic to the parts in the way they are designed (like thin liftarms with axleholes will have the axleholes at the endpoints). That logic only very slowly changes, it is just applied to new parts every year.

Are you refering to this piece (32555)?

It's funny that this piece has been used only once in 2001 when it was released in 8466 and than it was out of use for 4 years!

And yes, it makes sense that all parts have to be in system, I suppose either the 8 mm raster for studless or a multiples of 3.2 for studded, or a combination of both.

 

Edited December 8, 2020 by Zerobricks

[howitzer]

9 hours ago, nerdsforprez said:

Once you've been around the forum long enough you realize the intention of a post and where it eventually goes are certainly not the same thing and completely independent of one another!  

Seriously though.... in terms of "purism" I think historically it has been (unfortunately) fairly black and white.  So no, I don't think there is much discussion, or at least historically, of what purism is.  Either you build with all Lego or you don't.  If that is not the case any longer, well that is a good thing as far as I can tell.  

But. ... in terms of what it means to different people I do think we have to be somewhat cautious.  I mean, it seems fairly fashionable nowadays to put your own spin on pretty much anything.  Describe things your own way.  I don't find this very scientific or functional.  I think we have to somewhat avoid it.  So at least some guidelines of purism I think is needed.  Like not gluing things, cutting or modifying actual parts, etc...

It might be true that the term is fuzzier today than it was historically, as there are today competing brands offering compatible parts with variations that don't exist of Lego (not to mention 3D-printers and such), and sometimes TLG even makes a new part similar to what has been already in the market from some other manufacturer. On the other hand, I don't think anyone has ever considered using 3rd party string as "unpure" in any meaningful sense, it's just a practical solution when Lego string isn't available in a length you need - and this has been true as long as the string has been around. And then there's stuff like Sbrick and Buwizz, which are approved even in some official capacity, for example a couple of years ago there was a local Lego show here where non-Lego elements and builds were forbidden but they were specifically listed as exceptions. Anyway, as others have pointed out in earlier discussion, there are many "levels" of purism, so the discussion is entirely warranted as it does mean different things to different people. If you want to do a scientific study on the topic, there's nobody stopping you, but I don't think these kinds of forum discussions are ever going to be scientific in any way and that's fine. We're not trying to set a policy here, we're having a discussion about our hobby.

8 hours ago, Jeroen Ottens said:

Actually LEGO does have a concept of purism. It is called ‘the system’. Any new part that is added has to be vetted and approved by the LEGO parts system committee. I had a big discussion at the time about adding a 45 degree brace to a new brick (two 1x4 technic bricks that are perpendicular to each other). It was a deviation of the squareness that defined most of the bricks up until that moment.

The funny thing was that in the end the part was approved, but I didn’t need it on my model. Later I found it was used in other models made by other designers. Which shows that in the end this part actually was indeed generic enough I think.

There is certain logic to the parts in the way they are designed (like thin liftarms with axleholes will have the axleholes at the endpoints). That logic only very slowly changes, it is just applied to new parts every year.

Yes, they of course have their system of how the parts fit together and into the larger scheme of things, which is entirely sensible thing to have when you're developing a complex product such as Lego. But I think this concept of purism is very different from what we're discussing here, as TLG can still introduce new parts (often such that they are very easy to fit in the system) on demand, while a purist builder is limited to what TLG chooses to offer. A purist builder is limited by external constraints which change without their input, while TLG is only constrained by what is economical and ensuring that their product stays functional. Isn't this why the excitement is always huge when new useful part is being introduced, like the wave selector couple of years ago or the alternating hole beam in the next wave of sets?

[nerdsforprez]

2 hours ago, howitzer said:

It might be true that the term is fuzzier today than it was historically, as there are today competing brands offering compatible parts with variations that don't exist of Lego (not to mention 3D-printers and such), and sometimes TLG even makes a new part similar to what has been already in the market from some other manufacturer. On the other hand, I don't think anyone has ever considered using 3rd party string as "unpure" in any meaningful sense, it's just a practical solution when Lego string isn't available in a length you need - and this has been true as long as the string has been around. And then there's stuff like Sbrick and Buwizz, which are approved even in some official capacity, for example a couple of years ago there was a local Lego show here where non-Lego elements and builds were forbidden but they were specifically listed as exceptions. Anyway, as others have pointed out in earlier discussion, there are many "levels" of purism, so the discussion is entirely warranted as it does mean different things to different people. If you want to do a scientific study on the topic, there's nobody stopping you, but I don't think these kinds of forum discussions are ever going to be scientific in any way and that's fine. We're not trying to set a policy here, we're having a discussion about our hobby.

I actually think we are in agreement.  As mentioned, if the description of purism is a little more fluid, then that is positive as far as I am concerned.  And as I specified, the guidelines of no cutting parts, modifying, no glue, etc. is a far cry away from third-party string, tires, etc.   I don't think that anyone seriously contends one can't use some of these things.  Even our beloved competitions, known for their "purism", usually accept at least some third party elements.....

[howitzer]

9 minutes ago, nerdsforprez said:

I actually think we are in agreement.  As mentioned, if the description of purism is a little more fluid, then that is positive as far as I am concerned.  And as I specified, the guidelines of no cutting parts, modifying, no glue, etc. is a far cry away from third-party string, tires, etc.   I don't think that anyone seriously contends one can't use some of these things.  Even our beloved competitions, known for their "purism", usually accept at least some third party elements.....

Probably.

There appears to be some disagreement on how "impure" various things are compared to each other, though as for the string, hose and rubber bands, nobody seems to have any problem with those. There also appears to be surprisingly many people who think nothing of painting parts and for some reason 3rd party tires are not frowned upon nearly as much as other kinds of third party parts. But yeah, in the end, it's a decision everyone makes for themselves. The question is probably only relevant in competitions anyway, aside from building instructions for MOCs.

[NKubate]

From my point of view different levels of purism can be identified, but they are all related to "the System" as Jeroen Ottens mentioned. Let's start looking at individual parts first. Each element is designed with this System in mind, an invisible grid where each individual part has to fit within. Some parts however have the possibility to change shape and form, like strings, bands and hoses, This means automatically that these parts can be manipulated outside of the System. Tires are also a bit special, because they are often seen as the bridging part between the System and the outside world. That's why these parts are often considered more acceptable from 3rd party suppliers. All other parts however are designed and have to fit within this System.

So far for individual parts. Parts can also be put together in a System of play. In earlier years even assembled models should almost entirely be put on the same grid or System, leading to all the blocky models we have seen till the eighties. But then things slowly started to change, where more elements were introduced that made it possible to start building outside this grid structure, with all kind of angles. So the rules of purism got revised, where not the complete model had to be "in System" anymore, but instead it become more important that elements were not stressed till deformation. And once you start building outside of the System, it's only in very rare exceptions that you can turn back in System at the other end without having to worry if elements are being stressed. Classic examples are the 3-4-5 or the 5-12-13 triangle (with the use of Pythagoras in which the last figure is the diagonal that goes out of the grid structure).

The next question is how far someone wants to drift away from this System of purism. Sure it's ok to go out of System as TLG also does nowadays, but to which extent? TLG often sets the limit that a module can go out of System, but if you look at the module itself, all parts within that module are "in System" or in the grid.

Summarizing purism can be looked at either from an individual part perspective, where people either decide whether they can accept 3rd party elements or not, if paint jobs are acceptable and cutting parts is allowed, or from an assembly point of view where connections are either considered "legal" or "illegal", based on how far someone is willing to go outside the System and if it is acceptable that elements are being put under continuous stress up till deformation. Something can be said for all of those, and in the end it's up to the individual to decide what he or she considers acceptable.          

Edited December 9, 2020 by NKubate

[Toastie]

On 12/8/2020 at 3:39 PM, nerdsforprez said:

Consider this; there are AFOLs who now take a year or longer to build a MOC.  Can you imagine taking such time, trying to complete something within the confines of what is considered official Lego a year ago, the pain, agony, time and perfection only to have them release an official piece that facilitates your build 10X just a few days or weeks after you took a year or longer to complete the same thing?

This.

This is exactly what I believe is the core of the matter. I love this piece as it really brings my - for simplicity let us call it - concerns regarding the term or even definition of "purism".

Let us take that story a little further (may have been discussed above, did not walk through the entire, very nice(!) discussion - so just ignore this in case):

What if that builder, knowing it will take a long time to get the MOC functioning/appearing using the purist approach (i.e., only use what TLG is providing at that particular moment in space and time), simply 3D printed the missing part and got it all right, nice and shiny. And then TLG came out with that part very closely in design, months later? We do not want to discuss time travel, as this will simply evaporate purism definitions - but this example of @nerdsforprez is rather close to that issue.

I believe any definition attempt of purism is - well - relative. The moment you define it, it changes its character. Now, one approach could be defining the "System", as @Jeroen Ottens called it, as the ultimate time-fixed reference system. It changes arbitrarily with time at breathtaking speed though (and even better: as some committee members see fit, but based on what kind of theory?); however, at any given time in space, purism is then a bold constant: Pieces that are available at that time. Does that make much sense? No, when you ask me. Earth is still spinning and committee members still meet - maybe virtually but that just adds to the fun. 

What about defining purism from the perspective of a user not getting things done, because some parts do not exist at that time of built? Making one, cutting another, gluing something else together, painting parts in colors that at that time don't exist? The definition then becomes arbitrary - or better uncertain, to remain in the modern world of physics.

Well in essence purism is then a committee-, system-, space- and time-dependent, uncertain - uhmm - thing. Which then is prone to vanish any time into a puff of logic.

Here is to feeling good!

All the best,
Thorsten

Edited December 9, 2020 by Toastie

[jorgeopesi]

I only consider purism as the thing what prevents me from starting to make realistic scale models which would be much less versatile and more expensive. I need some rules to can have challenges to deal with.

[jam8280]

As mentioned previously, I'm a selective impurist. I build my working LEGO gizmos as purely as possible but don't hesitate to stray (as little as possible) when a certain functional goal demands it.

As I read through all these long and thoughtful posts, I keep coming back to a very practical question: Who else cares about purism?

I certainly don't. What others do with their LEGO is up to them. Build and let build. Set whatever challenges you like for yourself.

Nor do the thousands of visitors who've seen my stuff in action at regional LEGO shows. All they care about is what I can get LEGO to do with at most minor infractions.

Nor do the folks on the non-LEGO forums where I occasionally share my work.

Nor do my fellow LUG members. Well, one of them used to fear for my soul, but now he sees why some of my builds can't be totally purist. Build and let build.

Nor have the vast majority of commenters on my many YouTube videos and former MOCpages cared. I always gave specs on my MOCpages, explicitly listing any non-LEGO or modified parts used. Protests were few and far between.

Granted, LEGO contest participants should care if the rules demand a certain degree of purism. From this thread, we see that the purism called for would clearly have to be spelled out very carefully to avoid misinterpretation. But most builds never see a contest.

Am I missing some important constituency or stakeholder?

Edited December 10, 2020 by jam8280

[Toastie]

7 hours ago, jam8280 said:

I certainly don't. What others do with their LEGO is up to them. Build and let build. Set whatever challenges you like for yourself.

Another very, very good point (as your entire piece) - and I believe you don't miss anything.

Yes, when there are competitions or the like then of course there need to be rules. But that one is easy: The moment someone calls for a competition: Fixed. What is available at that time. Or maybe even less (e.g., build the MF just using Technic bricks with holes and 2x2s).

But apart from that: From my perspective, you are absolutely right: Who cares, other than the builder(s)? Or who should even care?

BTW, over in Billund (and other like places of course) they build their models using glue all over the place (yes, the models require that because they are mostly out in the weather during the entire season - but this was their choice!), with stainless steel frames (barely visible, but when you have enough time to look closely), using non-LEGO tracks and wheels (and what not) for their trains - and nobody cares. At all. It is simply nice to watch - all models almost built using only "real" bricks. But when certain pieces are not available: They take whatever fits.

Best,
Thorsten       

 

[Lipko]

For me it's very simple. My models should be buildable and easy to disassemble by anybody else (including kids) without craftmanship, without worrying that parts would be deformed and without the need for careful part selection - no reliance on loosened gears for example (I almost always offer some instructions or digital files for free). That's the best way to test a design.

If my models are made of Lego parts, then obviously I play by their rules that can be learnt for their stock models. It also means I try hard to use only current parts, not very old parts. Sometimes I fail in that regard (I prefer 8070 car style hubs over the new ones because of the low profile).

Edited December 10, 2020 by Lipko

[Woodpecker]

The term "purist" is often treated subjectively, being based upon the builder's interpretation of what is pure.

On 12/8/2020 at 11:21 AM, howitzer said:

As for myself, I choose to limit my building only to parts and materials that are manufactured by TLG and are easily available - no obscure parts that have gone out of production decades ago or are otherwise very expensive or hard to get.

For example, I consider any part that is manufactured by TLG pure, even obscure parts like part 32068, as well as all rubber bands, even those not manufactured by TLG. That's where I draw the line. @howitzer draws the line before I do. Even so, I think that if we both build MOCs that abide by our own standards we will probably both consider them "pure". 

28 minutes ago, Toastie said:

Who cares, other than the builder(s)? Or who should even care?

I think there is a degree of accomplishment and distinction that comes with abiding by your own subjective definition of purity. That's certainly the case for me. Creating a MOC that abides by the rules you established at the very least gives the illusion of a challenge—it may not have been an actual challenge if your MOC would have abided by the rules even when you didn't care about the rules—or it is an actual challenge; in either case, this makes subjective purism special due to the sense of accomplishment. @Erik Leppen's examples also show that subjective purism seems to be becoming less popular, replaced by a more unrestricted approach. This means that those who do "practice" subjective purism are doing something that is becoming more and more unique, and many find this rewarding. 

Despite this, builders like @Toastie may not consider subjective purism a challenge; instead, they may consider it a hindrance which prevents them from realising their full potential. Or they just might find it unnecessary. The same goes for the uniqueness that comes with subjective purism. I can see why others would remain totally indifferent to being in an echelon that has standards which eventually may even limit their true capabilities. 

There might even be a middle ground where people who follow an unrestricted approach envy subjective purists or the concept of subjective purism because they couldn't build their MOCs abiding by the standards they established at the start of the building process. Or people might abide by one case of subjective purism wishing they could have drawn the line earlier and followed a different case of subjective purism. 

That is why I believe that some builders care about subjective purism, some builders somewhat care about subjective purism, and others don't. There are valid arguments on all sides. 

I also believe that there is such a thing as objective purism; objective purism is when you only build out of LEGO parts. This includes stickers, old parts, new parts, LEGO strings, LEGO rubber bands, etc. But nothing that is not LEGO. I am not an objective purist because I use non-LEGO rubber bands. 

Everything that applies to subjective purism also applies to objective purism because objective purism constitutes a certain case of subjective purism, which is why this post has been centred around subjective purism. 

[Toastie]

19 minutes ago, Woodpecker said:

I also believe that there is such a thing as objective purism; objective purism is when you only build out of LEGO parts. This includes stickers, old parts, new parts, LEGO strings, LEGO rubber bands, etc. But nothing that is not LEGO. I am not an objective purist because I use non-LEGO rubber bands. 

Everything that applies to subjective purism also applies to objective purism because objective purism constitutes a certain case of subjective purism, which is why this post has been centred around subjective purism.

I can absolutely see that as well.

But then absolute purism as a function of time, right? It - nicely (or - better) follows the laws of thermodynamics - and always "expands", as there are additions to it almost every other set that is produced.

Best
Thorsten 

[howitzer]

2 hours ago, Toastie said:

Another very, very good point (as your entire piece) - and I believe you don't miss anything.

Yes, when there are competitions or the like then of course there need to be rules. But that one is easy: The moment someone calls for a competition: Fixed. What is available at that time. Or maybe even less (e.g., build the MF just using Technic bricks with holes and 2x2s).

But apart from that: From my perspective, you are absolutely right: Who cares, other than the builder(s)? Or who should even care?

BTW, over in Billund (and other like places of course) they build their models using glue all over the place (yes, the models require that because they are mostly out in the weather during the entire season - but this was their choice!), with stainless steel frames (barely visible, but when you have enough time to look closely), using non-LEGO tracks and wheels (and what not) for their trains - and nobody cares. At all. It is simply nice to watch - all models almost built using only "real" bricks. But when certain pieces are not available: They take whatever fits.

Best,
Thorsten       

 

Very interesting that you mention Billund. I visited there last year, and saw the miniland buildings and stuff, which were (from what I can remember) the same as those from 1987 when I visited there the first time. I also noticed on the other sculptures around the park that there was some serious weathering on many of them even if they were still instantly recognizable for what they were. So some of those builds are very old, maybe even from the time of the original opening at 1968. One thing I specifically noticed was the lack of other parts than basic bricks and plates in many builds. No slopes for roofs for example, just stacked plates to make a slope. So even as the parts selection has widened and more detailed construction has become possible, the park operators have never taken the effort to rebuild the originals for modern standards. Or maybe they have rebuilt them but with the same parts palette that was around originally, not bothering to create new models - I don't know. It could be because they want to show how the simplest of bricks can still be used to produce complex and detailed builds, in the strictest spirit of purism. And yeah, there of course was some parts that are decidedly non-Lego, like the tracks and wheels you mention, but those along with the glue are obviously a compromise they have to make to take the plastic bricks far outside of their intended usage conditions.