Is there a moral duty to publish instructions?

[astral brick]

Before starting a flame, it is a rhetorical question, and the answer is, of course, no. Still, I cant help thinking of the amazing models I admire every day on flickr and the failed Ideas (due to lack of votes or non-approvals) lost forever, and I wonder if those afols realize that making one last effort to create instructions or to record a brief video tutorial could give their works the immortality they deserve.

However, remembering Andy Warhol's controversial lessons, if there is the technical possibility to reproduce a piece of art, can we still consider it art? 

[Mylenium]

This could be argued a million ways, but suffice it to say that for every DaVinci, Rembrand or van Gogh painting that were preserved, there's another ten or twenty that were lost, destroyed by the artists themselves, painted over and so on. Why should that be different with LEGO? Sure, it's regrettable sometimes, but you'd really need to get down to a base level philosophical discussion about what makes art and how its value to society is viewed. Personally I have no interest in having every LEGO build be easily replicable by ways of instructions. Part of the fun is drawing inspiration from some of that stuff and trying to unriddle it, not actually recreating it. It's the same as with paintings - if we understood DaVinci's thought process behind the Mona Lisa, the techniques he used and all that stuff, it would lose all its mystique and mystery. You also have to see the other side. Nobody would even be able to keep track of all this and in the end, just as the original LEGO models might have been lost, the instructions could get lost at some point. You know, doing a video on YouTube does not equate immortality, when YouTube may not even exist in a future or nobody can play those deprecated video formats anymore. However you spin it, it remains a fact that a lot of "art" gets lost and simply fades into oblivion and any efforts to preserve it can only go so far. I don't expect it to be any different with LEGO.

Mylenium

Edited May 4, 2019 by Mylenium
Typos

[Aanchir]

In general, no, I don't think so.

For one, of creative media, LEGO is probably one of the easier ones to reverse-engineer without instructions. While you might not be able to recreate your favorite MOCs exactly, it's generally possible to closely approximate them at least as far as their outward appearance is concerned.

Additionally, creating instructions, particularly easy-to-follow ones, is hard work, and I guarantee you that if everybody who built amazing MOCs had to put in the time and effort to make instructions of every one they end up sharing online or at conventions, they wouldn't have nearly as much time or creative energy to put into creating new MOCs.

A lot of old-school LEGO fans lament the loss of the "inspiration models" that used to be on the back of almost all set boxes showing other things you could build with the pieces, but I think the disappearance of those illustrates the potential cost of expecting instructions for every model. The main reason LEGO stopped putting those on the back of boxes is that they would get lots of customer service calls and e–mails from builders and parents asking for instructions for those models, which in most cases didn't exist.

And in general, not only would having to create building instructions for every inspiration model pull resources away from creating new sets, but it would also require a lot more time and care to be put into the design of those "inspiration models", since they were often not designed for other people to build and play with the way the actual sets were. In a lot of cases, they were fragile or unstable in a way that was below the quality standards people expected of a high-quality LEGO model.

The same can be said for many AFOL creations. In some cases, even my own creations have fiddly areas that will only really hold together if attached at a very particular angle that would be difficult to illustrate in a picture or even a 3D render — building those models myself involved fiddling with the angle of those pieces until I got them to stay put, a trial-and-error process you can't possibly guide people through step by step. Many more advanced builders employ even more connections like this that require intense fine-tuning to stay together, as I've seen when watching other builders set up their partially disassembled creations for display at fan conventions.

A great-looking photo of a build can certainly make it SEEM like something you'd want to build it in real life, but doesn't necessarily reveal all those sorts of practical weaknesses that would make the actual building experience or owning a copy of the finished model frustrating or underwhelming.

[TeriXeri]

On a website like Rebrickable , where people freely can post their builds, it's nice to see instructions included as that's kind of the purpose of the website.

But even then, I see it as a nice gesture and not as required.

I don't really watch and build videos to get instructions from either.

And when I see a regular MOC post instead of an alternate build, chances are high I don't have many of the parts anyway, and I don't go out of my way bricklinking parts to make someone else's models.

For me I think LEGO is most satisfying when not following a straight plan outside of the actual set-building.

Edited May 4, 2019 by TeriXeri

[koalayummies]

If they're on flickr and still displayed on Ideas then how are they lost forever?

In any case the answer to your question for many is no and this is why:

unauthorized-selling-of-instructions-for-mocs

Cliffnotes: someone else taking credit for other's builds, selling them without creator's consent and generating a good chunk of profit off of both the sales and the adsense revenue.

[astral brick]

On 5/4/2019 at 5:45 PM, Mylenium said:

It's the same as with paintings - if we understood DaVinci's thought process behind the Mona Lisa, the techniques he used and all that stuff, it would lose all its mystique and mystery.

Yes, this is an essential point. I wonder if high level afols are willing to share their knowledge with the public. Some do it, even for free, some don't. But in the latter case, can we blame them? Another rethorical question, whose answer is no. And  precisely for the reason that you have mentioned, they are artists, they don't have to explain anything to anyone, and if they do it, they take the risk that their works could lose part of their "magic". Nevertheless, releasing the instructions implies that many people would not limit themselves to appreciate a picture - and maybe forget it the next day - but they would try to reproduce it, spending time and money to buy the missing parts. Therefore the piece of art would be enjoyed on a totally different level. Isn't it the greatest satisfaction for an artist? 

On 5/5/2019 at 1:52 AM, Aanchir said:

In some cases, even my own creations have fiddly areas that will only really hold together if attached at a very particular angle that would be difficult to illustrate in a picture or even a 3D render — building those models myself involved fiddling with the angle of those pieces until I got them to stay put, a trial-and-error process you can't possibly guide people through step by step.

As an afol, are you willing to share your specific techniques with other people?

[ShaydDeGrai]

On May 4, 2019 at 3:45 AM, Mylenium said:

(snip) suffice it to say that for every DaVinci, Rembrand or van Gogh painting that were preserved, there's another ten or twenty that were lost, destroyed by the artists themselves, painted over and so on. Why should that be different with LEGO?

I might take this a step further and suggest that it is that very transient, ephemeral nature that makes "art" at once, both relatable and so precious for so many.  It really is the case of "art imitates life"; it is created, it exists for a time, and then it is lost forever.  Its "lifespan" may be short or long; the number of lives it touches may be many or few; and, yes, it might be possible to copy, record or otherwise reproduce - but that, original spark, is unique and fleeting. 

I had an art teacher (for perspective drawing) who once (circa 1980's) told me that at the rate computers were improving, it was only a matter of time before any robot with a camera and a flat bed plotter would be able generate diagrams and schematics of anything it could "see," but that, in his opinion, a robot producing "art" was still decades, if not centuries away.  I asked him why and he said that a human will look with his/her heart, decide what is worth seeing and then do a uniquely imperfect job of capturing that vision.  A dozen students painting the same scene will produce a dozen different paintings.  Most will be trash and get painted over, some enjoy a brief limelight before landing in an attic or a cellar, maybe one will find new life in a stranger's hands.  That's the nature of art.  A dozen robots will give you a dozen accurate renderings, the value of each cheapened by the existence of the others.  That's the nature of instance persistence as a function of mass production.

Now that said, I also distinguish between "art" and "art technique."  Finding one's sense of artistry is a personal journey that, at least from my experiences, has to come from exploration, experimentation, trial and error.  I think everyone has the potential to be creative, ingenious and artistic in their own ways ( but sadly a lot of us give up in frustration before we realize where our own strengths lie).  

Discipline and technique, on the other hand, are things that can be taught.  Any idiot with ten fingers and basic motor skills can learn to play a piano with proper instruction and practice - this won't make everyone a virtuoso, but it might be a stepping stone to unlocking musical genius that neither the student nor the teacher ever realized was there.  I can teach someone how to draw a straight line, or a circle, or the math behind perspective foreshortening, but whether the student produces "art" or a lifeless schematic is up to them.  I can encourage them to strive for "art," but I can't give them a formula to define it.

It's the same with Lego.  Lego is just a medium.  Learning how Lego parts combine in clever, non-traditional ways is just technique.  Sharing techniques helps creative people add more tools to their arsenal for making future original creations, "art" if you will.   This is a great part of our community as a whole.   Personally, I love learning new techniques and I'm always happy to share the ones I know with the curious - but that's a very different beast from feeling 'morally obligated' to diagram out every brick in a 15,000 piece sculpture.

Following "the instructions" can be a learning experience, certainly, but it's "practice" and "imitation" not art.  It might inspire "art" in the the right person, but art begins where the instructions end and the lack of reproducibility of the piece bring it to life.

Edited May 6, 2019 by ShaydDeGrai
Compensating for auto-corrupt "feature" of my browser

[pombe]

I would love to include instructions whenever I post a MOC.  But unfortunately as someone who builds with physical bricks in a very trial and error manner, stopping at each step to document what I did physically into a software program would sap any desire I have to build.  And I don't even want to think about what happens when I've built, say, a cockpit and the thruster engines for a spaceship as separate units and figure out that I don't like how they fit together and tear apart huge chunks (without completely dismantling) of both to fit them in a better way, and then I have to go fix my instructions for both.  And chances are, especially for larger MOCs, I'll screw up during the building process and forget to include some steps in the software and confuse myself as to why my digital MOC and my physical MOC don't end up exactly the same.

I suppose I could take my MOCs apart brick by brick and generate the instructions in reverse.  But, in that case, I'd rather just build another MOC with that time and energy.

[MAB]

On 5/4/2019 at 1:08 AM, astral brick said:

Before starting a flame, it is a rhetorical question, and the answer is, of course, no. Still, I cant help thinking of the amazing models I admire every day on flickr and the failed Ideas (due to lack of votes or non-approvals) lost forever, and I wonder if those afols realize that making one last effort to create instructions or to record a brief video tutorial could give their works the immortality they deserve.

 

3

No. If there are pictures on the internet, then they exist. You don't need to know how to recreate it for it to exist.

[astral brick]

21 hours ago, ShaydDeGrai said:

I might take this a step further and suggest that it is that very transient, ephemeral nature that makes "art" at once, both relatable and so precious for so many...

I had an art teacher (for perspective drawing) who once (circa 1980's) told me that...

Now that said, I also distinguish between "art" and "art technique."...

Discipline and technique, on the other hand, are things that can be taught...

Very interesting considerations.

21 hours ago, ShaydDeGrai said:

It's the same with Lego.  Lego is just a medium.

Given that there are various types of art forms, with different levels of costs, perhaps the intrinsic limit of Lego is its ambivalent nature, a commercial product which has transcended into a way to express imagination, id est art.

Middle-class art probably, restricted by the number of parts in the artist's collection (although this aspect could also represent a resource to encourage creativity).

21 hours ago, ShaydDeGrai said:

 Learning how Lego parts combine in clever, non-traditional ways is just technique.  Sharing techniques helps creative people add more tools to their arsenal for making future original creations, "art" if you will...

Following "the instructions" can be a learning experience, certainly, but it's "practice" and "imitation" not art.  It might inspire "art" in the the right person, but art begins where the instructions end and the lack of reproducibility of the piece bring it to life.

Again, really good analysis.

[Blackheart Brit]

That is the neat thing about Lego, you see some cool build someone made and you can try to build it too, or better, incorporate the cool parts into something similar and new.  I have never felt I wanted someone else's instructions, but get inspired all the time on bits and sections.  Flicr has a few technique groups, very good stuff there.  Ama77what on flicr posts breakdown images of a lot of his builds.