notaromantic

Very nice. Funny thing is, after I viewed the first set of posted pics, it felt like there was definitely something missing - more ground, perhaps - it felt scrunched into/ onto its plate and border. But then I scrolled down to the recent pics, and breathed: Yea. There it is. Much better. I think, personally, that you should add two things to it: a) The riverside. It doesn't have to be much; but enough to give it some blue, and context. I think, in its design, that the water was integral to its vision. And so it should be here, too. Think about it - because even in your own first pic of the actual building, you included the river . b) Something small and green. To represent flora of some kind. That, along with the blue? (water), will *pop* with the Tan palette. Right now its nice. But a little cold feeling. Something natural will give it warmth and draw the viewer in more. Just my $ 0.02. Nice work, regardless.

Try this: http://www.bricklink.com/catalogList.asp?pg=1&catID=710&v=1 In the [sort By] field you can specify "Year released", and either choose "Up" or "Down"...

Lavender would be interesting. And, Medium Blue might look "cool". But I would stay clear of either Red or Blue. They've been done before (you can find pics online), and I think the primacy of both colors somewhat strips the design of its cozy appeal. Reddish Brown. Hmmm.... That's from way in left field, which may surprisingly work, or which may not surprisingly 'not work'. I tried something similar recently, in the throes of a color dilemma - and it thankfully payed off. But, I did my own grocer in Dark Blue. Came out wonderful. Can post photos if you'd like. And I didn't seem to lose much in the way of not having the grooved brick. But I know some have used the Masonry Brick with success, which I'm trying now, and the masonry brick offers another flavor.

Know your medium. An idea will only take you so far, as Plato might say, and the rest, form, requires action and material. So many people forget that, regardless our genius intentions, we still have to 1) Encounter our own fallibility, becasue we are not inherently perfect or good at much of anything, until we have prepared for it, and have some practice at it; and 2) We still have to get our hands dirty in becoming familiar with whatever it is we are using to see this vision through. It seems the most impressive builders have a good sense for both - design and medium. Learning about parts. Period. And I agree, building sets, or in your case, perhaps sticking to modifying existing sets, which is what works well for me - because it'll keep both your thirst for knowledge, again, parts, and instructions = technique(s), as well as your need to be creative in what you do, satiated. I'd say, Bricklink a few sets. Find some favorites and get busy. There are many instructions for existing sets available online. Build 'em, stare at 'em, tweak 'em... Bricklinking sets will quickly pay off in several ways. Having to find parts - that will be extremely useful in becoming acquainted with their availability, and with their identity, and with their function, and of course, with the monster that is any Lego database. It's like arriving in a new city - at first, completely overwhelming, until you began to wander around, block by block by block, by area, becoming lost, finding your way back, connecting points, the ins and outs of it all - and suddenly, in time, you'll find it much less imposing, and it'll began to reveal its secrets and niches. It's at that point that you can actually begin to work with it. Have a blast, knowing full well that nothing will work as you intend it to right away. But, that's the initial phase of discomfort that any endeavor of substance requires. Work through it, and over that last, most formidable peak, you'll find the sweet arms of LegoLand await you. Welcome home. And be sure to have a credit card, or you're f^%$#_(*&ed.

Yea, because both actually utilize Light Gray, so there's no definable difference in grays, check the underbellies of your Black 2x4 bricks. If there are no cross supports, then it is the older set.

Yea, its too bad that by then, when his videos were works of art, his music wasn't. Supper's Ready was art. The Cinema Show was art. Neither needed video, and actually, they would've suffered should they have had it. Sledgehammer - it absolutely needed a video... But I digress, this isn't about Genesis. And perhaps, it never was. The modular line should be organic - in the sense that, whatever benefits it at the moment should be the consideration. If it is a building that is heavy with architectural detail, then, that is where the design and parts distribution should be steered, and having the interior play second fiddle should be expected because of it. And - vice versa: If we have a modular that is story-oriented, or clamored with interior detail, then we should expect that the exterior may not the focus, or that its overall size is a smaller. Regardless, nobody here wants a modular to be unaffordable; and the only way to accomplish this, it seems, is to allow each release its own merit and flaw, so long as the design is best served and nothing is too left out. Its our own folly to expect that we've reached a certain threshhold where we can predict what will happen with each successive release, because that is what happened with the last, or because we've ascertained some pattern, or some trend in "want" itself. LEGO trying to accommodate all that "want" is what will force it to collapse in on itself. This feels like the thing that happened to the comic book world in the late 80's/ early '90s, when it, too, imploded under similar circumstances. Everything just became simply ridiculous, before someone doing something really serious again is what brought it back around for a brief while. But, as others have mentioned elsewhere, at least LEGO is a "breathable" medium - if one doesn't like what is there, one can alter it. And it truly remains an issue for those, for whatever reason, afraid or unwilling to... But for others, that is precisely where the fun lay. Regardless of the argument for or against each release, they've each been great 'seeds' for the LEGO community. Exactly what they should have been and still are. Oh - except for Market Street. I still don't know how to talk about that, and have yet to find something redeemable about it. But maybe, there's a new personal goal: Revisit Market Street for ideas. -? We'll see where that goes.

I completely understand where many of you are coming from, however, the truth of the matter is that there is one all important factor that many of us fail to properly consider beforehand: Who exactly are you? Meaning that, sure, if you have a portfolio to show, a resume of builds to consider, a clientele and references of your work, then by all means, you may be able to play in the thousand dollars' range - but to able to play, and evolve, with LEGO on someone else's dime < That may more than enough for many of us, and about as much as we can hope for in such a deal - until, at least, we can gather up that portfolio, and fill out that resume, and amass that clientele. Its always referred to as such a one-way street, when, in reality, there is a lot of benefit in the process to the designer/ implementer themselves that perhaps is not monetary at all. If it is something that you are going to enjoy doing yourself, then incurring a cost to be able to it isn't such a terrible thing. Charge whatever you feel comfortable with, regardless of what others charge. Another option - is to get paid in LEGO. Enough to fund your own build, enough to add to your own collection, perhaps, working with a specific target in mind, (say, just enough to afford that extra copy of a still-sealed Green Grocer, or whatever rare and HTF set/ part you have imagined owning, or maybe just enough to afford double the parts, in order to build a replica of the commissioned build, for your own collection, whatever. Be creative, make the process at least fun for you if it's not going to make you rich...

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

I don't know. I think by attaching to an actual historic moment, you may be trying to lend it a weight, or gravity, that on its own, it doesn't inherently have. I think by being more open-ended in your composition, using the same title, but letting the audience make its own connections to it, rather than in holding them hostage to the lyrics and the history lesson, it would've been better. People are much smarter and more sympathetic to history than you may give them credit for - especially in a creative, and worldly, forum such as this one is. And I think you've done a disservice to LEGO ghosts, by casting them into a such a role based upon resemblance alone. Kind'a hypocritical, isn't it...? Again, I don't know. But, by delving into such subject matter, you are in every way already prepared, I assume, for the kinds of responses you may be receiving. Art, when used to respond to social questions, should be done so "artistically'. I think this is, in some ways, too simple, too straightforward, and too "un-artful" an approach. I realize that often, our emotions demand an emotional response - but if that response is entirely emotional, and lacks reason, it may come across as brash. And finesse, not brashness, gets people's attention more so, because it catches their logic unaware to their curiosity. I have liked, and admired each of your builds - but this one leaves me wanting. Void of the context you've given to it, there's not much there but a really, really nice tree, wanting something very different to be aesthetic for... Just my two cents. You put it out there.

In short - yes, it is always that hard. But, that seems to be the beauty of it... And believe me, you either the love the process itself, or you loathe it. The latter will probably not do it again, unless it is economically profitable to do so, but the former, those who obtained a thrill from everything, most of all the hunt, they will do it again, and again, and again. And after awhile, they will even begin to make the process more difficult, adding to the challenge. I suppose its like exercise, or playing a musical instrument, or cooking. Its the grind of it, moreso than the result, that makes or breaks one. And then you add more weight, or another rep, or decide to string triplets together, or grow your own herbs when the store has everything you may ever need, or even plan to build something in the most ridiculous color, or with the rarest parts. Sick, twisted &^%$%#. All of you. You know who you are. A few weeks ago I was looking for a cypress tree, and then it was pearl light gray tiles, and then it was mearsk blue studs, and yesterday it was green levers. And why? What for? How come? Well, I'm not exactly sure. But I'm glad LEGO is expansive enough to handle all of my eccentricities. It really has astounded me how far into LEGO I've gotten, and still, I have yet to hit a brick wall. I find, and have found, something around every single corner in the LEGO world. And BrickLinking sets was the gateway into the underworld... You either turn and run, or you continue, and you leave your old world behind as you wander the caverns of the LEGO inventory and the archaeology of Bricklink. At least, that was my own experience.

^ This made me laugh.

Nice. I've done some one-color things, in the past, and I have something sort of going now, and I have enjoyed the way it brings out the shapes of things. I like the architectural look of monochromatic, or color-limited work for that reason. Its just cool to be able to see the differences within parts, and the inventive use of those parts, when the color palette is not interfering. Color is scary for a reason - while it enhances, often, admit it, it can ruin things rather quickly. I did an all Blue church, using the plans that are available somewhere for a townhouse using parts of the Haunted House set. I'll have to post some photos. It came out really nice; so much so, that it led me to think about other projects done similarly. And let's be honest - it must've been "economical", to work in all white...

I think, all around, that I've come to expect that sort of runaround from most of the big corporations - you know the ones - who've bought out every smaller one to have become this huge, unempathetic but hungry creature. It seems now that its even trickled down into most of my local establishments as well, who, appear in all respects to be local - but are actually owned, and thus operated like, again, one of these national, and now mostly 'global' conglomerates who spread around the blame so thin that one does not know which of its heads to cut off to make the most difference. In the end, our exhaustion at the inherent difficulty of reasoning with such a misaligned thing drives to just give up our plight. To resign ourselves to this one admission: Needing it more than it needs us. To be reminded in this way that Lego, too, is one of those juggernauts - I believe that is what is really bothering you. Things seeming "unjust" really gets to me, too. Its truly the only thing that makes me insane - to feel like a cog in the machine, and a cog only. It doesn't even escape our toys... (He walks out onto the balcony. And hollers at all of the 'brickery' around him. And then retreats to his own small 'brickery'. Where he has complete and unwavering control. But he doesn't glue them. No, we must make that distinction, here. He doesn't glue them. Because then he would really have some issues.) And we wonder why we're all mad... I feel for you, man. Don't let it spoil your enjoyment of the hobby, though. Really. Because your builds are always really awesome.

Yea, food smells are good for food, but not much else. No smells, - yet. - But I do always find hair in my BL orders. And sometimes, they're just generally 'greasy'. Every order that I open, my cat usually inspects the smell emanating from the package. He must've smelled most all of the US states, and several European countries, by now. Without ever having left the house.

Endriu, my dear friend - You must stop fearing failure, and start building already. There is no perfect manner of assembling anything that is subjective. Art is entirely subjective, and therefore one must dive into it, faith first, a leap of death, knowing that the worst that can happen is that you will not be pleased with the outcome. And if you are not, well, thus the beauty of art reveals itself: Art allows you to assess your failure, to reason with it, to discard from it what was unpleasant to you, and to try again to approach your imaginings. Nobody - absolutely nobody - does it right the first time; and if so, they definitely do not do it again immediately the second - it becomes a chase, a constant chase, after yourself, after what you see in your head and feel in your heart. And who, who exactly, besides you, can determine what is most appropriate there? Learn to displease yourself, so that you may began living. Start building. Constructing and deconstructing again. Only then will you be able to decide 'what precisely goes with what...' Otherwise, that senseless drive for immediate perfection with be the end of all of us. I wish everybody would began with building on a small scale before venturing out unto the world an inkling to do it on a grand scale without any practice whatsoever. And if I'm way off base, disregard the rant. It was just a hairball of thoughts that couldn't stay down anymore. I'll vacuum it up after it dries.

Congratulations on being alive now. I never knew Fabuland existed until after I had 're-awakened', and I'm glad I discovered said, because that "creepiness" that you refer to, I think, is exactly why Fabuland fans are lifers, afterwards. And I'm glad I got into collecting certain Fabuland figs and parts while it was relatively an obscure thing to other, non-European, Lego fans. I think, also, that most American Fabuland fans have bought their items from European sellers, (Right?) Not to say that Fabuland is a popular place now, but because Lego collecting in general is experiencing a resurgence that seems to correlate with a trend in the collecting of anything that is of vintage and of value all-around, it too has gained some exposure, and thus interest. Everything has a very "1940's" feeling to it, doesn't it? That's a large part of the charm - it's mid-century feel. This is my favorite set. Sadly, I haven't yet searched for one. But I know, now that I do, I'll be paying much more than I would have had I searched for it then, when I initially returned to Lego-ing:

Lego should be free.

Why - did you purchase that - without referencing the original, first? I guess that's my answer.

I would also reiterate, as a 2008 set, no longer produced, as any other LEGO set, when its demand exceeds its availability, up goes the price. There are only ten sellers of the set, in NEW and Sealed condition on BrickLink - and of those ten sellers, only three have more than three available for sale, and many, only one or two sets. Of those three, one is a Hong Kong store, and many people are just naturally weary of ordering from Asia for whatever reason, and another is Canadian, which always means a high shipping charge because of Customs. There just doesn't seem to be a lot out there up for grabs. Add to that an awesome selection of colors and parts, and there you go. Another factor, I believe, is the popularity of Modular building right now. Basic bricks, in certain tones, are just harder to come by, period.

There was either another thread, or a post in this thread which I cannot seem to find, where someone had done the grocer in sand green masonry bricks. It was a particular favorite of mine, of the BL'd Grocers that I've seen. If I can locate it, I'll throw in a link... ^ Here it is.

http://www.newelementary.com/2015/01/nuremberg-toy-fair-lego-bow-arch-window.html

Part of me wants to believe that, of the two colors of flowers that comprise the small tree, not the dark pink, but that the other, is green and not the usual bright green. Of course, the picture is a low-res one. But to finally see that round flower plate in green would be really cool.

I'm all for anything Wizard of Oz - but to place an overly-obvious SuperHero tinge to it, as is clear by the Witch pack, I could really do without. It's like DC/Marvel mining the Oz-world for character - it takes something away from a very iconic, historical, and already fantastical environment. I don't know.... Disheartening. Should've left it alone, if this was the alternative to doing it straight-up. Too much chaser... If we see Wizard of Oz battle-packs, I swear, I'm going go all Michael Douglas over here. And I don't care from which movie.

Says the person on a LEGO forum with Star Wars avatars... Often, and for so many, the only thing left in this modern world that we can truly call our own - is our hope; or lack thereof. And the only bubbles we actually have the authority to burst - are our own. Let the dreamers dream. Its our last freedom to do so. I say "Go for it." But don't run too fast, until you know exactly what is in front of you...

Don't change a thing. Really. Here's my logic: I'm not judging it by whether or not it is an accurate depiction of something, but rather on what it is on its own. It may not please an aficionado of the Austin London Taxicab as they would like it to, but in the LEGO world, to me, it just appears as if it was made to be - a very beautiful car. It has character. It's its own. If need be, make another to modify what you have here. But leave this particular baby alone. I'd like to try a version of this - if you ever decide to make an instruction available somewhere, please do let me know how to obtain it.