is lego a form of new media

Eric Dymond wrote:

> Given the blockiness of lego and its' close semblance to the pixelated
> presentation we are accustomed to in the digital verse, my question is
> very simple. I am serious, and this isn't a put on.
> Can lego works be considered New Media?
>
> Eric
> oh yeah, for my daughter:
> http://www.funknfashion.com

Now I know everyone is getting defensive/weird about this.
But if the kids today are 2D oriented, they get on the net, they make websites, thsy learn photoshop and illustrator, and they assume these are the natural tools for expression.They evolve and change our view of the world.

A kid growing up today who thinks sculpturally, and wants to make something in real space, and is familiar with Lego ( or other modular environments ) might just use that tool.
We'll say that kid is adept with these 3D pixelated tools, but works with their hands and makes something extraordinary. How would the traditional art world ever know that this was something worth investigating.
I posit that todays new media/art world is expecting a 3D work in computer generated Virtual systems. But the kids don't care about that tuff!
The 3D tool for conceptualization already exists in the building blocks we gave our children years ago. It's called Lego. Lego is pixelated by nature.
There are Lego art groups, user lists and galleries.
Noone from either the new media or traditional gallery/museum venue pays much attention.
Shouldn't we at Rhizome be embracing these kids?

Well, there ya go, something to ponder on a warm, pixelated night.

Eric

> Eric Dymond wrote:
>
>> Given the blockiness of lego and its' close semblance to the pixelated
>> presentation we are accustomed to in the digital verse, my question is
>> very simple. I am serious, and this isn't a put on.
>> Can lego works be considered New Media?
>>
>> Eric
>> oh yeah, for my daughter:
>> http://www.funknfashion.com
>
> Now I know everyone is getting defensive/weird about this.
> But if the kids today are 2D oriented, they get on the net, they make
> websites, thsy learn photoshop and illustrator, and they assume these are
> the natural tools for expression.They evolve and change our view of the
> world.
>
> A kid growing up today who thinks sculpturally, and wants to make
> something in real space, and is familiar with Lego ( or other modular
> environments ) might just use that tool.
> We'll say that kid is adept with these 3D pixelated tools, but works with
> their hands and makes something extraordinary. How would the traditional
> art world ever know that this was something worth investigating.
> I posit that todays new media/art world is expecting a 3D work in computer
> generated Virtual systems. But the kids don't care about that tuff!
> The 3D tool for conceptualization already exists in the building blocks we
> gave our children years ago. It's called Lego. Lego is pixelated by
> nature.
> There are Lego art groups, user lists and galleries.
> Noone from either the new media or traditional gallery/museum venue pays
> much attention.
> Shouldn't we at Rhizome be embracing these kids?
>
> Well, there ya go, something to ponder on a warm, pixelated night.
>
> Eric
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>



with an interest in cubes, i have been working with the box(); method in
processing a lot this year and just this past month or so was wondering
what the best method would be to bring pixelised/digital objects into my
physical space and invariably i keep coming back to lego; the real basic
lego of 2x4 & 2x4 coloured bricks.

john fiske talks about the politicising of 'mere craft' (as opposed to
'fine art') as one of many means of maintaining status quo (patriachy). if
certain aesthetic domains are subjugated [for whatever reason, really] it
is perhaps no wonder that we have to ask ourselves - somewhat guilty -
whether we can embrace something as simple as lego as being 'art'/'new
media'* but if we try to ignore certain broader influences and ask
questions as simple as 'shouldn't we at Rhizome be embracing these kids?'
my response would definitely be "yes, and not just kids".

as for whether lego qualifies as new media i'd be interested to hear what
lev manovich thinks!

r.

rtf wrote:

>
> with an interest in cubes, i have been working with the box(); method
> in
> processing a lot this year and just this past month or so was
> wondering
> what the best method would be to bring pixelised/digital objects into
> my
> physical space and invariably i keep coming back to lego; the real
> basic
> lego of 2x4 & 2x4 coloured bricks.
>
> john fiske talks about the politicising of 'mere craft' (as opposed to
> 'fine art') as one of many means of maintaining status quo
> (patriachy). if
> certain aesthetic domains are subjugated [for whatever reason, really]
> it
> is perhaps no wonder that we have to ask ourselves - somewhat guilty -
> whether we can embrace something as simple as lego as being 'art'/'new
> media'* but if we try to ignore certain broader influences and ask
> questions as simple as 'shouldn't we at Rhizome be embracing these
> kids?'
> my response would definitely be "yes, and not just kids".
>
> as for whether lego qualifies as new media i'd be interested to hear
> what
> lev manovich thinks!
>
> r.

I think you have made an important point here regarding the politic of new media.
There seems to be a pre conception that *serious* new media should involve lengthy programming and attention to 1960's systems analysis theory (see Chronophobia).
I find the media model very 2D, and new media always treats 3D as virtual, yet the 2D models could be print ready in seconds, they are rarely virtual.
Couldn't we be expanding much faster if we left the screen and took our digital presentation into 3 dimensions physically?
As for Manovich, I just can't see him embracing a digital presence that was so removed from the cinema. This binding to Cinema, as Marc Garret alluded to in an earlier post, is very restrictive.
Eric