Profoundly unsettling - disturblingly real
While I emphatically oppose the censorship of any art, it does not prevent me from mentioning how twisted and disgusting this is.
I like that he also makes Barbie dolls with bellies and unflattering thighs.
Its an interesting point, how much sugar coated fantasy is good for kids, and when does it become unreasonable.
In a related note, my kid sister was a fairly dedicated historical research as a young child and as part of her study of the Holocaust she did build models of the camps in her room. I don’t think she used Legos, though. My family didn’t do much to discourage her from studying whatever parts of history however she wanted, and she is a hands on sort of learner. She’d read a pile of books from The Diary of Anne Frank to some hefty historical analysis and then do projects based on her learning. shrug
I’m not in favour of censorship either, but the box with the Lego logo on it, giving the impression that they were producing such a set, is over the line. If you’re going to use the Lego trademarks in that way, get permission.
The OP did make the following quote:
Lego DID provide free supplies of Lego to artist for Lego “art.” They gave the artist the Lego. So the trademark issue would be a dreadfully difficult to pursue because, one could argue that they sponsored his artwork by donating their wares.
In the future, Lego will undoubtedly be more careful about donating thier supplies.
The fake Lego set is part of an art display that is specifically designed to be provocative and draw harsh criticism both for the “Lego art” as well as the architecutre of death (one of my former profs wrote a book on the architecture of the camps). As such I actually find the concept of the display rather interesting.
The history of the architecture of the camps is actually quite fascinating – and in many ways quite twisted (e.g. the neighbouring towns did not complain about the mass slaughter, but they did complain about the stench of human waste and rotting corpses.)
In its proper context the Lego art is actually an interesting comment on the evil system that perpetrated such heinous crimes. Isolated as an “internet joke” it is quite tasteless an horrific. From the same website:
That sure is a HAPPY skeleton receiving shock treatment.
If it was intended as merely a joke, it would be sick indeed. But as an artistic statement, it’s something entirely different. Consider the nature of authority of any modern state and then in “the Fatherland”; the child’s excuse that “we were only following orders…” It made me think of something I read recently:
[hijack]
At the top of that page are the words “Named Cruel Site of the Day January 30, 1998.” Click on that link, and you’ll be taken to the site Cruel.com. Click on the little link at the top called Archive.
Look at the sixth one on the list.
I swear, eventually there’ll be a “6 Links to the SDMB” game, where players name a website and try to get to the SDMB from there with 6 or fewer clicks.
[/hijack]
The problem I have with the use of the Lego logo is that fact that he received them by telling the Lego corporation that he was going to make a prison, or hospital.
Instead, he allegedly “changed his mind” and made the KZ.
And he is selling the sets, even if only to art collectors. He is using the Lego logo to profit himself.
Objectively, yes he is making a valid statement and making people think allthough the image of him holding the box he made could do tremendous damage to the Lego company since it looks like an authorized kit. Subjectively, I think he went over the line just a bit since Legos are a beloved childhood toy for may of us.
I think some people here are assuming the artist is for concentration camps. Making something the subject of art is not support of it.
And as long as he isn’t making the false claim that Lego manufactured these sets, my opinion is that use of the logo is fair.
He is selling them. He made a limited number for one specific exhibit and then sold them. No repeats, he’s not making more.
It’s not an unauthorized line of toys that is available to the general public.
Sock Munkey the fact that – espcially in the region where the exhibit was held – Lego is one of the biggest toys around, was also part of the point of his exhibit. As time passes and memory fades, the way horrific history is disseminated to children can become less and less horrific – could it ever get to the point where it’s trivialized?
I have a Fisher Price castle circa. 1975. It has a trap door and dungeon and came with a toy dragon, a king and queen, knights, round table – all the static plastic figures with round, Charlie Brown heads.
More recent versions?
A fun fantasy toy whose “darkest” feature was a trapdoor to the dungeon is now a “war toy” so your child can re-enact the particularly brutal warfare of midieval times.
The icky Lego exhibit was making a two-part point. 1) The the architecture of the concentration camps was frighteningly efficient and repetitive in order to deal with the incredible logistics of the most horrendous deeds in history. And 2) as survivors are dying and we have to resort to artifacts rather than living memory, there is a frightening risk that the actual, mind-boggling horror will lose some of its visceral power.
In the same way that Fisher Price can make a baby toy that is based on limbs being chopped off and boiling oil melting people alive – God help humanity if it ever comes to this – but fifty years down the road a toy concentration camp could happen.
Here we go, for the example of my last post the “classic version” compared to the 1998 version. Kid’s toys these days are already trivializing some pretty sick stuff. The current Fisher Price castle is the “Battle Castle.” Catpults, bows and arrows – you can read reviews online for people who bought it for their 3- and 4-year-olds.
Sorry for the hijack, I suppose this thread isn’t really about toys of today. But I just thought I’d point it out that the guy’s Lego commentary has some valid points.
Might it be argued that use of the product and the use of the logo are two seprate things, and allowing the one does not imply allowing the other? Are there any experts on copyright and trademark law who could comment on this?
Well… where does fair use end and rights to artistic expression begin? If there was an artist talented enough to make up a pair of near perfect Nike shoes complete with the swoosh and the names of overseas factory laborers and their hourly wages embroidered on the sides of the shoes would that be copyright or trademark infringement if the artist sold the “shoe art” at some point?
Good question. Presumably when there is intent to defraud. Might be a good one for lawyers in GQ.
I think it’s damn neat. Despite what it is meant so represent, Legos always amaze me.
I find it artistically interesting. The fact that it is evoking such strong emotional reactions is kind of the point.
Seems to me if Lego is worried about their trademark being sullied, then they could pursue legal action against the artist. I don’t understand why that’s anyone else’s concern.
I suppose I overreacted a bit.