Subject:
|
Re: LEGO being used in politics! (help me in my dilemma)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 29 Sep 2002 22:19:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
391 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
> So, here come my questions: how legitimate is it to use a toy as a means for
> political expression? <etc>
In my opinion, bricks are long enough in the tooth to be considered more of
a "medium of expression" rather than just a toy. A mere brick is pretty dull
in and of itself. When you break it down, a single brick is not much of
anything -- it's just the means to an end. So I don't know why building with
Lego brand bricks should be considered different from sculpting with clay of
the "Play-Doh" brand, or painting something with "Windsor & Newton" brand
oil paints, or any similar such activity with whatever brand of choice.
Lego is the means to do a thing, not the thing expressed itself.
Do I need to mention that if all one wants is to build with basic bricks,
they don't necessarily even have to have "Lego" stamped on them? Brand
loyalty is a personal issue and not actually a requisite of the activity of
building with bricks.
BTW, what made you think this was off-topic?
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
5 Messages in This Thread:
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
