Subject:
|
Re: Epsilon
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Tue, 31 Jan 2006 17:26:21 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
4054 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Brayton Orchard wrote:
| |
Brickshelf Gallery
An armored troop transport concept. Comments and criticism would be greatly
appreciated.
|
(disclaimer: this post may or may not be just ramblings with or without any
actual point, but I find my fascination with this model incredibly hard to put
down in words)
Looking at this model reminds me of how far we’ve come when it comes to
exploiting the various possibilities of the LEGO brick. It’s an excellent
example of using bricks as just construction elements to form a shape,
regardless of the intended purpose of the brick. I thought it was a microfig
model at first, before I viewed the last photos in the Brickshelf gallery.
It also showcases many of the recent and, in my opinion, most exciting aspects
of “modern” LEGO building - studlessness, angles, and precise use of details.
While it is a very clean model, almost devoid of detail to a negative extent in
some places, my brain fills in the blanks just perfectly, making it a very
unusual experience to view this model.
If I may (completely unqualified, as I am, to make opinions with any weight in
matters such as these), I think that the next thing we’ll see more of in the
future is the use of “percieved detail” - building in ways which make your brain
see things which in reality aren’t there.
Calling this a “concept” model is very fitting, because much like concept cars
it showcases many things which feel incredibly fresh and exciting. I am very
intrigued by the way it so effectively conveys different messages at the same
time (minifig vs. microfig, detailed vs. plain).
However, it somehow doesn’t “click”. The funny thing is, I just can’t put my
finger on it. At first, I thought it was the design, something as simple as the
model not looking “beefy” enough, but giving it more thought, I concluded it was
something else. Something deeper than the model just not fully living up to its
premise. (ie, “It’s supposed to be an armored transport, but looks a little too
weak and flimsy for that”, which was my first reaction)
I will even venture so far as to say that it may lie in the nature of this
building style to always trigger this sense of uncertainty, the sense of
something being not quite right.
If this has left you confused, I apologize. Putting all the stuff above aside, I
can say this about the model: I like it.
I could add “but something is missing” to the previous sentence, but that is the
key to why this post is several paragraphs rather than two lines - I don’t think
anything is missing, but I still feel it does.
This model has captured my mind in a way no other model has done before.
Your opinion may, of course, vary.
-- Tobias
When replying by e-mail, remove capital letters and numbers from my e-mail
address.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Epsilon
|
| Tobias, Thanks for your comments. As for your two-sided interpretation of this, I actually agree with you. From the beginning, I thought that there was something slightly off with this model, but I could never fix it. I have a sneaking suspicion (...) (19 years ago, 2-Feb-06, to lugnet.space, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Epsilon
|
| (2 URLs) Brickshelf Gallery> An armored troop transport concept. Comments and criticism would be greatly appreciated. (19 years ago, 28-Jan-06, to lugnet.space, FTX) !
|
11 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
|
|
|
|
