By now you have heard about the conflict between artist Ai Weiwei and the LEGO Group. To summarize Ai asked to purchase from LEGO a bulk order of LEGO bricks for an upcoming exhibition in Australia and the company refused on grounds that they knew the content was for political purposes. Ai then went to Instagram and accused LEGO of artistic censorship.
The reaction? In a nut shell, the internet exploded. Calls of boycotts, photos posted on social media giving the company the middle finger (an homage to past Ai images) and a call for people to donate their LEGO so the artist can complete his exhibition for Australia’s National Gallery of Victoria.
Lets be clear, I love LEGO and I admire Ai Weiwei, but something about all of this makes me want to take a step back and go “WTF?”
This is not the first time Ai has used LEGO to make a political point; in fact we wrote about his amazing exhibition about political dissidents he exhibited in the former prison on Alcatraz. Nothing is stopping him from doing it again. In fact, most builders re-use their bricks; where are the bricks he used in his Alcatraz work? LEGO bricks are readily available for purchase from many retailers and third part re-sellers. Maybe this isn’t as convenient a way of getting large quantity of LEGO bricks as one bulk order from LEGO, but nothing is stopping him from purchasing his LEGO elsewhere. Maybe he just wanted a discounted price?
I am wondering why this is hitting the news now. He was denied his order back in September, so why the delay in making it public? Is all this controversy politically motivated? Ai insinuated it is somehow connected with the new Legoland theme park opening in Shanghai next year. Or is it because LEGO is opening a new LEGO factory in China? Ai’s battles against the Chinese government are legendary. First, LEGO does not operate the Legoland’s; they are owned by UK company Merlin Entertainment. Second, LEGO is facing a world wide shortage of LEGO this holiday season. They are expecting shortages in Europe, although not in the US. So it seems natural that they would need to expand their production and since China is everyones favorite market to expand into, this makes total sense from a business point of view. I can’t help but think we are not getting the whole story. Ai is a masterful user of social media to get his opinion out to the world. If you want to know what’s going on in his life, just follow him on Instagram. This entire controversy feels like a well orchestrated publicity stunt, and a very successful one at that.
What ever the reason, I know that Ai Weiwei will get his bricks (and probably for free), his show will go on, the press coverage he will get from all this is priceless and the internet has a new target to focus their collective outrage at. Is this really a win for artistic freedom?
I can’t help but think what a great story this has been over a slow news weekend. Who wants to hear about the conflict in Syria, or those pesky refugees flowing into Europe as the weather turns brutally cold, and what a disappointment hurricane Patricia was. For me as long time LEGO fan I find this to be tempest in a teapot. Sure the company has it’s problems (don’t get me started) but denying a successful artist his bricks for an exhibition that opens in a couple of months is not one of them.
Of course there could be a silver lining in all of this for the rest of us. When you work with Lego as an artistic medium you know you are working in a grey area. While LEGO has a fair use policy, it has always been a little unclear when it comes to photographs of their mini figures. We have seen photographs randomly taken down from RedBubble in the past for no apparent reason. In fact this past January we wrote extensively on LEGO’s Fair Play policy and how it appears to be randomly enforced. I would love to see an artist of Ai Weiwei’s stature take on LEGO and clarify their policy towards artists. It can only benefit smaller artists, like our Stuck in Plastic collective, who use their products to advance our own artistic goals, but without the resources Ai’s star power.
~ xxsSJC
How do you feel about this topic? Do you feel that LEGO censored Ai Weiwei by denying him his order? Or do you think this is a publicity stunt? Or, like me, you don’t think we have the whole story?
This may be a minor issue in comparison with the refugee crisis, but one day we’re going to wake up and find ourselves without free speech rights, taken away not by governments but by large corporations that operate outside the control of any government and have the capacity to buy them all. Once LEGO sells its bricks, it should have no control over the way they’re used, the same way gun manufacturers have no control over the way their products are used. If LEGO could stop selling its products–or take the next step and issue a cease and desist order against anyone who uses the products in a political way–that’s no different from the Koch Brothers, who own paper mills, from preventing their paper for being used to print books and newspapers that disagree with their ideological beliefs.
You make the point that Ai can buy his pieces from third-party sellers. That may be true, but differential treatment of political and other speech (or political speech that those in power disagree with vs. what they agree with) can hamper the expression of free speech. For instance, about ten years ago, the Bush administration created different tiers of postal rates for bulk mailings, lowering rates for large media outlets and raising them for smaller publications. Many smaller magazines were put out of business this way, or forced to sell out to the big guys.
Lyn,
While all you say is very true, I would like to point out that we already don’t have free speech. We are afraid to talk about sensitive topics on the internet for fear of mob reprisal. Plus we have warrantless wire tapping, illegal search and seizure and I could go on and on on the rights we don’t have that we think we have.
I feel like this particular issue was a set up. Sure LEGO has no right to tell anyone what to do with their bricks once they buy them, but as a privately held company it is not for us to tell them who to sell their bricks to. LEGO never said that he couldn’t use their bricks to make his statement, they just said they wouldn’t be a part of it. Which is their right. If this was only about an artist trying to get his art made then he would be using mega blocks, or finding his blocks some where else. But no, he wants to be able to have the press to say he used LEGO brand bricks. It is more appealing for everyone. I feel like Ai Weiwei is an activist artists that is used to getting his way. Hell the British government gave him a formal apology regarding his visa snafu. That is a lot of power for one artist to have.
As far as the USPS offering different rates to different sized publications, I am going to go out on a limb and say there was some lobbying done by certain large publications to make that happen.
You are part of LUG group and you know that LEGO has a certain protocol for buying bulk. Aren’t you limited to one order a year? Who is to say that Ai didn’t already use up his one order for his Alcatraz shipment. Im sorry, but I don’t see this as a free speech issue. I see this as an artist who needs a lot of brick fast and it didn’t work out getting it from the mother ship so he went to the press and cried fowl.
I know that as a writer censorship is a big issue for you, especially when dealing with minorities writers. And I will certainly stand corrected if it turns out that way. But I would like to see a few questions answered before we tar and feather the company. Especially since Lego is no longer working with Shell Oil and they are also looking for environmentally friendly plastics. They are not the evil empire, no matter how much we want to paint them out to be.
I think I mentioned at the end of my piece of a star of Ai’s size can force a clear Fair Play contract out of LEGO we are all going to benefit. Because right now, all toy photographers can have their work removed from the web because we are photographing their products. I would love to see this issue resolved but I agree with you that the company has no right to tell me or anyone else what to do with their product once I own it. But I also don’t have the right to use their name in a way that they don’t approve or agree to. And I certainly don’t have the right to ask for their product for free or a discount just because I am an artist.
Best regards,
Shelly
An artist will do what an artist will do, and sometimes that means ruffling feathers. I think the initial effort here was to ruffle political feathers, but then was highlighted by the supply issue.
We all know that there are MANY ways to get hands on bricks, but for bulk, quality, branded parts, I’d go the route Ai went, too.
For LEGO, they know full well they have no grounds to prevent an individual from doing their work, and any attempt to try is futile. If anything, it was an opportunity to make a statement of “we don’t support the commentary this individual wants to make by using our product as a component”. They know that it will make a visible statement, but they also know that the refusal won’t hold up in the long term.
After all, the math here boils down to a VERY simple equation of “customer wishes to buy product”; which is why they’re in business.
I don’t see it as a censorship issue, because the action taken is too far up the supply chain to jump to that conclusion in a sensible way. If Ai can’t get brick from the source, he’s not prevented from moving forward, as there are other supply methods. It is, however, a supply chain issue. A simple answer of “let’s NOT sell our product at this time” is an insufficient explanation of the situation, no matter which way you cut it.
It’s not adding up. What is Ai working on which requires this exact order of products from this exact supply method, and what is LEGO perceiving that’s causing them to take a stand in a very specific and public way against an individual’s art?
I might understand it if the message were targeting LEGO or their suppliers (remember the down-tempo “Everything is Not Awesome” video pointing out the negative effects of petroleum products? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhbliUq0_r4)). But for LEGO to step in on an artist’s political message seems out of place.
Something isn’t quite clutching here.
Daniel
ig: @minifiglife
Daniel,
I do believe it is an artists responsibly to ruffle feather and point out the injustices of the world. I admire Ai for all he is doing in both his country and world wide. But I think he is being delusional to think big business is going to support him. Since when has big business (and yes LEGO is definitely BIG business) supported artists taking pot shots at the status quo? I say make the art, get the extra media attention, lets change the world. But don’t expect a hand out from the hand you are about to bite.
Now the LEGO is the biggest toy company in the world we are going to be seeing more of this. They are an easy target as Greenpeace found out. It doesn’t take much to get them to roll over and change there ways. I do object to the general lynch mob mentality of the internet though. Lets have a debate, lets look at this from all sides and not make knee jerk reactions.
Thanks for joining the debate Daniel, I am sure we will be talking about this one for a while.
Shelly
I think there are loads of bits missing, as always in most of the stories out there, but there are some clear points…
As above is mentioned, the Shell collabo is over, Geeen Peace was making a lot of noise for free (they could even acuse LEGO for pollution just for being tiy manera, and their abuse on oil products, but they didnt…) they just used a Big name to help them again attwntion, LEGO didnt wanted that bad publicity going on, they ended up finishing the agreement.
Even if they dont support política ser, they should be aware, that they will en up involved on thqt kind of matters, just for the size of the company, its like Coke or Mc Donalds refusing to appear on bad movies.
Also, as you said there are many empty spaxes and confusing spaces ir “off limita” within the fair play policy, even the lugs have a lot if restrictions, being them, non paid sponsors and promoters of the brand, and as a lug member I know thats not like tl be told openly, but I think some times there are a lot of limitations to the users as if we were the evil ones… Once again, there’s just para of the story being told…
Same as u, Big fan of both, know Weiwei’s love for provocation, and his taste for humor, and also Big fan of LEGO and have seen rhem taking the wrong decisitions more than once.
Also, it was not Ai Weiwei who durectky asjed the bricks for, but the gallery in Australia, so there’s anothee thing that makew me wonder two things, why in first place Weiwei didnt asked for bricks to make a community/colaborative piece? And why do they refused to sell LEGO bricks to a gallery?
All I can think off abot this is the same I think about the “no real weapons/war items” policy, but lately there are being increasing the weaponery and militar like sets… Tmnt, Agents, etc.
However its Cool to see anothee person with that same sweet and sour feeling about this.
Cheers from México.
Alfonso,
You bring up some great points. Why was the ask from the museum? I would love to know how the bricks were acquired for Alcatraz happened and how this is different. I think a lot of the answers we are looking for will be in that information. Everyone who works with, by, and around LEGO knows there are limitations. It’s not like Ai is new to this game. No one likes the limitations and we are all trying to push against them. I will be interested to see if he can get us some clarity on the Fair Play issues. But if LEGO is so down on guns, violence etc…why is there so much of that content in there sets. The City sets are over run with robbers. I won’t buy an Advent calendar because I am sick of it always including robbers. I understand that the licensed IPs have a lot of weapons, but why are all the Chima sets always about a battle? I think the Ninjago Dojo is the first Ninjago set that was about peace and reflection – not a battle. I would love to see LEGO practice what they preach.
Thanks for joining in the discussion!
Shelly
Shelly, your post mirrors my feelings exactly. The whole point was to drum up publicity for Weiwei and his build and it has been achieved – I don’t dislike him for it, I admire that he has achieved his aim.
The ‘banned’ from using LEGO or ‘refusing to supply’ is simply related to a direct bulk order from a LEGO Certified Professional. No many people direct buy from LEGO and it’s their right to limit what this is used for…want to build a 50ft Christmas tree in a city – okay, want to make a political statement – not okay.
He can walk into any LEGO store and buy as many bricks as he likes, or Megablocks or Kreo or whatever else kind of bricks. What he actually wants is media attention, publicity and controversy and he wouldn’t get that by walking into a shop and buying LEGO.
His media campaign has been well done and it has worked thus far, I’m just surprised that anyone thinks that a toy manufacturer should be upholding his right to freedom of speech, he can do that himself (as he has proven in the past) without help from LEGO
Elspeth
Elspeth,
Thank you for joining the conversation here on the blog. I was watching with absolute fascination the comment thread on Twitter. This is not censorship it’s a publicity stunt. Truly if I was Mega Blocks I would be reaching out to Ai right now and saying we will give you the bricks you need. What a brilliant move that would be! Ai wants LEGO because LEGO is cool. Who wants to say they made their art out of MEGA Blocks. But if the message is what is so important, not media attention, then make the art out of what you can. A child’s toy is a child’s toy. But making it out of LEGO, even without buying the bricks in bulk, makes LEGO a tacit accomplice. As I mentioned in the above comment I don’t see why any artist should expect a large corporation to essential support their projects that are designed to bring change to a system that they benefit from. If he is making art that is that controversial, he shouldn’t be expecting a hand out. In my opinion this is about money, not artistic freedom.
Thank again for joining in the conversation! Lets hope cooler head prevail as we all move forward.
Shelly
I agree completely Shelly.
Twitter was funny as 140 characters is nothing when you are trying to be eloquent, clear and thoughtful! Tweets are an art form too – I ended up with a LEGO photo and bowed out of the ‘conversation’.
Sorry for piling up your initial tweet but it was fun!
I thought you bowed out brilliantly. I see no chilling effect. In fact as an artist this is a great time to pile on the censorship band wagon. If Ai can do it…
I enjoyed the tweet storm completely. It reminded me of how it used to be on twitter. 😀
I thought I had bowed out…seems I had one more post 😉
https://twitter.com/demontes_e/status/658720489351847936
The LEGO political stance is interesting considering the Jung von Matt ad campaign from a few years ago featuring Tiananmen Square and the Brandenburg gate:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/7c/10/10/7c10100324dffdf0ed090fedf72b1c33.jpg
Admittedly I’m not 100% sure this ran as an official LEGO campaign in Germany, but I was involved in the initial planning stages and it was pitched to me as a LEGO official project.
Thanks Mike for adding this very interesting piece to the puzzle. If you are right and this was pitched to you as an official LEGO campaign LEGO has some explaining to do. I am sure this isn’t the only example of past instances where LEGO was used for political purpose that had LEGO’s participation. I am sure more will surface. Either LEGO has changed their political stance in the last few years or they are indeed engaging in some very selective censorship. The plot thickens….