Idea: A giant Lego made out of Legos
There are a handful of artists out there making incredibly detailed sculptures using Legos. If I had the time and the resources, I’d make one, too. I’d make one big Lego made entirely out of Legos. I’d call it the Lego Lego.
After making one Lego Lego, I would recruit a bunch of friends to help me make a few hundred more. Then they could be used to build an even bigger sculpture built entirely out of Lego Legos.
Previously: Idea: Paintings of descriptions of the paintings
Ahem… I think you mean “…build an even bigger sculpture built entirely out of LEGO LEGO.”
All caps. Plural same as singular.
Posted by: Andrew | June 23, 2008 1:23 AM
I have seen two of these at LEGOland in the Mall of America. They are underwhelming.
Posted by: Mike Fox | June 23, 2008 1:47 AM
Ahem… I think you mean “…build an even bigger sculpture built entirely out of brick bricks.”
LEGO is the company. Bricks are the building components.
Posted by: Superdotman | June 23, 2008 3:15 AM
D: Shoot, forgot the
Posted by: Superdotman | June 23, 2008 3:16 AM
Then you can build ANOTHER lego piece, and call it “Lego Lego Lego” lol
Posted by: Tom Marques | June 23, 2008 4:13 AM
This has indeed been done, and is being done on a regular basis. See for example
http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/30 (incidentally this is the same chap you linked to in the post!)
Also, LEGO refers to both the company and their product (I read this somewhere on an official-ish* website, but can’t find it again). Simply saying ‘bricks’ is not enough, as there are other companies that market a similar product. And of course we wouldn’t be talking about an inferior clone brand, would we! :-)
*By official-ish I mean a site that, while not associated with The LEGO Co. is considered the next best thing by others in the LEGO community
Posted by: Owen | June 23, 2008 4:14 AM
Google hath failed me. -David
Posted by: David | June 23, 2008 7:21 AM
Recursion is a beautiful thing.
Posted by: Dave G | June 23, 2008 10:43 AM
I’m not sure where this “Legos” thing comes from- perhaps spare pluralisations left over from the word “math”? The company are LEGO, the generic name for the product is LEGO, and the individual items are “LEGO bricks” or “LEGO pieces” or whatever, so I’d imagine your plan is for a LEGO brick LEGO brick. Penny Arcade were told off by LEGO for the same thing, though.
Posted by: PKM | June 24, 2008 6:20 AM
It’s LEGOS. No one CARES about your geeky explanation.
If you correct people who say “Legos”, you out yourself as a complete douchebag geek.
Posted by: Nyack Tim | June 24, 2008 12:03 PM
Ugh, I hate the word Legos.
Silly Americans, it is one Lego, two Lego. Like fish, or sheep.
You *could* say one Lego brick, two Lego bricks, but it takes more energy, therefore, as an Australian, I am morally opposed to it.
Posted by: SouthernBelle | June 24, 2008 1:23 PM
Wow, Nyack Tim, I’d say the bigger douch is the singular person here claiming no one cares about the correct use of the word LEGO in the faceof a majority who has claimed otherwise.
There will always be people like that yet we never see anyone attempting to genericize Nike, Ford, or KFC. Perhaps they’re of the attitude that LEGO bricks are ‘merely toys’?
Posted by: Tree | June 24, 2008 3:59 PM
I think that nanotechnology researchers should be working toward making submicroscopic little Legos (or Lego bricks, whatev) out of individual atoms.
Posted by: RichM | June 24, 2008 9:45 PM
Fractalicious! But since it’s already been done, maybe you could whip up a Lego Eggo? “Eggo, my Lego!”
Oh, and Tree? It’s ‘douche.’
Posted by: pannonica | June 25, 2008 9:55 PM
I’m surprised that no one has mentioned the fact that they did this on an episode of the Simpsons.
Posted by: iammucow | June 26, 2008 11:06 AM
i don’t care if it’s been done before.
i think you’re a genius.
Posted by: becoming minimalist | June 26, 2008 3:43 PM
i loved your idea.
i can help you to do more of them.
Posted by: Debs | July 9, 2008 3:28 PM
The painting idea, to which you have linked, reminds me of On Kawara’s date paintings.
Posted by: Sheryl | July 11, 2008 11:49 AM