However bad your day is today, chances are this poor LEGO barbarian is having a worse one. That’s due, of course, to the terrifying beast clawing through his entrails in this dynamic scene by J6Crash, built for round 2 of the Bio-Cup. As gruesome as the scene is, it’s hard not to admire the techniques used to bring the build to life: rippling muscles on both the barbarian and the beast, the clusters of gray fur sprouting from the beast’s clawed hands and feet, and of course the oozing entrails. The beast is positioned to look right at the camera, giving you the impression that you’ve interrupted his meal — and now he’s eyeing some dessert.
I view this as a family website and would prefer not to be confronted with gore on the homepage. I recognize that LEGO gore is pretty low on the scale compared with the gore most people are regularly exposed to through TV, movies, and games. I still would like to be able to make good choices for my family. Thank you!
I agree with Some One…it would be nice to visit a site that’s ostensibly family-friendly (it’s devoted to a toy, after all) without being greeted with a depiction of a man who’s been torn in half, blood and guts everywhere.
Art, expression, and creativity cannot show violence and gore? I can only imagine Dore, Goya, Bacon, Michaelangelo, Picasso, and SOOOO many more all battling to get in line first to say, “Hold my beer!”
Where is hntrains when we need him?!
Perhaps a non-explicit teaser image (e.g. cropped or blurred), and the full image in the full post, after the jump link?
That way people aren’t surprised by the content, but it’s still available for those who wish to see it.
So, let me get this straight, this build is too violent because it shows someone being disemboweled but Madame Butterfly being disemboweled by committing seppuku down the main page is fine?
Kyle, just ignore these clowns and post what’s worth posting. Gore and all.
The blur sounds like a good idea just to keep everyone happy :)
Everyone? How exactly would a blur make everyone happy? That is an invalid, nonsensical, and unsound blanket statement trying to avoid the debate rather than reach a reasonable solution. I wouldn’t be happy if my build was buzzed and fuzzed by a blogger imposing their own strict morality. I doubt anyone would be happy with that after all the work put not only into the build itself but also the photography and editing. Additionally, how do you propose enforcing this? Age limits? Now we all have to register our age here just to view a Lego build? (Welcome to TBB, must be 18+ to view the plastic toys featured here.) And what exactly, and by whom, will be determined as “too gory”? As I pointed out above with the Madame Butterfly build, disembowelment is fine there but not here. ??? Is it a degree of detail? If so, then what about Dave Kaleta’s Frog Dissection blogged here years ago? That is extremely detailed and one of the best Lego builds ever. Here’s the album link if any fragile minds dare.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/davekaleta/albums/72157625152390727/with/5130823498/
If you want to blur out the naughty bits to satisfy an effect looking for a cause, then you should take care in not using too many fig leaves as they tend to smell like the Dark Ages quickly. No human will be traumatized by Lego gore. Ever. And if anyone feels that the content of a Lego creation is too much to handle, then perhaps the internet is not the right place for you. I would suggest logging off in that case.
I really appreciate the discussion, everyone. A couple things I’d like to clarify, though…
I’ve always stated publicly (in comments, editorials, and multiple other contexts over the past 19 years) that The Brothers Brick is a LEGO website created by adult LEGO builders for fellow adult LEGO hobbyists — whether builders themselves or merely those who appreciate LEGO art. The target “rating” is certainly not on the 18+ end of the spectrum, but what we do here on TBB has absolutely never been G-rated. The direction I’ve always given our contributors when choosing MOCs to write about and deciding how to write about them (style, tone, language…) has been PG, with occasional PG-13 subjects exactly like this one. Similar to the MPA’s intention behind the movie rating system, the emphasis here is on parental guidance of art and media.
By using phrases like “family friendly” and suggesting cropping or blurring potentially controversial art, I’m inferring that some of our readers have assumed that kids younger than teenagers should be able to view TBB without parental supervision. On the contrary, our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy are both built around an over-13 model, consistent not just with legal frameworks like COPPA but also with that PG or PG-13 editorial approach I mentioned above.
Just because the website features art created using LEGO bricks doesn’t mean that everything we feature — mostly built by adult arists — will fall into the classic 6-12 age range of traditional LEGO sets.
Finally, I want to emphasize another aspect of TBB’s content. I hope those who’ve stuck with my comment so far have noticed that I’m consistently using the word “art” to describe the LEGO models we highlight with our write-ups. Art can inspire emotion, provoke thought, please our aesthetic senses, spark our own creativity, and so much more. Art does not fall neatly into family-friendly vs. adults-only categories. The very discussion we’re having here about this particular work (the combination of the underlying LEGO model and the photograph that captures it) proves that it is art!
As we’ve done for nearly 20 years, TBB will continue featuring LEGO art, even if some of that art occasionally makes us feel uncomfortable. Regardless of whether you agree with our stance on LEGO art or not, thanks again for the great discussion, and thanks for caring enough to comment!
As it seems that there’s some Kyle-based confusion above, I just want to say that I 100% agree with Andrew’s comment above, and have navigated by that guidance since taking on the Managing Editor role. I see many of these TBB policies and stances, like the one above on the nature of our content, as being essential to properly representing the LEGO builder community through the art we choose to feature.
@Matt rowntRee I meant a blur on the homepage that you click to get to the article, like what @Kyle said. I didn’t mean not being able to see it at all
@Kyle Keller Sorry ’bout that. I saw “Kyle” and my brain clicked to you. Was doubly confused that you would suggest blurring the image. Cheers!
@kjdabate Yup, I understood what you both were saying, and it’s still invalid. Not just for a visually driven site relying on the goldfish standard of today’s attention spans, but also for the personal agenda of Some One’s moral relativism. TBB, the builder J6Crash, and anyone with a creative bone in their body and/or a gruesome tilt to their imagination is NOT responsible in any way for Some One “to be able to make good choices for (their) family.” (No offence to TBB, but if anyone is looking to a Lego blog for parental advice… woof.) As you and everyone on this planet knows, those kids this blurring is proposed to protect would in fact be the first to click on it to see its full gory glory. And again, since there is no age restriction here, nor should be, it ends up being a completely pointless exercise/exorcise. In that realistic respect, this “warning label” then becomes a guarantee doing the exact opposite of its intended purpose. It’s a lose/lose and more work for TBB who in the very least should be spending their time blogging to foster curiosity and fascination instead of suppressing it with hoops to jump through imposed by a self-righteous member of the audience afraid of art. And it must be understood that all art has a responsibility to never bend a knee. Additionally, any parent looking to prepare their child for the real world should look at something like this as a teaching moment (yes, that’s what’s inside. Keep it in there. You’re welcome, son. Hey, parenting advice on a Lego blog, who knew? XD) Cheers!
@matt RowntRee fair point, you’re right that it won’t make much of a difference to bother. It’s only Lego after all and I just thought that it was a good suggestion, before reading your comment. No hard feelings :)
@kjdabate Absolutely no hard feelings whatsoever, I’d be the last to discourage any discourse on any topic (unless it’s flat Earth, that’s just stupid. All the cats would have knocked everything off the edge eons ago.) In fact, I find this debate to be far more relevant, albeit rather worn out for centuries, than the actual build itself. I see any build as “a”rt with a lowercase a, it is the product of “A”rt with a capital A, which is the conversation. J6Crash’s mind started the convo with the idea, he then had a convo with the language of this medium, then this build was produced. After that, the build then began a convo with the viewers, and the viewers began a convo with each other. THAT is Art. Not the product, but rather the expansive conversation. The issue here is that any suggestion of censorship ignored the art and focused on a very minor aspect that threatened to subvert the conversation, and that is exactly how growth, expansion, and enlightenment die. Anyone looking to censor art and Art are afraid of them and should be embarrassed by that. And making blanket policy decisions based on subjective fears, and projected subjective fears, is better known as the Dark Ages. Sidenote: I’ve always gotten a kick out of hearing a builder got out of their “dark ages”, in my mind I’ve always equated it to them realizing that they have something to say and remembering that they are fairly fluent in Lego. Cheers, my friend!