It's a relatively mild parts pack. I wonder if they ship instructions with the parts?

It would have been more interesting if they had just thrown, say, 1000 random plates and tiles in a few colors in a box, skip traditional instructions but include just some pictures for inspiration, and let people come up with their own "art". Results would probably better than the 4 official builds of this set...

Maybe this was meant to be released April 1, not July 1, and someone flubbed it.

I'm not sure how I feel about the set as a whole, but I do like the repeated use of 2x2 triangle tiles for texture.

What a weird set. I like some of the designs. Although it feels strange to get a set consisting of just pieces put together as if you were doodling, it might be a showcase for people who are not as familiar to lego as us. You know to give them ideas what to build?

T.T.T.P.P.

Teal Triangle Tile Parts Pack.

I'm seeing a turtle.....

Or maybe a tortoise.....

Ena!!!

This is nasty and ugly.

@sjr60 said:
"
I'm seeing a turtle.....

Or maybe a tortoise....."

But not a terrapin, then?
:)

This is actually pretty cool, but the concept of having instructions for something like this seems a little ironic. I would've preferred, if there was an instruction for basic shapes or techniques or inspirations or something like that and it let you build anything you want with that

Art is communication, and the only thing this communicates is: "I am to lazy/ uncreative to make something like that myself"

Dave we have a load of spare budget and a box of bricks no one wants. Please make something for us.
at least its a decent parts pack

@CapnRex101 where is that nice pole you normally post under the presentation?

- No, it doesn't interest me

Looks just as bad as the real thing!

Feels like a bit of a missed opportunity and would have benefited from taking more inspiration or, even reproducing a modern artist like Piet Mondrian, with colourful linear compositions like Broadway Boogie Woogie for instance.

I like this a lot as hopefully it’ll inspire some creativity! I plan to give it to my 7 year old and let her free build a picture using the instructions as suggestions rather than actually following them.

Wow, shapes...

No purple? Snort.

weird dots parts pack, but okay

I think this set is extremely hilarious. Grade A trolling from LEGO.

Not my thing, but it'll probably be someone's. It's not too expensive either.

LEGO: We have so many left over DOTS parts, we need a set that will get rid of these parts.

Designers: How about this?

LEGO: *barffff. Uh yes that will *cough... do :)

At least it's 'only' 50 euro. I guess even current-day Lego knows better than to sell 'this' as a bloated titanic set with a frame costing nearly 100 euro on its own for once.

@bwaaatch said:
"As Lego fans, though we all have different interests, we probably all share a fascination with the idea of recreating real or imagined objects and place through the deliberately limiting medium of our coloured bricks. Fun often comes from finding the right parts to evoke the specific thing on your head, or in a photo. It’s the fact that Lego makes this kind of hard that makes it fun.

But here, like with a lot of art, the making of recognisable or useful objects is very much secondary. As such, the concept of constraints to our usual goals becomes rather redundant. I think that makes for a nice change, but also a challenge to the way that many of us use bricks.

It’s noticeable that there’s a lot of ‘modern art is rubbish’ talk in the thread, but I detect a quieter majority for whom this set is neither an existential crisis nor a sign of all that is wrong with the world today! It’s just reminding people that they are ALLOWED to do whatever they want with bricks.

So I’m onboard! Though this may be due to being a bit of a Memphis fan boy (up to and including Saved by the bell!), having been to a wonderful Ettore Sotsass exhibition at the London Design Museum many years ago. If you don’t know his work, which is as much architecture and industrial design as it is art, then he’s worth a google. This set feels like an homage to the Memphis Group he founded in 1980. The shapes and the palette are there. What we do with them is up us."

I love Ettore too! Let's all be happy LEGO didn't try to recreate his vase ;-)

@560heliport said:
" @sjr60 said:
"
I'm seeing a turtle.....

Or maybe a tortoise....."

But not a terrapin, then?
:)"

No Mata Mata?

Must admit some of the other options are much better than the version they chose to put on the front of the box. Not going to get it, but...I'm sure some people will enjoy it.

If Lego marketed this set as a Picasso set. Adults would probably buy this set with lighter critique

Moden art is not my cup of tea, but it is not a bad set for those who do appreciate it. The ppp is great. I do like that they are doing art, as I really want to get the Vincent van Gogh set.

Who is the artist? If it's a literal piece of art, rather than a mass-produced consumer product, surely their name should be on the box...?

I could see this actually catching on in two or three settings:
Psychotherapist to patient: "Build something." Then, "Explain to me what you built? Why did you build it that way?"
Corporate teambuilding/zen/HR-mandated/management training event, to groups of 3 or four: Same as above.
Elementary school art class: Same as above, except no need to explain why.

Now, if they could get a Lichtenstein licence, I would be all in!

@Huw said:
"Truly bizarre. A mess of shapes and colours and not really artistic at all.

Unfortunately I drew the short straw for reviewing it :-)

"

@Huw, Don't panic. I've written the review for you:

FhGJhhb LJL2WhDb LJb lhkj, lhgwq JB H Hbnn1bœjdhrs arfbvkj yes? Jftdhgsa*% Qhv"3 OJB876*fvåvjvGs No! KjhJBàkyuye wnb, bbk^jmn khkjghwe 5qNvjKHu gjvk 986vbmebm well, maybe. Kgjhrfjo+ &GHkj lkbl l ljlkj EtdT76vMH LLopkbk pareidolia nljn otfvb - obviously.

It’s awful.

I thought Lego is regularly an artistic abstraction so I’m not rebuilding that portfolio I hated with triangles in that cursed teal! (Oceanic colour schemes only please!)

My art college tutor:
“In art there is no right or wrong answer.”
But if we didn’t use ‘mixed media juxtaposed against an inner expression that said something about ourselves through our wretched smears of charcoal, glue and wool, I guarantee you we got marked down.

Looks a mess. Best to be seen from afar….much like Technic or those big Ninjago city sets.

Looks like a Classic theme mixed with a DOTS set, mostly plates and tiles, and that's in a good way.

I like it a lot.

@Lyichir said:
"

The thing about this set that people seem to be missing is it's designed for users to create their OWN art, with what looks like modular segments that can be fitted together into the sort of composition you prefer."

Exactly, it's a bit like 41938: Creative Designer Box but then with bigger tiles.

No disrespect to anyone who likes this set, but I have this right up there with Huw’s 18+ Duplo set. I love LEGO Art sets as well as creativity sets. IMHO, this doesn’t successfully serve either.

@yellowcastle said:
"I did some digging and found the press release:

Open the bin to an immersive building project with the LEGO Modern Art (31210) model building set for people. This unique thing is made from layers of LEGO bricks in which art breaks out from the frame and any piece can be put into different poses. Capture the look and feel of a child’s creation dropped from a large height as you assemble each odd detail piece by piece. Then choose between random or semi-random piece placement and hide your creation from display for none to enjoy.

The open and confusing backdrop replicates the open and confusing backdrop technique. There are 4 1x5x4 bricks with bow to represent art which first appeared more than 4 years ago and a graphic in the bottom corner contains his phrase, “With great power there must also come great responsibility"

This impressive replica model comes with an array of authentic features, including a static tile whirl, a detailed triangle like shape with a fixed circle thing and working colors and gaps. Remove the tiles for access to the detailed interior plates with studs, clutch and bricks, tiles, other plates, some more bricks, wedge pieces, cheese slopes, tiles no tubes, and working plates w/ knob.
Discover a space for relaxation with a collectable thing that’s a gift idea for classic art snobs. Check out the inspiring range of LEGO building sets for people."

Take a bow, you win the internet today.

"Memphis! Where the hell is Memphis!?"

I wonder if Joe will be steppin' out to get this set ;-) I will not be, but if I had a room in such a style in my home, I certainly would.

Well they really nailed the "my kid could make that" aspect of modern art, they just missed the more important "yeah but your kid DIDN'T make that"

Don’t overthink it, it’s just a funky conversation piece for your living room, with some nostalgia appeal for the 90s Memphis crowd. If anything, the fact that they put the “face” model on the front diminishes it a bit, the geometric models are way more groovy. Thumbs up from me, I much prefer this to the soulless Disney schlock.

@bwaaatch said:
"As Lego fans, though we all have different interests, we probably all share a fascination with the idea of recreating real or imagined objects and place through the deliberately limiting medium of our coloured bricks. Fun often comes from finding the right parts to evoke the specific thing on your head, or in a photo. It’s the fact that Lego makes this kind of hard that makes it fun.

But here, like with a lot of art, the making of recognisable or useful objects is very much secondary. As such, the concept of constraints to our usual goals becomes rather redundant. I think that makes for a nice change, but also a challenge to the way that many of us use bricks.

It’s noticeable that there’s a lot of ‘modern art is rubbish’ talk in the thread, but I detect a quieter majority for whom this set is neither an existential crisis nor a sign of all that is wrong with the world today! It’s just reminding people that they are ALLOWED to do whatever they want with bricks.

So I’m onboard! Though this may be due to being a bit of a Memphis fan boy (up to and including Saved by the bell!), having been to a wonderful Ettore Sotsass exhibition at the London Design Museum many years ago. If you don’t know his work, which is as much architecture and industrial design as it is art, then he’s worth a google. This set feels like an homage to the Memphis Group he founded in 1980. The shapes and the palette are there. What we do with them is up us."

Also feels somehow reminiscent of Peter Saville’s work from the 70s and 80s to me, particularly his color blocks on the covers for New Order’s Blue Monday and Power, Corruption & Lies and the strong shapes and contrasting colors on his cover for their single True Faith

I hope it will be discounted like Dots so I can pick up a few for parts. Tiles are always nice.

Other than that.... really struggling to say anything positive.....

Huh, whut? Hmmm. Snurglgph.

The fact that Lego didn't even license out a famous piece of modern art is kind of surprising. Their continuous shift towards licensed products means a large portion of customers buy things off recognizability alone (unsurprising). I don't know if I'd agree with the set any more if it was Basquiat but to me that'd make more sense as a product. This is literally just throwing bricks at a wall.

Exactly why would one follow instructions to build this? Just building something from the pile of bricks included would return an equally nice (?) result. It begs for explanation from the designer.
Like with most modern art, there needs to be some story to it to appreciate it more.

@StyleCounselor said:
" @sjr60 said:
"
Good to see the Designer Video's up;

https://images.brickset.com/library/ads/Ad%201977_1.jpg"

Ha, ha! Got me."

This set looks like it was made by AI

How about a brickset competition for the best “review”?

Can it be requested to focus potential criticism on this set alone without disparaging various art forms? Thank you.

@StyleCounselor said:
"Yet, it's always hilarious when people misuse the term 'modern.' Modern art, literature and philosophy is from the 1850s.

I would expect Lego to be a little more sophisticated."

This is clearly a case of Modernity vs Modernism/modern vs modernist, the latter also colloquially known as "modern" in various languages.

What a bunch of utter garbage. This is so bad that it almost seems like a joke.

Gotta say, this is a fantastic comments section! If only every set not to everyone’s taste got this level of good natured mocking rather than the negative diatribes some other recent sets have received.

There seems to be an echo chamber forming on this site over the past couple years that I am simply not in line with. I truly despise seeing the comment section of just about every article, but to be fair everyone is entitled to their opinions. I just don't want to see or hear the ones here anymore. Later Brickset; I had fun here for a while, but I guess its time to move on.

Reading up with some having taken art history, it shows how art can be so subjective.
I've studied art history, became a professional artist (still to this day 25+ years) and this Lego set to me just doesn't resonate. Doesn't look that good, to me BUT I see some merit.
Like for the Lego collector, a couple new elements with those curved lines, parts pack for sure at great value and for a young kid, this could be a good introduction to 'art'.
It's easy, no mess with paints but I'd rather a kid with his parents or teacher go through the abstract movement and actually draw on paper, paint on paper or board or small canvas which would be more fulfilling for a young person than this kit.

Just a few minutes to go, adding the finishing touches to the Orient Express, then that fatal trip with a tray full of bricks, and the rest was history....

Pick-a-Brick: The Set. Why would anyone buy this for $50 when you can buy the real thing for $50 million?

@Huw said:
"Truly bizarre. A mess of shapes and colours and not really artistic at all."

Wait...are you talking about modern art, or this set?

@PhantomBricks:
71013-15, 7172, 41948, 70824.

@Zander:
What's "pareidolia"?

@ComfySofa:
Lately, I've been designing Beholders.

@Tuzi:
Ooh, I could totally make a Mondrian Beholder...

Now that I've been looking at it for a while, I do see a face, a bird and Mickey Mouse appearing.

@whiteghost said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
"Yet, it's always hilarious when people misuse the term 'modern.' Modern art, literature and philosophy is from the 1850s.

I would expect Lego to be a little more sophisticated."

This is clearly a case of Modernity vs Modernism/modern vs modernist, the latter also colloquially known as "modern" in various languages."

Yes, it's important to define your terms. The history of ideas (including art) has a fairly specific connotation for all your iterations of 'modern.' It refers to periods well before the 80s. Usually, no more than 1850-1950.

I would call this 'postmodern' or 'Memphis.' It's not modern.

@PurpleDave said:
" @ComfySofa:
Lately, I've been designing Beholders."

In the UK, we call them hives.

@StyleCounselor:
Ah, art, the only field so pretentious that it would define one style as "present day", and thereafter have to define successive styles as "later than present day", and "even later than present day".

@ComfySofa:
Beholders, one of the more famous Dungeons & Dragons monsters. Giant floating ball with one giant eyeball, a mouth full of gnashy teeth, and ten tentacles that are tipped with smaller eyeballs. You know, the sort of thing that, if you stumble on one in a dark alley, you scream...and then say, "Whew! For a second, I thought you were a politician."

@PurpleDave said:
" @Zander:
What's "pareidolia"?"
The tendency to perceive meaning in random or ambiguous visual stimuli, e.g. seeing faces in tree trunks or fruit that have grown that way naturally.

@ResIpsaLoquitur said:
"It's like Dots if it were made of larger, nonsensical parts."

My thought exactly :D

@Zander:
Oh, I was just joking. I didn't realize you'd slipped an actual word in there, but I figured it'd be the funniest part to ask about because it implies I had no trouble understanding the rest. To be honest, though, I missed the "well, maybe".

@StyleCounselor said:
" @whiteghost said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
"Yet, it's always hilarious when people misuse the term 'modern.' Modern art, literature and philosophy is from the 1850s.

I would expect Lego to be a little more sophisticated."

This is clearly a case of Modernity vs Modernism/modern vs modernist, the latter also colloquially known as "modern" in various languages."

Yes, it's important to define your terms. The history of ideas (including art) has a fairly specific connotation for all your iterations of 'modern.' It refers to periods well before the 80s. Usually, no more than 1850-1950.

I would call this 'postmodern' or 'Memphis.' It's not modern. "

This particular set draws inspiration from many movements, e. g. abstraction in general, Bauhaus, orphism, shaped canvas, De Stijl, neoavantgarde, etc., many of tham falling into the period of "modern" of your definition.

@whiteghost said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
" @whiteghost said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
"Yet, it's always hilarious when people misuse the term 'modern.' Modern art, literature and philosophy is from the 1850s.

I would expect Lego to be a little more sophisticated."

This is clearly a case of Modernity vs Modernism/modern vs modernist, the latter also colloquially known as "modern" in various languages."

Yes, it's important to define your terms. The history of ideas (including art) has a fairly specific connotation for all your iterations of 'modern.' It refers to periods well before the 80s. Usually, no more than 1850-1950.

I would call this 'postmodern' or 'Memphis.' It's not modern. "

This particular set draws inspiration from many movements, e. g. abstraction in general, Bauhaus, orphism, shaped canvas, De Stijl, neoavantgarde, etc., many of tham falling into the period of "modern" of your definition.

"

Eh, I wish. I don't see it. Perhaps a bit with the first image.

The rest of the images contain too much teal, pink, and white/black checkerboard. I think that leads to only one reasonable interpretation.

But, I've been wrong before.

Moreover, I could see myself getting this once it's half off. I think it's a hot mess. But, maybe it'll be my hot mess! It'll go perfectly with 71018-14.

@PurpleDave said:
" @ComfySofa:
Beholders, one of the more famous Dungeons & Dragons monsters. Giant floating ball with one giant eyeball, a mouth full of gnashy teeth, and ten tentacles that are tipped with smaller eyeballs. You know, the sort of thing that, if you stumble on one in a dark alley, you scream...and then say, "Whew! For a second, I thought you were a politician.""

Haha!

I toyed with writing "how many do they hold", but I thought it was too obvious :)

D&D was never my thing (it seemed more widespread in the US than the UK), so I did a quick search for Beholders after you mentioned them. They remind me of Cacodemons from Doom, or the floating head in Big Trouble in Little China, but Google says they were first written about in D&D in 1975, so they might be the original floating head eye beast.... imagine inventing something like that...

There are some truly ferocious looking Lego Beholder pictures on the net. From an outsider's perspective the two in this article are my favourites: https://www.brothers-brick.com/tag/beholder/

@ComfySofa said:
" @PurpleDave said:
" @ComfySofa:
Beholders, one of the more famous Dungeons & Dragons monsters. Giant floating ball with one giant eyeball, a mouth full of gnashy teeth, and ten tentacles that are tipped with smaller eyeballs. You know, the sort of thing that, if you stumble on one in a dark alley, you scream...and then say, "Whew! For a second, I thought you were a politician.""

Haha!

I toyed with writing "how many do they hold", but I thought it was too obvious :)

D&D was never my thing (it seemed more widespread in the US than the UK), so I did a quick search for Beholders after you mentioned them. They remind me of Cacodemons from Doom, or the floating head in Big Trouble in Little China, but Google says they were first written about in D&D in 1975, so they might be the original floating head eye beast.... imagine inventing something like that...

There are some truly ferocious looking Lego Beholder pictures on the net. From an outsider's perspective the two in this article are my favourites: https://www.brothers-brick.com/tag/beholder/"
If D&D is more popular in the US than the UK, it’s not by that much.
Anyway, here’s my mod/MOC of a beholder: https://brickshelf.com/gallery/AmperZand/Fantasy/beholder.jpg . It’s based on Gargantos from a Marvel set.

I actually like it. Some of the images I find more pleasing than others and the colours contrast starkly with what I would normally find appealing, but the more I look at it, the more I quite like it.

Enough to get it, probably not, but that's simply because there are so many sets I like and I try to keep within 3 themes. But I prefer this over the flower sets, as I much prefer living plants to plastic and this depicts the vibrancy they seek to emulate much better imho.

@ComfySofa
In the UK, we call them hives.

That was brilliant...

@FlyerBeast said:
"Wow, they really nailed the look of something I'd put together mindlessly with spare parts while distracted"

They followed the source material precisely.

@Zander said:
"Anyway, here’s my mod/MOC of a beholder: https://brickshelf.com/gallery/AmperZand/Fantasy/beholder.jpg . It’s based on Gargantos from a Marvel set."

Ooooh nasty! Your one really reminds me of something from Dungeon Master (old computer game, not dude from D&D) but I don't think that one had eyes. You've got loads of variation in the look of those tentacles, even though I suspect they're mostly the same parts for each one. Really nice posing. If you ever revisit it, I think it's begging to be emerging from the gloom of a stone slabbed corridor. Stuff of nightmares!

@Montyh7
I crack me up ;)

@ComfySofa:
I do like both of those designs, but they’re based on more modern artwork.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beholder_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)/media/File%3AGreyhawk_Supplement_1975.jpg

That’s the oldest artwork depicting one, which looks more confused than threatening, and is clearly spherical.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beholder_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)/media/File%3ABeholder_(D%26D).JPG

This is from two years later. It looks a bit goofier, at least unnerving if not truly monstrous, and continues the traditional spherical shape. Some of the more recent depictions (both fan art and official pieces) look like they’re based more on a human skull than a billiard ball. I went with a more traditional look, and made them minifig scale. Minifigs stand four bricks (12 plates) tall. If you base that on a 6’ height, that’s two plates per foot of actual height. Standard Beholders are supposed to be eight feet in diameter, so that’s 16 plates. I plugged that into Bram’s Sphere Generator, and got a…Lowell cube. So I fussed with the adjustments a bit, and eventually got a much more spherical result without having to increase the diameter (otherwise I would have been limited to making Minecraft Beholders).

https://brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=586291

That’s not moderated yet, so it’ll show as empty until it has been. However:

https://brickshelf.com/gallery/PurpleDave/Castle/Beholders/01_dark_purple_beholder.jpg

That was the first pattern I came up with. I liked it, but wanted one that was more purple, so:

https://brickshelf.com/gallery/PurpleDave/Castle/Beholders/02_purple_beholder.jpg

https://brickshelf.com/gallery/PurpleDave/Castle/Beholders/07_great_white_shark_beholder.jpg

I’d made a few “normal” designs, and decided to have some fun with it, so I made a shark version. I started out toying with making a ghostly version, and ended up making it photo-negative instead:

https://brickshelf.com/gallery/PurpleDave/Castle/Beholders/08_photo_negative_beholder.jpg

I’ve got most of the parts ordered to make at least six more (I need a pile of black jump studs to make the eyestalks on three of them, plus I’m not done tinkering with one that will look like it’s been living in the swamp so long that the swamp started living on it), and still keep coming up with ideas (mostly in the novelty category, like the shark). Like making a Mondrian pattern, as I mentioned in a previous comment.

@Zander:
I can’t find it anymore, but that reminds me of a really bizarre original piece that turned up in one of my searches. It was drab green and had a mouth that pointed straight down.

@PurpleDave Wow, you weren't kidding about designing lots of Beholders!

Those first two links were broken, but I looked up the Greyhawk and Monster Manual versions, and I totally see what you mean about sphere vs skull.

Your designs have a Mixels vibe (which I mean as a big compliment), and I love seeing them with the real world backgrounds. One of my favourite things about the Vidiyo ap was seeing giant minifigs in our back garden or in the street. You've definitely captured the earlier Beholder designs, really cool.

@ComfySofa:
Mmm, yeah, I guess Wikipedia links don't get along with Brickset's commenting software. Anyways, when I started out, I know about Beholders, but hadn't ever faced one in a game, hadn't played D&D since helping playtest 3rd Edition, and hadn't done any recent research into how they've been depicted. So, I know they were spherical, and had a bunch of tentacles. I knew a site that could generate a sphere design, and I had an idea for how to make the tentacles. It was when I was trying to find out what color they usually are that I started finding the skull variants like this one:

http://jakubkasper.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/beholder2_f.jpg

But here's the funny thing. For Beholders, the sky is literally the limit. They _don't_ all look the same. They can wake up looking different than they did when they went to sleep. This is even incorporated into the game, as an explanation for why they never work together in large groups like other monsters. So, whatever you can think up, that's how they can look.

I know it's art but I feel like a child could have done this.