Lego refused selling some of its bricks to ai weiwei saying the rather not get linked with politics? (Or perhaps the meant politics critical of china?
So some people who already have some of the lego bricks, decided to donate their bricks to ai.
When people decide to boycott lego’s products, do they not make the company’s decision an instant political one? Even if the company didn’t intend, by attempting to avoid a potential confrontation with the chinese dictatorship, they made a political move. No?
Another question is which materials ai will use in his objects. Will he use donated lego pieces? How will the materials’ story, narratives might affect the object/s?
In a sense, perhaps there is a possible interesting twist here, in my view. The donated brick seem a bit like elements made by individual entities within larger art-linked objects such as:
Sure, the lego stamped bricks are physical plastics, however once donated, the overall object/s that might place them together in a certain, time, shape and context – could be said to not Be unless the donations occurred. In that sense, perhaps its a bit like that too:
Perhaps the other question is also one of ownership? Ai Weiwei is a a part and parcel of the commerce oriented artworld. Perhaps this might rather fancy placing a price on the lego bricked objects? If there is a price, how much should each donor should receive?
If ai bought the pieces, then each such brick would have been “his”. These elements, having been donated, have become the things as had they were bought? Say the art-linked objects would sell for a few millions, will it be fair towards the donors? Say the art-linked objects didn’t sell, however increased the price of Other ai art-linked stuff – should donors not be enumerated? Or given some quantitative recognition?
What happens in the transitions between quantitative and qualitative sensations? Perhaps something is missing here? If am thinking or 2 that seem oppositeIsh one another, am probably likely to have missed something. No?