MOCpages : Share your LEGO® creations
LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop Research & DesignYour LEGO collections
Welcome to the world's greatest LEGO fan community!
Explore cool creations, share your own, and have lots of fun together.  ~  It's all free!
Conversation »
Standards?
Alan left a comment on my "Skunk Base N" diorama asking me to add it to this group for people to learn from. This got me thinking.

I am not a genius builder -- by which I mean, I don't come up with a lot of clever new connections and crazy piece usages. I have a good working knowledge of SNOT ratios (the one MOC I've posted to this group is my "Ratios" tutorial), and I have a big enough collection to build largeish dioramas and utilize a lot of part repetition.

This is all Skunk Base N is -- a bit of the most basic of SNOT techniques; it's big, which usually impresses people; and certain parts and structures are repeated. It's really very simple, like almost all my builds.

While granting the fact that something can be learned from every single creation on this site (even, or sometimes especially, the bad ones), and that what is familiar to an old-timer like myself will not be for a newbie to the hobby, I personally do not feel that my MOC is at all innovative, or in any way worthy of special note as regards technique and presentation. I've taken the Research and Design label fairly seriously, so these are my minimum standards for posting a MOC to this group. Therefore, I will not be adding Skunk Base N. If I post it, I feel like I should then, logically, post almost every other MOC I've made here too. I'm not going to do that. I thought a bit of a discussion might be better.

So I want to ask everyone else: What are your standards for adding a MOC to this group? If you are the type that simply adds every MOC you make to every group you're in, you annoy me and I don't want to hear from you. What I'm interested in is a thought process that led to you adding a certain MOC but not another. Did you do something you never saw anyone else do before? Did you feel that, even if it used a commonly known technique, it was a particularly fine example of said technique? Did you just think it looked cool, even if it wasn't groundbreaking, and wanted to show it off? Did you post it not because you thought it could teach, but because you wanted constructive criticism, and wanted to learn?

Just thought a philosophical discussion might be interesting, and in a broader sense, am curious as to what everyone thinks and expects out of this group. It's a lofty goal, sharing knowledge and increasing building skill. Are we succeeding? Can we / should we be doing more?

Permalink
| May 7, 2010, 5:05 pm
 Group admin 
Well, I'll pony up on this since I put some sort of foot into some sort of bodily orifice, and then later put the question pertaining to the questionable musical tastes of listening to Santana.

Whether large or small, post-classic space or clone wars or Halo or old west or apacalego or valley girl, there are vignettes and dioramas galore, but it is rare to see ones that have a nice balance of layout and space. Yes, there are many awesome ones, large and small, where there are innovative use of parts, repition, layout, spacing, etc. Since this one of Mr. Young's did not involve scantily clad women or literal interpretations of metaphysical questions, it seemed benign enough to not upset anyone and get us off track. At the same time, I felt it was artfully done in terms of simplicity of design and also well spaced to create a believable "atmosphere" for what was being portrayed. I could also have pointed out a few favorite dioramas of a person named Goldman, but he would have been more likely to tell me to ask my mother about large interior spaces.

Anyway, as for posting here in this group, it is my hope that we are not only looking at parts usage, but also at MOCs that broaden our artistic minds. In other words, we not only look at the colors and types of paints used on the canvas, but the feelings, and the artistry, or the "out of the box" thinking, inherent in MOCs. That is how small MOCs get to be called brilliant and stand shoulder to shoulder with large MOCs - the person making them is thinking, imagining.

The sharper that grey matter gets, the more we can pull from these bricks. In truth, if I could, I would have literally thousands of MOCs on here - a useless flood to sort through. Which is why I hope we all endeavor to only put what we each believe to be our best example of some idea or brush stroke that has particularly touched us. Share your MOC experience so that others may add that little bit more to their own thoughts and imagination. Add those one or two MOCs that you feel showed insight, nice piece usage, creativity, innovation, artistry, color coordination, whatever.

Okay, I am done with the soap box, your turn...

p.s. I really would like to hear what everyone has to say on this very thing. After all, it is my dear hope that this group is helping people out, and if not, let's make it better, or give it the "ol' yeller" treatment.
Permalink
| May 7, 2010, 6:32 pm
Looks like this conversational gambit was a complete flop. I think I hear crickets chirping...
Permalink
| May 12, 2010, 9:28 pm
Quoting Shannon Young
Looks like this conversational gambit was a complete flop. I think I hear crickets chirping...

IMHO, I think the population is just stunned the great ShannY thinks his MOC is so so...
Permalink
| May 12, 2010, 9:42 pm
Just saw this thread -- What I'd like to see here isn't necessarily those "Hey, look at what technique I invented!" glory-grabbing sort of things, but rather those small discoveries or skewed bits of thinking that take a creation for point A to point B for whatever reason. I, too, am not a builder of complicated models, nor do I feel compelled to build a certain way (i.e. studless or snot or whatever) to appease the masses. I build to suit me, or to complement the story/comic that I'm doing. The only thing I may have come up with on my own is using a trash can as the engine exhaust, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the first to think of that; it was obvious to me that it would work the first time I ever held a Lego trash can.
The discussion of ideas and posts explaining concepts, such as the one Shannon referred to, are what this group is all about. As for me, I do enough teaching in real life -- as a hobbyist, I want to be the learner for a change. So educate me, will ya?
Permalink
| May 12, 2010, 10:16 pm
I joined this group in the hope to learn. Most of the moc's posted here look like "please comment on my models". I'm not a genus and don't come up with ground breaking ideas. I look at peoples moc's and work out how to use the techniques. Anyway I some ideas I want to share and for some advice back. I will post this as asap.
Permalink
| June 23, 2010, 9:38 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Shannon Young
Alan left a comment on my "Skunk Base N" diorama asking me to add it to this group for people to learn from. This got me thinking.

I am not a genius builder -- by which I mean, I don't come up with a lot of clever new connections and crazy piece usages. I have a good working knowledge of SNOT ratios (the one MOC I've posted to this group is my "Ratios" tutorial), and I have a big enough collection to build largeish dioramas and utilize a lot of part repetition.

This is all Skunk Base N is -- a bit of the most basic of SNOT techniques; it's big, which usually impresses people; and certain parts and structures are repeated. It's really very simple, like almost all my builds.

While granting the fact that something can be learned from every single creation on this site (even, or sometimes especially, the bad ones), and that what is familiar to an old-timer like myself will not be for a newbie to the hobby, I personally do not feel that my MOC is at all innovative, or in any way worthy of special note as regards technique and presentation. I've taken the Research and Design label fairly seriously, so these are my minimum standards for posting a MOC to this group. Therefore, I will not be adding Skunk Base N. If I post it, I feel like I should then, logically, post almost every other MOC I've made here too. I'm not going to do that. I thought a bit of a discussion might be better.

So I want to ask everyone else: What are your standards for adding a MOC to this group? If you are the type that simply adds every MOC you make to every group you're in, you annoy me and I don't want to hear from you. What I'm interested in is a thought process that led to you adding a certain MOC but not another. Did you do something you never saw anyone else do before? Did you feel that, even if it used a commonly known technique, it was a particularly fine example of said technique? Did you just think it looked cool, even if it wasn't groundbreaking, and wanted to show it off? Did you post it not because you thought it could teach, but because you wanted constructive criticism, and wanted to learn?

Just thought a philosophical discussion might be interesting, and in a broader sense, am curious as to what everyone thinks and expects out of this group. It's a lofty goal, sharing knowledge and increasing building skill. Are we succeeding? Can we / should we be doing more?

Yes, the group went a bit down the drain, since Alan had precious little MOCpages time lately.
Maybe some of us could carry on this idea in a more dedicated and strict group.
What do you think?
Permalink
| July 31, 2010, 6:07 pm
I think a moc in this group doesn't have to have some new special technique of part usage, though I like doing that myself,
every time I see someone doing that I feel like "hey, why haven't I thought of that"
part repetition is infact a building technique, depending on what parts and what structures you repeat you can get nice effects,

Besides moc about new building techniques and stuff other creations that are found remarkable are welcome too I think
so Shannon's Skunk Base diorama is not out of place here
Permalink
| July 31, 2010, 7:43 pm
I love to get inspired, I just love the feeling I get when I get an idea. And I love to show an moc and say, ~This diorama, was inspired but this car~. And people go, whaat? I get inspired like that a lot, like, I see a tree, I build a sci-fi vig. My creation, The Cavern of Time, is a prime example, looking at that moc you would never guess that it was inspired by leaves, but it was. I saw a tree with a branch of dry leaves on it, and just the way I saw it led to the Caver of Time. And thats what I love to see in mocs, insparation.
Permalink
| November 29, 2010, 2:42 am
...and now I'm stirring up dead leaves, coming in after a long lull.

I just joined this group, so I don't claim to be a know-it-all about its purpose. However, I can offer my opinion on what I'm expecting out of this group.

I want to see unsual and new things. I think Shannon was right in not adding his Skunk Base N diorama. While it's a great MOC, it's got more of a "classic" feel than a "fresh and new" feel. It's amazing, but because of good, quality use of old techniques, rather than new ones.

Unusual and new stuff means, for me, new techniques or innovative combinations of old ones. I added my own Toy Train MOC to this group because the technique for the wheels is, to my knowledge, completely new. I'll probably also be adding my Gun Show - Purist Edition MOC to the group at some later point, because it's a more unusual approach than Brickarms or simple one-element LEGO guns.

I won't be adding things like my harduits or my aquarium... while they are, in my opinion, packed to the gills with complex techniques and, in the case of the aquarium, also an unsual subject, I don't think that either of them really has revolutionary potential. They're unique, but they're unique in a way that doesn't promote further design by other builders.

I see the group as a place to learn new techniques, methods, styles... unusual, creative, and inspiring MOCs that make me go "Darn him for coming up with it before I did," or "How can I use that?" are the sorts of things I'd like to see, and hope I will be adding. I think of this as a group for innovating and sharing the innovation.

That's my two cents/pence/local small currency units on the matter. Your opinions may, of course, vary, and you have every right to think differently than I do. In my mind, though, Research and Design with LEGOs means new and unusual approaches to using our favorite acrylonitrile toys.
Permalink
| January 4, 2011, 2:46 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting W. Mark
I want to see unsual and new things. I think Shannon was right in not adding his Skunk Base N diorama. While it's a great MOC, it's got more of a "classic" feel than a "fresh and new" feel. It's amazing, but because of good, quality use of old techniques, rather than new ones.

Unusual and new stuff means, for me, new techniques or innovative combinations of old ones. I added my own Toy Train MOC to this group because the technique for the wheels is, to my knowledge, completely new. I'll probably also be adding my Gun Show - Purist Edition MOC to the group at some later point, because it's a more unusual approach than Brickarms or simple one-element LEGO guns.

I won't be adding things like my harduits or my aquarium... while they are, in my opinion, packed to the gills with complex techniques and, in the case of the aquarium, also an unsual subject, I don't think that either of them really has revolutionary potential. They're unique, but they're unique in a way that doesn't promote further design by other builders.

I see the group as a place to learn new techniques, methods, styles... unusual, creative, and inspiring MOCs that make me go "Darn him for coming up with it before I did," or "How can I use that?" are the sorts of things I'd like to see, and hope I will be adding. I think of this as a group for innovating and sharing the innovation.

That's my two cents/pence/local small currency units on the matter. Your opinions may, of course, vary, and you have every right to think differently than I do. In my mind, though, Research and Design with LEGOs means new and unusual approaches to using our favorite acrylonitrile toys.

Well, the group is what the members make it (with the group rules and guidelines pointing everyone along a certain path) and we (or I) look forward to what you got to share.
Permalink
| January 11, 2011, 12:31 pm
Quoting Shannon Young
Looks like this conversational gambit was a complete flop. I think I hear crickets chirping...
chirp chirp chirp

Permalink
| January 14, 2011, 5:14 pm
Other topics
« Standards?



LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop Research & DesignYour LEGO collections


You Your home page | LEGO creations | Favorite builders
Activity Activity | Comments | Creations
Explore Explore | Recent | Groups
MOCpages is an unofficial, fan-created website. LEGO® and the brick configuration are property of The LEGO Group, which does not sponsor, own, or endorse this site.
©2002-2014 Sean Kenney Design Inc | Privacy policy | Terms of use