“We should discuss LEGO,” said the Slack message, “because your piece is both right and wrong.” The sender was my friend Yoni Knoll, who knows LEGO better than I do. The piece he was referring to was my earlier post about LEGO as an illustration of a well-known modular framework.
In that post, I said the LEGO system is based on rectangular prisms of regular dimensions and that the more a particular piece diverges from this form, the less useful it is. Yoni took exception with this statement, leading to an interesting discussion. A couple of important points came up that I want to highlight here.
The first is that saying a piece is “less useful” than others is inaccurate. Useful for what? There are many LEGO pieces that are much less popular than the 2x4 brick I highlighted in the post, but which are incredibly useful for building things with the system. For example, Yoni mentioned the pincher:
I’ve built elaborate sets with this piece and can testify to its usefulness. The pincher enables structures that would otherwise be difficult or impossible using only studs.
To clarify: when I said the 2x4 brick is the most useful, I was referring to usefulness on two levels: 1) as a physical component within the system, and 2) as representative of the system. I stand by my assessment of the simple brick as the most useful for 2), but clearly 1) is debatable. Pieces like the pincher are very useful from a practical perspective, if for no other reason that they open new possibilities for the system.
This leads to the second point I wanted to highlight: LEGO is not just a great illustration of a modular framework; it’s also a great illustration of a modular framework that is evolving. My characterization of LEGO in the earlier post was mostly informed by my first-hand experiences playing with it—many decades ago. LEGO has changed a lot since then. As Yoni put it, “the more important evolution is from stud-center to connector-centric. In that way, it has become a more powerful and expressive framework.” Again, the pincher is a good example of this: while it’s not stud-centric (it doesn’t even have a stud), it’s an exemplary citizen of today’s LEGO system — if you understand the system to be connector-centric (a broader framing) rather than stud-centric.
In retrospect, I shouldn’t have used the word useful in my original post. Perhaps a better term would’ve been essential, as in “the 2x4 brick represents the essence of the LEGO system.” This shifts the focus from function to significance, which was the main point I wanted to get across.
I’m grateful to Yoni for pointing out my error and helping me understand the evolution of the LEGO system. Clearly, there’s much to play with here.
Get updates via email
Sent every other week. I'll never share your address. Unsubscribe any time.