Answers.Body: <blockquote>
    <p>Is there something particular about LEGO as a building toy which inspires this way of thinking?</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>Of course. LEGO is reusable. It's high-quality, durable, and you expect it to last many years. You might keep a construction together for some time, but always with the potential of being disassembled and turned into something else. Modifications like painting, cutting, or gluing are no longer reversible. You only make these changes when you're sure you don't need those pieces in their original state. </p>
  
  <p>Have I irreversibly modified LEGO? Yes: I've made small stickers, painted minifigs, or used a few bricks in a permanent decorative piece. Nor do I really feel I have to use <em>only</em> LEGO. I would add a paper umbrella, a cardboard backdrop, a styrofoam support—anything I was sure wouldn't harm my bricks. On the other hand, I don't think I could bear to glue or paint a whole structure. (That's what other building toys and strategies are for, like modelmaking, dollhouse furniture, or model railroad set construction.)</p>
  
  <p>To me, construction of something too permanent would subvert one of the reasons I love LEGO. There's always a bit of hidden potential: I might need those pieces for the next thing I'm dreaming about building...</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2011-10-31T21:19:47.703Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2012-12-18T08:59:47.903Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2012-12-18T08:59:47.903Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: aedia λ
Answers.Body: <p>This IS a subjective question and answer, but here is my take speaking as someone who got a start with LEGO toys in the 80's it came down to this:</p>
  
  <ol>
  <li><p>The minifigs for non-LEGO brands were terrible and incompatible! Nothing beats the lovable, quirky shape to the official minifigs. You often had to construct differently for the different dimensions of the non-LEGO figures, or toss them out.</p></li>
  <li><p>Non-LEGO brands at the time would snap together with official LEGO pieces, but the fit was different: either too much or not enough friction.</p></li>
  <li><p>At the time: LEGO had the dominant brand, therefore, most of your pieces were likely to be LEGO brand, so the fewer pieces of the non-LEGO brand would be annoying for reasons 1 &amp; 2.</p></li>
  <li><p>LEGO was the original brand. There is nostalgia in it like real Coke vs store brand cola.</p></li>
  </ol>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2011-11-02T23:33:42.557Z
Answers.Text: Certainly a +1 for point 1 :)
Answers.UserDisplayName: Zhaph - Ben Duguid
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2011-11-03T14:55:59.503Z
Answers.Text: There are also purists who won't modify their minifigs at all
Answers.UserDisplayName: Joubarc
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2011-11-04T18:42:22.630Z
Answers.Text: @Joubarc: I have found that people who view my collection, enjoy my minifig modifications more than the models I have built.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Dan Sorensen
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2011-11-02T16:07:26.787Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2012-12-18T08:58:01.057Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2012-12-18T08:58:01.057Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Dan Sorensen
Answers.Body: <p>I'm not too sure how to answer that. I don't want to modify any brick whatsoever myself, save for the occasional eletrical wire cut, but on the other hand I don't really care what other people do.</p>
  
  <p>Considering LEGO designers aren't purist themselves (Need this part in green? Ok, I'll paint a yellow one.), why bother? Why not cut your own baseplates to the dimensions you want, when you know LEGO produces them exactly the same way, by cutting large sheets?</p>
  
  <p>Then again you have different levels of purism. Part modifications. Non-LEGO usage. Non-LEGO stickers usage. Brick printing. Brick engraving. *cough*Glue*cough*. MegaBloks. And frankly, to each his or her own.</p>
  
  <p>What I <em>can</em> say however is why I'm mostly a purist myself, if that's of any help. I don't want to modify bricks, or use anything non-LEGO, simply because <strong>I feel it would be cheating</strong>. <strong>I see building as a challenge</strong>, and each challenge has its own rules and limitations. If the part I would need to build something does not exist, then I have the additionnal challenge of finding another way to build so that I don't need it. And that's the thrill I get from LEGO building: finding the right <em>existing</em> part to suit my needs.</p>
  
  <p>But then again, I'm not purist enough to care about what others do. Sure, I'll point a finger at them, but it's all in good fun.</p>
  
  <p>Of course, glue will get you more than finger-pointing. Heretic!</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2011-10-29T01:47:56.450Z
Answers.Text: Joubarc, I'm watching you, glue is **illegal** on Lego!
Answers.UserDisplayName: jfyelle
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2011-10-29T01:50:22.657Z
Answers.Text: I'd like to point out modifying minifigures using self-made props is ok to most. There are even shops that specialize in custom minifigures.
Answers.UserDisplayName: jfyelle
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2011-10-29T17:54:55.907Z
Answers.Text: @jfyelle I thought I heavily impied I was against glue, actually. But that's also something LEGOland park designers themselves use (and not any glue, they use methyl-ethyl-cetone (orthograph not guaranteed) which literally fuses bricks together). So, to each his own.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Joubarc
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2011-10-29T17:56:47.340Z
Answers.Text: I was joking - maybe I should put smileys :)
Answers.UserDisplayName: jfyelle
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2011-10-29T18:19:46.230Z
Answers.Text: So I've been a LEGO purist **all my life** without realizing it (no third party modifications at all whatsoever).
Answers.UserDisplayName: LegoSonicBoy
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2011-10-30T09:21:38.813Z
Answers.Text: There's no badge for that, unfortunately.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Joubarc
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2011-10-28T19:38:58.320Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2011-10-28T19:38:58.320Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Joubarc
Answers.Body: <blockquote>
    <p><strong>What is the reasoning to why one might build using solely LEGO?</strong> Is it just an affectation, or is there some deeper meaning? Is there something particular about LEGO as a building toy to which inspires this way of thinking? I am interesting in understanding both sides of the argument.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>I agree that this question is highly subjective, but it reminds me of several discussions that I've heard or participated in. </p>
  
  <p>Many of the purists that I've spoken with have mentioned that they've enjoyed the challenge of building something with a limited palette. The restriction to only use LEGO parts challenged their creativity and forced them to work around issues without using non-LEGO parts that would make the project "easier." As other posters have noted, they felt that using non-LEGO parts was "cheating" - a highly personal opinion. </p>
  
  <p>One other factor that some purists have mentioned is that this restriction to use only LEGO parts also permits <strong>any other</strong> LEGO builder to replicate their project, if so desired. Some of these builders were scientists, and they liked the idea of being able to reproduce a project.</p>
  
  <p>I've also observed a sliding scale of purism - ranging from the use of only LEGO parts but permitting the use of glue/stickers to the use of only official LEGO parts/stickers.</p>
  
  <p>On the other hand, my non-purist friends just want to make cool projects and don't care what parts or techniques they might use to accomplish their goals.</p>
  
  <p>Again, there's no right or wrong answer, but I found that the purists enjoyed the challenge and wanted to allow others to replicate their work, while non-purists just liked the joy of building.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2011-11-02T16:44:37.080Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2012-12-18T08:58:56.813Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2012-12-18T08:58:56.813Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: JW8
Answers.Body: <p>IMHO: It's a matter of quality, physics &amp; imagination. To me, non LEGO elements visualy "clank" when viewed amongst a LEGO scene. I can't stand Megablocks. The pieces are  inconsistant &amp; quality control is poor when measured by the LEGO standards. As for what lurks beneath the surface of a LEGO model, well, I suppose it all depends on what you are making. Some models require creative solutions. Hidden frames &amp; underlying supports certainly reduce the number of unseen pieces required in a display &amp; give you the ability to flex your LEGO imagination by freeing those elements up so you can add them to your build.</p>
  
  <p>Now my answer to the question: LEGO elements seem to flow and blend nicely. Their quality is excelent, and the overall playing experience is satisfying. Mixing in other elements into a LEGO build somehow seems to reduce the visual impact of the model. So, I say it's the outside that counts. Master Builders may use shims, but friends don't let friends use Megablocks. </p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2011-11-02T22:38:59.737Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2011-11-02T23:34:22.523Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2011-11-02T23:34:22.523Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Major Stackings
Answers.Body: <blockquote>
    <p>Is there something particular about LEGO as a building toy to which
    inspires this way of thinking?</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>No - it's just the way humans are. At a very basic psychological level we make distinctions based on the most arbitrary criteria. In many activities, a 'purist' group will emerge, as will an 'extreme' one etc.</p>
  
  <p>I think I have been mostly a purist, but that is just because there are so many things you can do with basic sets that I haven't needed to modify.</p>
  
  <p>I am a definite purist though when it comes to the merchandise LEGO kits (like the star wars ones, or any with a piece that can have only one use - a cockpit canopy, or a strange wing element, for example) - I reckon keeping it old school is much better :-)</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2011-10-31T22:55:33.767Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2012-12-18T09:00:10.150Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2012-12-18T09:00:10.150Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Rory Alsop
Body: <p><a href="http://www.alfonsomartone.itb.it/wkaxug.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">LEGO purism</a> is the idea that LEGO constructions should be made with only with official LEGO blocks with no modifications. Other bits of plastic, papercraft, metal supports, and so on are frowned upon.</p>
  
  <p><strong>What is the reasoning to why one might build using solely LEGO elements?</strong> Is there something <em>particular</em> about LEGO as a building toy to which inspires this way of thinking?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2011-10-28T19:15:52.953Z
Comments.Text: -1 This is subjective. If you want to be pure, be pure. If not, don't. If you're entering a contest then use whatever the rules are. It's as simple as that.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Pubby
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2011-10-28T19:19:26.163Z
Comments.Text: I'm not asking about whether one _should_ be purist or not. I'm asking about the import of this philosophy. You apparently would answer "it's not important at all", and I encourage you to express that as an actual answer, although I'd appreciate it if you could provide more depth into your reasoning. Thanks.
Comments.UserDisplayName: mattdm
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2011-10-28T19:28:43.327Z
Comments.Text: I've edited it to try to have it focus on one question. I think some of what you want to know should be split into separate questions, although the one about other toys isn't really on topic.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Pubby
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2011-10-28T19:32:24.790Z
Comments.Text: I don't mean to ask about other toys; I'm wondering if there's something special about Lego (either as a company or as a product) that encourages or prompts this philosophy, or whether it's just kind of an obsessive-fan thing that happens to appeal to Lego builders.
Comments.UserDisplayName: mattdm
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2011-10-29T19:53:24.100Z
Comments.Text: By the way, being a zealot doesn't usually involve reason.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Joubarc
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2011-10-31T16:09:25.407Z
Comments.Text: @Joubarc: absolutely. I didn't have "reason" in the original phrasing of the question. While reason may not be involved on the part of the zealot, there are often certain features of an idea or cause which tend to attract a passionate response. Another related question might be "What is it about Lego that attracts fanatics?" (especially in this particular way).
Comments.UserDisplayName: mattdm
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2011-11-03T22:34:19.780Z
Comments.Text: I guess I'll open a discussion on Meta later when I have a chance. This is actually an important part of Lego fan culture and there _is_ solid answerable theory behind the a great answer (which we don't have yet).
Comments.UserDisplayName: mattdm
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2011-11-03T23:21:52.047Z
Comments.Text: http://meta.bricks.stackexchange.com/questions/91/are-questions-on-the-sociology-of-lego-fan-culture-on-topic
Comments.UserDisplayName: mattdm
Tags: <history><sociology>
Title: What is the basis of purism in LEGO building?
UserDisplayName: mattdm
ThreadText: # What is the basis of purism in LEGO building?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2011-10-28)
  
  [LEGO purism](http://www.alfonsomartone.itb.it/wkaxug.html) is the idea that LEGO constructions should be made with only with official LEGO blocks with no modifications. Other bits of plastic, papercraft, metal supports, and so on are frowned upon.
  
  **What is the reasoning to why one might build using solely LEGO elements?** Is there something *particular* about LEGO as a building toy to which inspires this way of thinking?
  
  **Tags:** history, sociology
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: -1 This is subjective. If you want to be pure, be pure. If not, don't. If you're entering a contest then use whatever the rules are. It's as simple as that.  
  > **username_0**: I'm not asking about whether one _should_ be purist or not. I'm asking about the import of this philosophy. You apparently would answer "it's not important at all", and I encourage you to express that as an actual answer, although I'd appreciate it if you could provide more depth into your reasoning. Thanks.  
  > **username_1**: I've edited it to try to have it focus on one question. I think some of what you want to know should be split into separate questions, although the one about other toys isn't really on topic.  
  > **username_0**: I don't mean to ask about other toys; I'm wondering if there's something special about Lego (either as a company or as a product) that encourages or prompts this philosophy, or whether it's just kind of an obsessive-fan thing that happens to appeal to Lego builders.  
  > **username_2**: By the way, being a zealot doesn't usually involve reason.  
  > **username_0**: @Joubarc: absolutely. I didn't have "reason" in the original phrasing of the question. While reason may not be involved on the part of the zealot, there are often certain features of an idea or cause which tend to attract a passionate response. Another related question might be "What is it about Lego that attracts fanatics?" (especially in this particular way).  
  > **username_0**: I guess I'll open a discussion on Meta later when I have a chance. This is actually an important part of Lego fan culture and there _is_ solid answerable theory behind the a great answer (which we don't have yet).  
  > **username_0**: http://meta.bricks.stackexchange.com/questions/91/are-questions-on-the-sociology-of-lego-fan-culture-on-topic  
  
  ---
  
  ## 6 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2011-10-28. Score: 20
  
  I'm not too sure how to answer that. I don't want to modify any brick whatsoever myself, save for the occasional eletrical wire cut, but on the other hand I don't really care what other people do.
  
  Considering LEGO designers aren't purist themselves (Need this part in green? Ok, I'll paint a yellow one.), why bother? Why not cut your own baseplates to the dimensions you want, when you know LEGO produces them exactly the same way, by cutting large sheets?
  
  Then again you have different levels of purism. Part modifications. Non-LEGO usage. Non-LEGO stickers usage. Brick printing. Brick engraving. \*cough\*Glue\*cough\*. MegaBloks. And frankly, to each his or her own.
  
  What I *can* say however is why I'm mostly a purist myself, if that's of any help. I don't want to modify bricks, or use anything non-LEGO, simply because **I feel it would be cheating**. **I see building as a challenge**, and each challenge has its own rules and limitations. If the part I would need to build something does not exist, then I have the additionnal challenge of finding another way to build so that I don't need it. And that's the thrill I get from LEGO building: finding the right *existing* part to suit my needs.
  
  But then again, I'm not purist enough to care about what others do. Sure, I'll point a finger at them, but it's all in good fun.
  
  Of course, glue will get you more than finger-pointing. Heretic!
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_6**: Joubarc, I'm watching you, glue is **illegal** on Lego!  
  > **username_6**: I'd like to point out modifying minifigures using self-made props is ok to most. There are even shops that specialize in custom minifigures.  
  > **username_2**: @jfyelle I thought I heavily impied I was against glue, actually. But that's also something LEGOland park designers themselves use (and not any glue, they use methyl-ethyl-cetone (orthograph not guaranteed) which literally fuses bricks together). So, to each his own.  
  > **username_6**: I was joking - maybe I should put smileys :)  
  > **username_7**: So I've been a LEGO purist **all my life** without realizing it (no third party modifications at all whatsoever).  
  > **username_2**: There's no badge for that, unfortunately.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2011-10-31. Score: 13
  
  > Is there something particular about LEGO as a building toy which inspires this way of thinking?
  
  Of course. LEGO is reusable. It's high-quality, durable, and you expect it to last many years. You might keep a construction together for some time, but always with the potential of being disassembled and turned into something else. Modifications like painting, cutting, or gluing are no longer reversible. You only make these changes when you're sure you don't need those pieces in their original state.
  
  Have I irreversibly modified LEGO? Yes: I've made small stickers, painted minifigs, or used a few bricks in a permanent decorative piece. Nor do I really feel I have to use *only* LEGO. I would add a paper umbrella, a cardboard backdrop, a styrofoam support—anything I was sure wouldn't harm my bricks. On the other hand, I don't think I could bear to glue or paint a whole structure. (That's what other building toys and strategies are for, like modelmaking, dollhouse furniture, or model railroad set construction.)
  
  To me, construction of something too permanent would subvert one of the reasons I love LEGO. There's always a bit of hidden potential: I might need those pieces for the next thing I'm dreaming about building...
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2011-11-02. Score: 10
  
  This IS a subjective question and answer, but here is my take speaking as someone who got a start with LEGO toys in the 80's it came down to this:
  
  1. The minifigs for non-LEGO brands were terrible and incompatible! Nothing beats the lovable, quirky shape to the official minifigs. You often had to construct differently for the different dimensions of the non-LEGO figures, or toss them out.
  2. Non-LEGO brands at the time would snap together with official LEGO pieces, but the fit was different: either too much or not enough friction.
  3. At the time: LEGO had the dominant brand, therefore, most of your pieces were likely to be LEGO brand, so the fewer pieces of the non-LEGO brand would be annoying for reasons 1 & 2.
  4. LEGO was the original brand. There is nostalgia in it like real Coke vs store brand cola.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_5**: Certainly a +1 for point 1 :)  
  > **username_2**: There are also purists who won't modify their minifigs at all  
  > **username_4**: @Joubarc: I have found that people who view my collection, enjoy my minifig modifications more than the models I have built.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_8 on 2011-11-02. Score: 6
  
  > **What is the reasoning to why one might build using solely LEGO?** Is it just an affectation, or is there some deeper meaning? Is there something particular about LEGO as a building toy to which inspires this way of thinking? I am interesting in understanding both sides of the argument.
  
  I agree that this question is highly subjective, but it reminds me of several discussions that I've heard or participated in.
  
  Many of the purists that I've spoken with have mentioned that they've enjoyed the challenge of building something with a limited palette. The restriction to only use LEGO parts challenged their creativity and forced them to work around issues without using non-LEGO parts that would make the project "easier." As other posters have noted, they felt that using non-LEGO parts was "cheating" - a highly personal opinion.
  
  One other factor that some purists have mentioned is that this restriction to use only LEGO parts also permits **any other** LEGO builder to replicate their project, if so desired. Some of these builders were scientists, and they liked the idea of being able to reproduce a project.
  
  I've also observed a sliding scale of purism - ranging from the use of only LEGO parts but permitting the use of glue/stickers to the use of only official LEGO parts/stickers.
  
  On the other hand, my non-purist friends just want to make cool projects and don't care what parts or techniques they might use to accomplish their goals.
  
  Again, there's no right or wrong answer, but I found that the purists enjoyed the challenge and wanted to allow others to replicate their work, while non-purists just liked the joy of building.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_9 on 2011-11-02. Score: 3
  
  IMHO: It's a matter of quality, physics & imagination. To me, non LEGO elements visualy "clank" when viewed amongst a LEGO scene. I can't stand Megablocks. The pieces are inconsistant & quality control is poor when measured by the LEGO standards. As for what lurks beneath the surface of a LEGO model, well, I suppose it all depends on what you are making. Some models require creative solutions. Hidden frames & underlying supports certainly reduce the number of unseen pieces required in a display & give you the ability to flex your LEGO imagination by freeing those elements up so you can add them to your build.
  
  Now my answer to the question: LEGO elements seem to flow and blend nicely. Their quality is excelent, and the overall playing experience is satisfying. Mixing in other elements into a LEGO build somehow seems to reduce the visual impact of the model. So, I say it's the outside that counts. Master Builders may use shims, but friends don't let friends use Megablocks.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_10 on 2011-10-31. Score: 3
  
  > Is there something particular about LEGO as a building toy to which
  > inspires this way of thinking?
  
  No - it's just the way humans are. At a very basic psychological level we make distinctions based on the most arbitrary criteria. In many activities, a 'purist' group will emerge, as will an 'extreme' one etc.
  
  I think I have been mostly a purist, but that is just because there are so many things you can do with basic sets that I haven't needed to modify.
  
  I am a definite purist though when it comes to the merchandise LEGO kits (like the star wars ones, or any with a piece that can have only one use - a cockpit canopy, or a strange wing element, for example) - I reckon keeping it old school is much better :-)
  
  
  ---
  
  