There is the actual 3d model of the Willis Tower and the photographs of it. The photographs and illustrations of the Willis Tower model presented so far seem unproblematically to be representations of the model. But what about the photograph of the four groups of bricks below? My intention here might be to represent the 3d model, but if so, this seems much less intuitive. There is not the same strong resemblance between these bricks and the 3d model, as there is between the 3d model and a photograph of it. In the photograph of the complete model, although the form of the photograph is not the exactly the Lego model’s 3d form it is an altered 2d version of it. It is therefore an ‘altered form standing for an original form’ metonymy.
The photograph of the four groups of bricks is of course, also an altered 2d form standing for the 3d bricks in the photograph. But there is an additional step to be taken if we want to evoke the whole model, since the four groups of bricks are only a few parts of the larger whole. Yet for anyone very familiar with the building of the model, they will recognise that each of these groups aren’t just random elements. Each group stands for a different section of the main body of the model. The two bricks forming a square of nine nodules (a) are repeated in the first nine levels of the tower; the two bricks comprising seven nodules (b) are repeated in levels 10–12; the three bricks making a cross of five nodules (c) repeat in levels 13–15; and finally the single two nodule brick (d) is repeated in levels 16–18. These four groups of bricks therefore provide a great deal of information about the cross-sections and structure of the model that is much more difficult to discern from the photograph of the complete model. Each group in the photograph is a part of the model—each is one level of the 18 levels found in the main body of the tower that I made and photographed. But, at the same time, each of these levels is a member of a category; for example, the nine nodule square on the left (a) is a member of the category of ‘stage one levels of the Willis Tower model’. Yes, there are eight other members of this category that can be found in my model, but this category extends to other stage one elements found in all the Lego models of the Willis Tower too.
It does seem possible then that these four groups of bricks can stand for more than just the bricks depicted in the photograph. They could stand for the whole model of the building, or perhaps even the building itself. But for this to be a possibility it requires that the viewer has the knowledge required to make these meanings. Consequently, there is not just one meaning that can be made, but a range of meanings that use different metonymical mappings depending on the reasoning of the viewer. The image therefore has meaning potential rather than a fixed meaning and this depends on the viewer’s interests and abilities. The viewer may try to get to a meaning that they imagine the maker of the image had in mind, but they are not confined to this ‘reading’; the viewer may be more interested in what is relevant to them.
Consequently there are a number of metonymical relationships potentially at play:
• modified form for original form metonymy
• part for whole metonymy
• member for category metonymy
Are there other options of using Lego bricks to represent the Lego model? The image below uses the cross-sectional presentation of the levels identified above, but in addition arranges all of the bricks that make the main tower according to their spatial position relative to the tower. Consequently—due in large part to the distinctive nature of the two masts—there is now some level of resemblance between this presentation and the model of the tower. There is both mereological and taxonomic understanding that can be triggered by this image; we can see how parts fit in relation to the whole (mereological), but we can also see the types of bricks and the types of stages that make up the model (taxonomic).
From this image we can see the importance of gestalt and proximity—bricks that are touching form levels, and levels are separated from one another by additional space. This is so simple and basic it requires no conscious effort to process.
There are of course, other ways of thinking about the structure of the model of the tower. Looking down on the model we can see that it is formed out of a square made of nine other squares arranged on a 3×3 grid. Each unit on this grid corresponding to a single 1×1 Lego brick. It would be possible therefore to make an alternative version of the tower from nine columns of 1×1 Lego bricks. An option not taken up in the Lego kit presumably because of the lack of stability provided by this construction method.
Then there is the possibility of using a subtractive rather than additive approach; where we remove material from an existing form to arrive at our final representation of the tower. Imagine a simple rectangular column that is the height of the model tower. The main body of the tower can be formed by removing material from this rectangular column, in the same way as a sculptor removing material from a block of marble to arrive at a statue.
Perhaps though we might want to exclude all the mereological aspects relating to the model but focus exclusively on the taxonomic. The image below shows all the bricks involved in the construction of the main tower but organised according to type. Such images are often used early on in construction instructions to show all the parts that make up a construction kit.
It would require a great deal of analysis and effort to establish that this taxonomic arrangement of bricks is a representation of the Willis Tower model without any additional cues, such as a title or caption. But at least from this arrangement there is the suggestion of an order or system in place. The final presentation below provides a more chaotic and spontaneous rendition, which is even more challenging as an unstructured representation of the Willis Tower. But once again with the title or caption ‘Willis Tower’ we might infer that this is the model before it was constructed, or alternatively, after it was disassembled. And there are innumerable ways in which this image might be used to provoke meaning making. Imagine it as an image that accompanies an article entitled ‘The Death of Modernism’, or alternatively ‘Teaching Architecture’.
The point of all of this is to show how the same bricks can be used in conventional and unconventional ways to represent the same thing, or perhaps more accurately different aspects of the same thing.
A brick can stand for:
• an individual brick—the brick on the South corner of level four of the model
• all the bricks of the same type used in an individual level
• all the bricks of the same type used in my unique individual model
• all the bricks of the same type used in all the Lego models of the Willis Tower
• all Lego bricks of the same type
• a general unit of building construction
• metaphorically as unit of meaning
• …As makers of meaning the viewer, often unconsciously, chooses between these different possibilities, and might switch from one understanding to another as a stream of reasoning unfolds. Here, the existing knowledge the viewer has, and the place where, and time in which, the representation appears motivates the meanings that the viewer makes.