The Art of Play with Ai Weiwei: An Interview

At Vito Schnabel Gallery, I talked with legendary conceptual artist, social activist and genuine provocateur Ai Weiwei about, among many other things, his new exhibition, “Child’s Play,” which runs through February 22. It showcases pixel-like Lego wall works of reimagined classic paintings and headline news that question the construction of our very reality. Our wide-ranging discussion has been edited for clarity and length.

Stephen Wozniak for Observer: Child’s Play is an extraordinary show featuring big art and even bigger themes. You’ve worked with Legos for over ten years. These toy blocks seem like a truly fun, colorful and infinitely possible medium. What do they represent to you, and how do you think audiences perceive them?

Ai Weiwei: First, I always like to have a new possibility… to use a new language. Because, you know, the act and goal of painting has mostly been the same for years: to make the image look real, right? At least in the beginning of art.

But that’s not your goal. 

That’s not my goal, but the problem is in the question, “What is real? Is art real, or is there a new reality?” So, I realized a Lego can do the job of presenting this question. It’s industrially made, and it’s structured. Also, they’re created by a computer—made from a digital design. So, the corresponding image pixels can be precisely located or identified to make my art out of Lego bricks. That language not only relates to the earlier Roman or Greek mosaics but also relates to new technology like the Internet and the pixel…

…and digitalization.

Right. So, it creates a very interesting image. I like it because it’s much more detached.

And Legos have about 40 colors. This limits the color choices, so you have this great, rich imagery making.

Do you think the limited Lego color palette helps exaggerate or diminish some of the imagery in the original classic paintings you’re quoting from in your new works? Is your work partially about that? 

Yeah, it’s questioning—among other things—how we interpret colors. Indeed, it is limited, so I really have to make adjustments when we try to fix some of the images. Our brain has to work with our eye, so that brings an activity—like a physical activity, an effort—to adjust. That is a very interesting act, and that’s something I don’t find often in painting.

Your works over the years have dealt with ideas about perception, truth-telling and signifiers, which often have been created sculpturally, enabling audiences to engage with them in real, dimensional space. These new Lego works, as color-limited and rectilinear as they are, still seem somewhat sculptural and dynamic. They are not quite two-dimensional and not quite three-dimensional. They feature that patterned, knobby Lego texture, and they also float off the wall, casting shadows, which I think is interesting. Like your other work, the new work almost provides this tangible existential moment for the audience. Is that intentional?

Painting can be very flat. You see what you see, right? And with Legos, it is not what you see. Your eyes are always shifting and changing. So that makes the game more interesting—of looking, you know, at least a way of looking.

You obviously want the viewer to participate in the act of seeing, and they can do this by trying to understand how the work is made. Everybody has some toy-building and digital gaming experience, so that attempt to understand becomes interesting when looking at the work. But it’s not just about construction; it’s about deconstruction at the same time—and that is quite interesting.