Review: 31221 Gustav Klimt - The Kiss
Posted by MeganL,
LEGO seems to be going through famous artists for reproductions of their work.....da Vinci, Monet, van Gogh. Gustav Klimt is next for this treatment, and LEGO has chosen what is arguably his most important work: The Kiss.
I've had the privilege of seeing The Kiss in person at the Belvedere Palace in Vienna. It is captivating in person, and pretty massive! I was interested to see how it would translate in LEGO form.
The answer is a sizeable LEGO Art set, coming in at an even 4,000 pieces, and a formidable box. The result is a stunning display piece, though not without frustrations along the way.
Summary
31221 Gustav Klimt - The Kiss, 4,000 pieces.
£269.99 / $299.99 / €299.99 | 6.7p, 7.5c, 7.5c per piece.
Buy at LEGO.com »
A love/hate build experience yields an absolutely stunning display of Klimt's masterpiece
- Fantastic build experience
- Wonderful use of metallic pieces
- Excellent 3D execution
- Stellar instructional design
- Some face detail is missing
- Parts of the build experience are quite tedious, but necessarily so
The set was provided for review by LEGO. All opinions expressed are those of the author.
History
The Kiss was painted in 1907-1908, at the height of Klimt's Golden Period. The painting was purchased at its first exhibition when it was still unfinished; Klimt reworked it over the course of the following year. Klimt's work often dealt with interactions between men and women. The Kiss shows a man and woman embracing each other; he is leaning in for a kiss. They are both dressed in yellow robes with a yellow aura framing them against a more umber-like background.
Pictures and images such as the one below do not quite do the painting justice. With Klimt's extensive use of gold and platinum leaf in the painting, when you see it in person it looks more much gold than in the images. It's also a painting that looks almost three-dimensional, so I'm not at all surprised it was selected for a LEGO model.
Inside the perfect box there are 33 numbered bags, with 1-14 in a white box for strength. There are also five unnumbered bags with numerous plates needed for the canvas, some whip pieces in yellow, and yellow rods to be used for the vines at the base of the painting. There are no stickers in the set; all parts are printed.
I really like the perfect box setup; it was ideal for arranging all the bags before getting started on the build.
The voluminous instruction book provides some detail about Gustav Klimt and the Belvedere. Like most other Art sets, there is a podcast available by QR code. Fortunately, an early copy of the approximately 90 minute podcast was also made available for this review.
The podcast consists of an interview with the curator of the Belvedere, as well as the LEGO model designer, Milan Madge. Milan is no stranger to the Art theme, having previously designed 31213 Mona Lisa.
The interview takes place in the Belvedere where The Kiss is displayed along with the LEGO model. While the model is large, taking on a painting the size of The Kiss was a significant undertaking. I included a screenshot from the podcast to give a sense of the size of the original painting, as well as the LEGO model.
The building process
The build starts predictably, by outlining the frame and the top layer of the painting.
You know the final model will be heavy when there are two hangers included on the back of the painting for hanging afterwards!
I had been a bit worried about the background of the painting in that it didn't look that challenging. There's not much to that part of the build, and it's quite like the "paint by numbers" LEGO building that we saw in one of the first LEGO Art sets, 31204 Elvis Presley 'The King'. The umber tones are built using dark tan tiles, gold plates, and metallic gold 1x1s.
While it's true that portion of the build is not challenging, that is more than made up by the interesting and fascinating build techniques that are used in building the embracing pair.
Roughly halfway through, the lovers are taking shape, but there's clearly much more detail to be added.
The couple's clothing is raised from the canvas, while the additional details (flowers and other decorative features) add extra dimension.
The woman's face comes into view, and my one disappointment in the set is that her eyes and lips are not featured – only her eyebrows show, and her nose is brick built. The technique used to build the woman's face is quite clever. However, considering the limitations of the bricks and the way the face is oriented, I'm not at all sure how you could add the lips. A sticker wouldn't be an option as it would have to be over multiple parts, and printing would present other issues. The eyes could only be added with stickers or printed pieces.
This painting was completed during the time when Klimt was experimenting with precious metals in his work. As a result, there is no shortage of 1x1 round metallic gold pieces and many metallic silver elements. They don't quite show in the above pictures, but I tried to show them to a better advantage in some later pictures. There are so many gold elements in the set that it provided a challenge for LEGO production, as Milan mentions in the podcast. The silver pieces are meant to represent platinum - silver oxidizes, so would turn black over time.
There were also a few new (to me) parts in this set. These were just two that I thought to take quick pictures of during the build. The first in particular was interesting to me as there is no LEGO stamp on the stud.
.jpg)
The completed model
This is a gorgeous model when completed. I tried to angle the lights on my photo studio so you can see the gold parts that glisten in the background.
The man's head provides some of the most relief. His head, neck and arm are the last portions of the build to be added. I love the 3D work that has been done here, and as I mentioned before, the way the woman's face is built is particularly clever.
You can also see how it would be challenging incorporating the woman's eyes and lips. While I appreciate the difficulty, I do miss seeing those facial features. To me, the woman's expression is key to the emotions conveyed in the original painting.
The close-up of the robes shows some of the details between the robes. The man's robes have square, more geometric shapes, while the woman's dress has decorations that are more organic and floral in nature. You can also see the yellow whip pieces used as part of the man's robe.
The larger dish pieces with painted whirls have all been painted with a gold metallic paint. It was difficult to get those to glow as much as the 1x1 silver/gold elements.
There are clever building techniques almost too numerous to mention in this model. While the background portions are very much "paint by numbers", that build experience is more than offset by the novel and interesting build techniques used for building the lovers.
Every section of the couple is a side build, but the instructions take you in directions that you don't expect. It's worth taking apart this set (though that will be a challenge) just to go through this portion of the build again.
A slightly different angle with the lights in an effort to show more gold pieces. I was unfortunately unsuccessful in capturing a good picture that shows Klimt's signature, found in the lower right.
Another close up of the robes, and vines at the bottom. I love how the woman's toes are curled at the prospect of the kiss!
While beautiful to look at, I found the garden portion (the vines in particular) to be quite tedious, especially trying to get all the quarter circle tiles oriented correctly!
One last close up of the bottom of the painting. The garden extends quite a bit farther down on the original painting. There's no explanation why the garden and vines were shortened for the LEGO model, but from a build experience perspective, I think that was a wise choice.
Looking from the bottom to the top of the model, you can see the delineation between the man's robes, the woman's dress, and the dynamic yellow aura surrounding them. Milan mentions in the podcast that the design team referred to pictures of Klimt's original unfinished work to determine where one garment finished and the other started.
This is the angle that I really like the most in showing off the three-dimensional nature of the model. It's probably my favourite part, especially looking at the man's head and neck, and the woman's left arm and hand intertwined with his.
One last show of the three-dimensional aspect, this time looking the robes, the woman's legs and feet, and those vines.
So how does it look on display? That was a bit of a challenge with two hangers on the back and I only have single nails in the walls here. Regardless, here it is currently, hanging over my computer desk.
While the screenshot from the podcast gives you a sense of the size of the model, I widened the angle of this picture so you can see it compared to a nearby door.
Overall thoughts
This is a stunning display piece! As Stephanie Auer, the Belvedere curator, says in the podcast, Klimt would likely be very pleased with this model. (Pro tip: the majority of the podcast discusses Klimt's career and influences. If you're interested mostly in the LEGO design aspect, that's covered in the last 30 minutes.)
The building techniques are off the charts, and the set is worth getting for the build experience alone......for the most part. This set was one of the most fun sets that I've ever built, but at times was one of the most fiddly and tedious builds. The composition of the robes, and the lovers' faces is exemplary and the techniques used for them are fantastic. However, the background panels, and particularly the vines, are quite tedious and tiresome. The end result, though, is worth it.
It's unfortunate that the woman's eyes and lips weren't able to be represented in this model as I think they convey a lot of emotion in the original painting. That is partially offset by the clever build techniques used, and I do understand why it wasn't possible.
I think special kudos need to be given to the instructional designers on this project. While the model is fantastic, the task of breaking down this model into manageable sections to put toward the whole is quite a feat.
Is it worth $300? I think that depends on how much you like this type of build. For Art lovers, definitely. It would be an interesting, albeit expensive, parts pack for all the printed and metallic elements. If you're not a fan of the Art theme, it's still worth considering for the build experience alone (for the most part.....or maybe it's just me who had a challenge with the vines?), as I haven't had a build experience quite like it.
108 likes
59 comments on this article
Will be getting this one for the build experience alone and then hanging it on the wall. Did the same with Sunflowers and it looks amazing and gets a lot of compliments.
This is the one Lego Art piece I have been waiting for since the series started! May need to wait until it goes on sale somewhere, but my wife adores this painting and I can't wait to build it together.
Can’t help thinking that they should definitely do one of Miro’s pieces. No minifig of Klimt though!?
This looks absolutely miserable to build, but the end result is very impressive! I don’t care much for the painting itself but this seems like a faithful recreation and there do see’ to be some cool techniques used to replicate it! Not for me, but all the power in the world to those who do like it!
I love Klimt, and this is a master work of Lego. The revised Art Series is so much more fun than the original mosaic style.
Looking forward to the build! Thanks Megan!
I absolutely love this set. I think the designer made a fabulous job to represent this painting.
But every time I see a picture of the original next to it, I like it less. That's because I love the original so much. I gave a reproduction of the original to my now wife when we first started dating in 1999 and we still have it up to this day.
So even though I absolutely love this set as I said above, I may not be getting it because the original is so striking.
i don't know if I'm making any sense.
I hate the use of Tan for the man's skin tone. When juxtaposed with woman's more natural skin it makes him look like a zombie, and it doesn't even seem to match the originla painting. They should have went with Warm Tan
Time to wait for 50% price drop and buy it as parts donor.
@Euroseb11 said:
"Can’t help thinking that they should definitely do one of Miro’s pieces. No minifig of Klimt though!?"
No sets in the Lego Art theme have had minifigures—only the Starry Night set (which was produced through Ideas).
Impressive set design, but still don't like the painting itself.
About the two hangers, the Hokusai also has two, but I just modded it to one, and after a few years it still seems perfectly secure. Now obviously this one is quite a bit bigger/substantial, so kinda curious how heavy it is and if that would be an option here too?
Also kinda surpsised to see this one being 54 x 60 cm, whereas the original is a perfectly square 180 cm. And never knew it was that big in the first place....
@WizardOfOss said:
"Now obviously this one is quite a bit bigger/substantial, so kinda curious how heavy it is and if that would be an option here too?
"
I just weighed it; the model is 7.2 pounds (3.3 kg).
"There were also a few new (to me) parts in this set. These were just two that I thought to take quick pictures of during the build. The first in particular was interesting to me as there is no LEGO stamp on the stud."
Interesting, so LEGO now has decided to up its quality by using GoBricks pieces.
;-)
If you look closely you can see the Lego stamp on the stud.
@MeganL said:
" @WizardOfOss said:
"Now obviously this one is quite a bit bigger/substantial, so kinda curious how heavy it is and if that would be an option here too?
"
I just weighed it; the model is 7.2 pounds (3.3 kg).
"
Ah okay. For comparison, I just put the Hokusai on the scale, and that's 1.7kg. So the Klimt is barely double the weight. Honestly, I wouldn't think on a single hanger that would be that much of an issue.
That said, the Hokusai has the hanger(s) on the back of those big 16x16x1 "bricks" with everything around it connected with Technic pins, it doesn't get any sturdier than that so weight distribution is no issue at all. That might be a bit different with this one?
@IgelCampus said:
"If you look closely you can see the Lego stamp on the stud."
I was going to say the same thing. I see the stamp in the photo.
this is an awful mess of a set
@WizardOfOss said:
" @MeganL said:
" @WizardOfOss said:
"Now obviously this one is quite a bit bigger/substantial, so kinda curious how heavy it is and if that would be an option here too?
"
I just weighed it; the model is 7.2 pounds (3.3 kg).
"
Ah okay. For comparison, I just put the Hokusai on the scale, and that's 1.7kg. So the Klimt is barely double the weight. Honestly, I wouldn't think on a single hanger that would be that much of an issue.
That said, the Hokusai has the hanger(s) on the back of those big 16x16x1 "bricks" with everything around it connected with Technic pins, it doesn't get any sturdier than that so weight distribution is no issue at all. That might be a bit different with this one?"
Two might be required to get it to hang straight, if its weight is unbalanced.
@Huw said:
"Two might be required to get it to hang straight, if its weight is unbalanced."
That might also be an issue indeed.
And while the construction itself might be sturdy enough, maybe not all walls are....
Where are the sloths?
Not a fan of Klimt his work, but I can see the appeal in a Lego set like this.
I doubt that's my thing, at first I had no idea what I was looking at, the scene is pretty hard to read. even before reading the review I thought they were both wrapped in a yellow blanket, like in a bed and the green thing was a carpet, though maybe the point is it can be whatever you want ?
"I love how the woman's toes are curled at the prospect of the kiss!"
Euhm, you don't need to overthink this, they are curled because she is sitting on her knees...
I cannot help but wonder if a couple of printed pieces for the woman's face would have made all the difference here ... even stickers (gasp, thud). Its just a level of detail that pieces cannot deliver, and it makes all the difference in that one small area of the original art piece. I can't imagine that licensing the art for reproduction in Lego would have limited them from doing this.
I do wish the lips were present, I agree that the model suffers from the lack of them. It's a great design, though! I'm really impressed with how the designer brought this painting to life in bricks.
It's weird that the picture is cut off at the bottom but it looks like that decision was made for proportional reasons - if the garden continued in this scale and style, the LEGO set would become more of a skinny rectangle compared to the original piece. So that choice must be driven by the scale of the figures and the overall proportions of the model.
I seems a fairly accurate recreation, just a shame that the original was so awful.
I was really looking forward to this set as the Kiss is one of my favorite paintings. Sadly as mentioned in this review the beautiful face of the young woman is not conveyed at all in the set, so it will be a hard pass for me. Lego is really bad at designing faces, and it is the second time they ruin a painting after Mona Lisa.
I can see why they removed part of the grass? at the bottom and some of the gold edges, (cost, repetitiveness), but the result is not as visually balanced as the original.
But no doubt we have to wait less than a week for the 'buy two, make the original' version on Rebrickable..
@WizardOfOss said:
"Impressive set design, but still don't like the painting itself.
About the two hangers, the Hokusai also has two, but I just modded it to one, and after a few years it still seems perfectly secure. Now obviously this one is quite a bit bigger/substantial, so kinda curious how heavy it is and if that would be an option here too?
Also kinda surpsised to see this one being 54 x 60 cm, whereas the original is a perfectly square 180 cm. And never knew it was that big in the first place...."
They seem awfully confident in assuring everyone that the hangers are perfectly safe, while also unable to give any guidance on what methods or fasteners to use to do so.
If you don't know the original painting then the lack of a face here makes it extremely difficult to figure out what is even being depicted
@BelgianBricker said:
""I love how the woman's toes are curled at the prospect of the kiss!"
Euhm, you don't need to overthink this, they are curled because she is sitting on her knees..."
Imagine someone thinking about art and having a different interpretation than you! The nerve!
@PurpleDave said:
" @WizardOfOss said:
"Impressive set design, but still don't like the painting itself.
About the two hangers, the Hokusai also has two, but I just modded it to one, and after a few years it still seems perfectly secure. Now obviously this one is quite a bit bigger/substantial, so kinda curious how heavy it is and if that would be an option here too?
Also kinda surpsised to see this one being 54 x 60 cm, whereas the original is a perfectly square 180 cm. And never knew it was that big in the first place...."
They seem awfully confident in assuring everyone that the hangers are perfectly safe, while also unable to give any guidance on what methods or fasteners to use to do so."
Clear separation of responsibilities.....not their problem I guess....
(but a simple screw and plug did the trick for me)
Horrid painting but an impressive set translation
Regarding the woman's face, I was thinking.... Printing the eyes on those slopes is easy. For the mouth, replace the 1x1 tile and neighboring 2x2 wedge slopes for the cheeks with a 1x4 bow (https://brickset.com/parts/design-93273) and two 1x2 half-bows (https://brickset.com/parts/design-11477; the wedge versions wouldn't work). The sharp jump from 1x5 to 1x4 should be covered by the overlapping tan pieces. The 1x1 bracket on the end of the nose can become the taller 1x2 variant and be sunk into the base (hopefully). Then the mouth can be printed on the 1x4 bow. I'm not sure how good that would look (the woman's face would probably seem fatter), but it's an idea.
I'm very mixed on this one. I think TLG have done a stellar job turning this painting into a set - one of the best Art sets yet. On the other hand, I think it would've been far better had they managed to get the woman's eyes and most of all lips into it via printing or even stickers. It's a very important detail of the painting IMHO!
It isn't my favourite work of art, but I'm a little surprised by the level of vitriol in the other comment section suggesting that it evoked disgust. Why?! Subjective I know, but still, there's nothing in it that I could see anyone finding offensive.. Maybe someone can enlighten me.
I probably won't get it as it's pretty expensive and as I said, not my favourite, but I might. The only thing putting me off the Monet is that it looks incredibly tedious to build and there's some of that here as well - and I like that painting quite a lot more. It's a maybe!
On the supporting front - I don't know if @Huw or @MeganL has the set built and to hand, but the Ideas Starry Night is pretty chunky and that has only the single hanger. I don't know what it weighs - but it's been on my wall mounted on a plasterboard screw fixing perfectly happily for several years now. Of course, weight distribution might be an issue with this one, but I doubt it as it wasn't for the Starry Night and that has a significant amount of asymmetric 3D structure in it.
An amazing recreation. Not for me, but can see a lot of people liking it.
I disagree on the face. I think the subtle steps and curved plates have captured the face really well. Printed would look too cartoony
Why are the people in the yellow blob?
@Modeltrainman said:
"Why are the people in the yellow blob?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blob
I have never heard of this painting until the LEGO set was announced. Or the artist.
Had to look it up.
I really don't like this set. I can kind of see how they're trying to match the painting, but overall I think it just looks like a mess.
This will be an easy one to avoid.
I keep staring at it, waiting for it to speak to me. Nothing yet. :o)
That being said, this review helped me get a much better appreciation for the build (and in some ways, the original). I really appreciate the lateral views, showing the complex relief and "topography." Thanks @MeganL!
Ugh. They say art is in the eye of the beholder. To me, this isn’t attractive at all.
I love the real art and I loved this one. Designer did an exceptional job here.
@troynos said:
"I have never heard of this painting until the LEGO set was announced. Or the artist.
Had to look it up.
I really don't like this set. I can kind of see how they're trying to match the painting, but overall I think it just looks like a mess.
This will be an easy one to avoid."
I heard about it in LEGO Party.
@Prof_Physika said:
" @BelgianBricker said:
""I love how the woman's toes are curled at the prospect of the kiss!"
Euhm, you don't need to overthink this, they are curled because she is sitting on her knees..."
Imagine someone thinking about art and having a different interpretation than you! The nerve!"
Your argument would be valid if this would have been an abstract work of art. Unfortunately it isn't. We very well know what is being depicted here.
The initial statement is simply wrong, for 2 very obvious reasons:
1.: there is no prospect of a kiss. The painting shows the kiss actually being given.
2.: human anatomy: when you sit on your knees, with your feet upwards, your toes will automatically curl inwards to give additional support. Klimt knew this. He knew human anatomy, just look at the way the hands are painted.
So, you may interpret anyway you want, just know that when you do, you are wrong!
@BelgianBricker said:
" @Prof_Physika said:
" @BelgianBricker said:
""I love how the woman's toes are curled at the prospect of the kiss!"
Euhm, you don't need to overthink this, they are curled because she is sitting on her knees..."
Imagine someone thinking about art and having a different interpretation than you! The nerve!"
Your argument would be valid if this would have been an abstract work of art. Unfortunately it isn't.. ..
there is no prospect of a kiss. The painting shows the kiss actually being given."
I think I'm wrong too.
Whilst the two figures are depicted realistically in terms of the skin texture and anatomy on show, pretty much the entire rest of the painting can be considered abstract. The clothes aren't literal, and neither is the setting. Arguably, it's the very combination of the detailed human embrace within such a glorious symbolic abstraction which gives the painting its energy.
I am also inclined to disagree that the kiss is indeed being given. We don't see the man's face and, at the precise moment frozen in time we do see, his lips are above her chin. A kiss here would perhaps be quite odd and neither sensual or loving! My own take is that the woman's expression signifies she has just received something more than just a kiss. The rapture shown is perhaps cover for a more overtly sexual meaning.
And that's what art offers. A take, an interpretation, a story. I don't recall the source, but there's a quote about great art being like great movies that just don't move. I'm inclined to agree, and The Kiss seems to prove this idea.
It would be great that set came with artist and a painting in a minifig scale, like it came 21333
"I don't know much about art, but I know what I like."
And this is not for me. Glad some people seem to like it though. Wouldn't do if we were all the same.
To me, the lines between the elements of the woman’s face gives an impression of her turning away with furrowed brows… and that is quite a different situation than the original (Fortunately for the original!).
Faces are bloody hard to get right, and the slightest off kilter line can change the expression entirely
“ The close-up of the robes shows some of the details between the robes. The man's robes have square, more geographic shapes, while the woman's dress has decorations that are more organic and floral in nature. You can also see the yellow whip pieces used as part of the man's robe.”
I suspect you meant “geometric”, rather than “geographic”, here ;)
No LEGO stamp on the stud???? This is absolutely out of LEGO quality rules! What's this, MEGA? LEPIN?
Unfortunately I really dislike this painting, so I will have to pass...
@Adrianucho said:
"No LEGO stamp on the stud???? This is absolutely out of LEGO quality rules! What's this, MEGA? LEPIN? "
I think @MeganL is partially correct, but I can see a faint LEGO stamp on that brick. It looks like it’s almost from the inside of the brick.
@gsom7 said:
"It would be great that set came with artist and a painting in a minifig scale, like it came 21333"
That one has a minifig because it was from Ideas, not Art. Although 40902 has the pieces to put together a similar accompaniment for 31213.
For the people who want a Klimt-minifigure: https://brickset.com/minifigs/coltlbm41 is a fairly close match.
Kneel before Klimt, I guess.
I know art is all a matter of taste. I'm afraid that (unlike the Mona Lisa or The Great Wave) the painting this set is based on does absolutely nothing for me. So I'll be skipping this set I think.
@BelgianBricker said:
" @Prof_Physika said:
" @BelgianBricker said:
""I love how the woman's toes are curled at the prospect of the kiss!"
Euhm, you don't need to overthink this, they are curled because she is sitting on her knees..."
Imagine someone thinking about art and having a different interpretation than you! The nerve!"
Your argument would be valid if this would have been an abstract work of art. Unfortunately it isn't. We very well know what is being depicted here.
The initial statement is simply wrong, for 2 very obvious reasons:
1.: there is no prospect of a kiss. The painting shows the kiss actually being given.
2.: human anatomy: when you sit on your knees, with your feet upwards, your toes will automatically curl inwards to give additional support. Klimt knew this. He knew human anatomy, just look at the way the hands are painted.
So, you may interpret anyway you want, just know that when you do, you are wrong!"
Your argument would be valid if your explanation of human anatomy was accurate. It’s not. The reason someone kneeling curls their toes is because it would flipping hurt to rest the weight of your body on the tips of your toes (ask a ballet dancer). So you have three options. You can curl your toes up like this woman, you can point your entire foot down like they do in Japan, or you can kneel on a raised surface where your feet can just hang in open space. But you don’t actually need your toes to balance while kneeling. You just need to not injure them. Although, frankly, kneeling like she is for an extended period of time will make your toe joints hurt anyways.
I wonder why Milan didn't simply add 3396 for the lips.
https://preview.redd.it/i-worked-out-whats-been-bugging-me-about-the-newly-v0-vi1otepjitdh1.png?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=c65d043b99362c0f01067a9613f3425642a43760
@TheOtherMike said:
" @gsom7 said:
"It would be great that set came with artist and a painting in a minifig scale, like it came 21333"
That one has a minifig because it was from Ideas, not Art. Although 40902 has the pieces to put together a similar accompaniment for 31213."
Those minifig scale masterpieces are really cool! I have a plan to make a bust in my City. In front of police station, robbers with handcuffs, cops and behind 4 minifigs with 4 masterpieces in their hands: 26603pb615, 87079pb1077, 6179pb222 and 6179pb061 ! :P
$100 is the sweet spot for these sets so I have starry night and the great wave. I'd rather give $300 to an actual artist for their work.
This painting was one of the words in the Saturday New York Times crossword. Now I'm wondering if that was just a coincidence, or if the creator of that crossword happens to be an AFOL.