Waste of a perfectly good $100 vase...

It's the destroying that gets to me. It seems callous and presumptious .

I'm sorry, but it can't be right--in any universe--to destroy something beautiful for something ugly.

I love it! I did a serious of concrete shapes for a sculpture class once - making plaster molds then pouring them full of concrete. But in the making of the molds, many objects were destroyed - books, record albums, cassette tapes, cardboard tubes, flowers, twigs, acorns, leaves - almost anything I could get my hands on. And it was fabulous fun to see how a new medium represented the familiar object. I am re-inspired!

I know I posted as few minutes ago, but each time I see this it pisses me off more. And that the AT blogger refers to this as "creatively reinterpreting" classics is pretty offensive, too.

This is destructive, not creative, and it's evil.

I melt a sheet of glass over Tobias Wong's doorstop. I call it AlmostAD's Tobias Wong's Alvar Aalto's Savoy Vase Doorstop Vase. It's a think-piece.

Call for price and availability ;-)

It's limited edition (so relax, the world supply of Aalto vases will not be decimated) and art meant to provoke, so I am not totaly turned off, even though it means the destruction of the vases.

I'd love to hear more of the artist's statement, since this kind of art, completely out of context, is an unfair representation of the thought and creative processes involved.

$3,500 for a block of concrete that isn't even his original design? seriously?!?

It's a $3,500, 12 lb doorstop.

I don't care how "artistic" or how limited it is- I can't wrap my head around that it...

Reminds me of a historic theater being torn down for condo high-rise - guess that's the point, isn't it? I'll refrain from spending $3.5K on this paved paradise, however, and go visit the trees in the Tree Museum. (That's Joni Mitchell for you young'uns).

reeeee-diculous.

actually, he's kind of a genious. $3500 x 12 = $42,000.

Wish I'd thought of it.

I thought it was funny and hot until I hit the $3500 price tag.

I hope Aalto's estate sues him. They'd win.

I would have expected SOME of the AT crowd to be a TINY bit more open-minded about conceptual art...

But we ARE seeing a tremendous amount of stretched Marimekko and Blik wall decals around here lately, so I guess art is not high on the reader's radar.

But if nothing else, it reinforces Aalto's genius... that is a seriously sexy negative space...

And there is NO WAY they would win a lawsuit here.

Heh. I think it's very gorgeous.

I wouldn't pay that price for it - I mean, I can't imagine paying any money for a doorstop, what with all these heavy books lying around here - but the price and the piece make more sense if you think of it in relation to Bruce Nauman or Rachel Whiteread's cast concrete works.

Seems silly to call it a doorstop.

It's prohibitively expensive of course, but it looks nice enough to me.

Yawn. Conceptual art. Last refuge of the unscrupulous poseur.

Hmm .... If he was doing this as a statement then the proper place to display it would be a museum ... and if collectors want to buy, why not?
By commercializing the piece he diminishes the rebelliousness of the artistic statement.
However I don't think I would have the same reaction if he was using Brancusi's "Bird in flight" for a doorstop. I guess for me an Aalto vase is just overpriced glassware.

Well, I like beauty, conceptual or otherwise. It's the first refuge of a scrupulous aesthete.

It looks like it's missing some curves... my Aalto vase is more curvy on the front.

I pick the $150 vase over a chunk of concrete 'art' any day.

I Love the shape.
But, I would get more use out the Door stop.

I had one of the vases and never liked it as a Vase.

The destruction of the Aalto vase to make this doesn't matter much, but it begs the question: why not, the next time a little concrete mix is around, do it yourself?

Buy some quickcrete at Home Depot, lather up (or not) the vase, and you're done.

THAT'S why it's not really conceptual art, unless by conceptual you mean "one trick pony parasitic."

Sorry, Patrick(the other one), but it MIGHT be possible for the estate of Aalto to sue on the basis of reverse engineering (jsut one argument off the top of my head). Intellectual property law is not my forte; an IP attorney would know for certain.

IMHO, T.Wong does not possess true artitic talent other than being clever. He reminds me of that other fraud and rip-off "artist" Mark Kostabi. Yes, I know, Kostabi made major bucks ripping off other artists. He's still a total LOSER for stealing real artists work.

BTW: Reverse engineering is the process of discovering the technological principles of a device, object or system through analysis of its structure, function and operation. It often involves taking something (e.g. a mechanical device, electronic component, or software program) apart and analyzing its workings in detail, usually to try to make a new device or program that does the same thing without copying anything from the original.

theoryofpractice--that's what i thought too.. why not go out and buy a cheap vase and make one myself..

personally the piece is cool. but $3,500. ha.NO.

ya im with animalhouze only im thinking go out and make a bunch and sell them for half off! $1750 chaaching

regarding the intellectual property issues, I'll comment because current options for protection of industrial design in the US are woefully limited.

reverse engineering simply isn't applicable here for several reasons, not least of which it is a defense, not a cause of action.

the strongest protection for the original vase would come in the form of a design patent, but even had one been procured it would long since be expired. (14yr term)

unfortunately and unfairly, industrial design is not proper subject matter for copyright - the artistic expression captured in the vase isn't "separable" from the vase itself - the current test for functional objects.

in this instance, at best the estate might have some sort of unfair competition tort action based on misrepresentation.

personally, I'd rather have the vase.

As a side note. I make concrete forms and the trick is to spray the mold with lubricant so the concrete will slide out instead of breaking the mold. Unless those vases are very thin, they should withstand the process. I would guess that a vase of that size and shape is thick walled.

So y'all think it's robbery of Aalto in this form, but you're also fine with knocking off Tobias' art idea?

Huh.

ChcgRnr--
Didn't say they couldn't sue. Said they couldn't win.

Ulrika--
Sometimes conceptual art just goes over the head of some. Perhaps it went over yours while you were yawning.

AAAAAAAGGGHHHHHHH!

old news.

Read this 2 years ago in Cargo (when it still existed); the whole point about ALL their collection is to make people think about how stupid it is to waste so much money on ANYTHING including the real Alto vase. They had gold-dust capsules to make you poo gold and cocaine mcdonnalds coffee spoons. They most likely have molds for the concrete which they reuse, but still has the same feeling and personally I think it's genius and a kick in the head for anyone who'd buy a $3000 Hermes chair.

The angry reactions against this piece make me love it more!

Is that really a $100 vase? 'Cause I found a little one at a Salvation Army for $2.

I think it would be interesting as a candle.

I really dislike this kind of Art. I have to Savoy Vase myself and I love how it looks, how it makes flower look the reflection of sunlight.

Why would you destroy such a beautifull vase for something so ugly? Also it's a waste of energy/money. If the savoy vase wasn't broken to create this it would still be an ugly thing!

So, you can love the vase (which is really a receptacle for the empty space it contains), yet you hate the form created when you fill the empty space? Huh.

I like what this says about preciousness, about the contrast or materials (both starting in liquid form, then hardening to either the silky but deceptively strong glass of the vase or the rough mass of the concrete), about positive/negative relationships, and about the idea of value.

And art is like voting. If you don't like it, don't buy it, and the (starving) artist will eventually get the message. Or become really rich. Because someone has $3500 to spare.

patrick gets it..

to those who dont..
think of it as a joke, on you, for being a loyalist to a vase.

sometimes art is more about the process than the product. and sometimes its just a joke.

maybe more people would like it if it was from dwr?

I always love art that raises the viewers' pulse...

Looks like a brick.

antimatt:

people can "get" the purported expression behind the final product (does anyone ever truly when it comes to art? maybe where there's an artists statement) but not like one or the other or even both.

no need to be condescending re dwr.

in fact, dwr has hosted or been involved in more than one design event in which wong has been integrally involved with.

disclosure - i'm not affiliated with dwr or wong