apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

Didn't Douglas Coupland do the same exact thing years ago?

these are pretty, but tired. re-making disposable things (takeout foil tray/pie plates)in clay is so "I'm a hip Brooklynite from a few years back".

with the right grit of sandpaper, pretty spray paint, a box knife, and some detergent bottles, you could have essentially the same thing. For (almost) free.

and besides, isn't it a perfect example of knock-off of someone else's package design? Only made in more expensive than plastic materials; but the design is stolen anyway.

I think they're interesting conceptually and nicely made. Some of the same criticisms are similar to those made of Warhol.

I would hesitate to use a laundry detergent bottle as a pitcher. The TranSglass series by Tord Boontje and Emma Woffenden seems more elegant and practical.

I agree with Scott...the artist's interpretation makes the shape her own transcending the everday. Also, more than detergent bottles, these remind me of fiestaware pitchers morphed.

These are a far cry from the ceramic styrofoam cups a la Brooklyn 2004.

AMP - I did get the fiestaware vibe from this too - the satiny, bright glazes and the ridging of the necks - particularly in the yellow pitchers in the top pic.

I just prefer my stuff to look like what it is, rather than something else. I'm not sure these come from the same ethos as the ceramic styrofoam cups, but they give sort of the same vibe.

ridiculous.

I love 'em.

Because they look more like Roseville pottery than Wisk bottles.

And LOVING the colors. Both true to the original product, but totally not at the same time.

I would be, too, that without the story of their design origina, not many here would know from whence the inspiration came.

i like these a lot. i actually don't think this is like the ceramic styrofoam cups at all, because what jet mous is doing is underlining the beauty inherent in an everyday object, whereas whoever did the ceramic styrofoam is getting off merely on the irony of it all. these are about the colors, the negative space of the handles, etc. and not so much about OMG guys i am all ironic and kewl for having an expensive ceramic item that looks just like trash!

i'm also not offended by the notion that i could put my crafty skills to work and do something like this with leftover bottles and elbow grease. that makes it even better, in my opinion.

I was thinking Eva Zeisel, but yeah, I can see the resemblance to some of the pre-WWII Roseville shapes.

Okay, yes, I'm heartbroken that my cleaning supplies all lack handles (vital to the coolness of the shapes), so there's no point in my experimenting with spray paint. It'd be such an incentive to be a spotless housekeeper.

As if Warhol is such a sancted figure that everyone should bow in his direction. For me, he doesn't amount for more than a shallow fraudulent performance artist. I agree with 90% of what this critic ( http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/2006/09/andy_and_me_and.html#003362) says about Warhol, and he does know his subject.

Patrick2, if colors are stolen from the fiestaware and the shapes are stolen from the nameless container designers, what originality is left in this product?

Um, Fiestaware didn't *really* "invent" their own colors, so that argument is totally moot.

In the last room you painted, then, didn't YOU "steal" the color from Benjamin Moore, in a way? Most creativity (imho) is aboout recombining the existing, anyhow.

So let's not start a pissing match over "original thought," please.

I think this is more about finding the beauty in the everyday around us than it is fodder for a design infringement lawsuit.

These are really gorgeous--mainly because they're so textural, and so opaque, and the clay colors are so dense and not quite smooth, not quite rough. I love the transglass too, but these actually seem to me so much more striking (whoever pointed out the retro - FIestaware morphed connection was spot on). Then, too, something tells me their real appeal can only be appreciated in 3 dimensions too.

P2, when I specify BM color, that's exactly what I say - that it IS a BM color, and I give their number and finish in the spec.
This guy claims the product is his own; that by casting the form that somebody else created in different medium, he gets a totally new product, w/o attribution to the original author.

That's the legal difference between plagiarists/knock-offs and the interior designer: we give credit where credit is due. I see myself as a sort of collagist on a bigger scale, and the pieces I harmonize are often other people's creations. When I design something myself, be it a lighting fixture or a piece of furniture, I have the right to call it my own. This guy doesn't.

As to "pissing matches" - I don't aspire to compete with you; my anatomy is my limitation.

there's this expression i've heard. it goes something like this:

Theres Nothing New Under The Sun.

in other words, you can't freakin' trademark the shape of a bottle of dran-o.

oh yes you can, *opoponax, if you're not a post-modernist "everything-goes", "nobody's better than his neighbor" ignoramus.

it might come as a surprise to you, but there are stil ethics exist in the profession - and, amazingly, there are even copyright and patent laws!

I HATE that expression. It is the cop-out of the lazy.

Why yes, yes you "freakin'" CAN protect package design/bottle shape. Coca Cola does it, as a matter of fact.

Are these actually pieces made from moulds of actual detergent bottles, or did the ceramist create a moulds that resemble detergent bottles? The vases in the top photo look like stylized detergent bottles, whereas the vases in the bottom photo look more like the contours of real-life, everyday bottles.

Did the same person produce them all?

I really like the pitcher/glass set in the middle. Lovely color.

I love the appreciation for industrial design that these pieces carry, but I can't see one in my home.

The recent American Experience PBS series on Andy Warhol lays out some interesting background of Andy as a fine artist (early gallery show, rather radical for the 50's - lovely line drawings of naked boys, not a one that sold. He stopped showing) concurrent with his career as a commercial artist/illustrator, followed by his much maligned Art World career. Great show, in repeats on PBS.
Check yer local listings....

p2 and the rest of the AT art cognesti
did you ever hear that Jaspar Johns and Robert Rauschenber were boyfriends? Apparently they hated Andy for being such a queen . . .

These shapes are too literal an interpretation of the bottles I hide away in cupboards and closets. For my taste, anyway. Like guido, I couldn't see them on display in my home. There's too much of a pedestrian quality to them; and they strike me as inelegant.

ok, well then. point "freakin'" taken.

my followup question would be, well, should one be able to tradmark the shape of a bottle of dran-o?

because i think we all know that it's not the designers of such things who own those trademarks. the guy who designed the coke bottle ain't getting a penny from coca cola's trademark of the product design. it's the huge multinational megacorporations that commissioned the product design to sell their particular brand of unnecessary chemical soup who profit. such things are protected not in the name of hard working designers, but in the name of the almighty dollar.

also, i'd argue that since the necks of these bottles are significantly altered, they're cast in a different material, the intended use is not product packaging, and the colors of each bottle are not necessarily consistent with the packaging colors, that the idea that this is some sort of infringement probably wouldn't stand up in a court of law. even if the original source is trademarked.

opopox,
I agreed with you about the difference between these and the ceramic styrofoam clevers
but you're missing the boat on copyright

if we're talking about law, then yeah
drano could sue and win

more interesting to talk about art I think
and at the moment I'd find it even MORE interesting to
gossip about dead people.
So, did any of you hear about Johns and Rauschenberg before? We were stunned that we'd never heard about them. It was in the Warhol doc.

i feel like i knew that, but then again, maybe not. i could be thinking of a zillion other "wow, who knew so and so and such and such were once lovers?!" i love those stories.

for instance, i think who i'm really thinking of when i said i knew that is Merce Cunningham and John Cage, which i found out recently. Edna St. Vincent Millay is probably the queen of that sort of thing -- man did she get around. Edmund Wilson, Thelma Wood, I think John Reed, and maybe Djuna Barnes, too. Among others. wow.

Wow - who knew some clay vessels could spark such a heated debate!! I happen to have the ceramic Greek coffee cups and I luv them. I moved to the west coast and they are my daily reminder of my favorite city.

see, THOSE I knew!

I suppose I'm building up to a case on the hypermacho 50s art world . . .

not that anyone cares but me . . .

"Which brings up a truly interesting issue of “Art Fagdom.” Back in the Day, Rauschenberg and his then-boyfriend Jasper Johns made their living by designing department store windows. So did Andy Warhol. Andy was proud of his window work. Rauschenberg and Johns didn’t want anyone to know about theirs. They also disdained Andy because he was too swish — too much for the “straight-acting/straight-appearing” likes of Rauschenberg and Johns to deal with! This upset Andy greatly, as he admired their work. He went to his grave wishing they “just liked me a little bit.”

SOMEHOW, this is on topic when discussing fine art v industrial art
; )

if you'd like to know more about the interplay of these two great Abstract Expressionists . . .
http://www.queerculturalcenter.org/Pages/KatzPages/KatzLovers.html

Oh, you're not the only one who cares. You may be the only one who knows enough to discuss...

...fascinating article. I thought it was going to be loathsomely postmodern, but it turned out to be New Criticism (author, situation, rhetorical structure), proving that you can't keep a good critical method down. I'll have to actually look at Rauschenberg's works, which usually aren't my cup of tea. See how many things are improved by adding gay themes?

I disagree that these pieces are too close to that which they are apparently inspired by. On the artists website, I didn't see any mention of the inspiraation (though very likely I missed it being that I did not read everything). The shapes are different, especially in the neck. Also, they are a cleary different material. Looking at the pic, you know they aren't delabeled bottles with their necks cut off. It is clear they are clay. Further, I can't identify one as being a particular brand. Detergent bottles tend to have an organic shape with a very functional spout and handle. This designer seems to be borrowing the attributes of an everday object and creating something beautiful.

I disagree that these pieces are too close to that which they are apparently inspired by. On the artists website, I didn't see any mention of the inspiraation (though very likely I missed it being that I did not read everything). The shapes are different, especially in the neck. Also, they are a clearly different material. Looking at the pic, you know they aren't delabeled bottles with their necks cut off. It is clear they are clay. Further, I can't identify one as being a particular brand. Detergent bottles tend to have an organic shape with a very functional spout and handle. This designer seems to be borrowing the attributes of an everday object and creating something beautiful. I don't have a problem with ceramic copies of everyday objects, but this isn't one.

thx wende
Do you know art critic Dave Hickey?
He's all over that Warhol doc, and has a really fun read called, if I'm not mistaken, "Air Guitar"
Yes, art crit FUN read!

i understand that the artist wanted to (sorta) mimic the originals, but i wonder what they'd look like in NON 'authentic plastic' colors. or patterns, etc....one step away. like navy blue or plum or whatever.

Guido -- I didn't know about Dave Hickey, but now I will go find out. Thank you!

Despite a couple courses in college and enough time in museums to start getting snobby about what counts as good curating, I know very little about art as art.

Can't say that I like them -- color and form kill it for me. They're a cross between Fiestaware (which I dislike) and a modern riff on everyday items (like the ceramic styrofoam cup). While I find the ceramic styrofoam cup amusing, I can't say the same about these since the shape of the items aren't as suited for beverage pitcher use (at least, a pitcher that I'd buy).

yeesh. artists have been copying things for years - it's called appropriation. and a lawyer told me that you can copy a mercedes to the nth degree as long as you leave off the logo. form is getting harder and harder to copyright.
BUT these things, while nice looking are the MOST TIRED trick in book. every potter/designer who's taken a slip casting course has done this. it's yet another bad/tired ceramic idea that somehow manages to survive in the design world. maybe the maker has a good PR person?? YAWN.

Yes, but has anyone who took the course thought to market and sell the results?

Sometimes the art's not only in the "doing"...

It may be tired *within* that world, but outside that world, it potentially has a certain interest and appeal.

ok, i don't even usually post, but this thread is totally redonk.

apart from the fact that these vessels don't merit the label "post-modern," I really don't see what the fuss is about.

they're deco-looking vase/bottles. pretty deco-looking vase/bottles that resemble (imho) early roseville and mccoy just as much as they resemble detergent bottles.


and rarely have I heard anyone yell about the misappropriation of deco on this site.

then again, things might be more interesting if someone started...

here, i'll go first:

"OMG! this art pottery looks like other art pottery from decades ago! how could a self-respecting artist put out something so trite!? HOW GAUCHE!"

So you're no fan of Mister Adler, I take it? ;)

in all seriousness, I like these bottle/vase thingies. and I'm usually a fan of the much-lauded (here, anyway) Mr. Adler because I find his work visually appealing (which I suppose makes me quite shallow). whatevs.

my question is why everyone's all of a sudden getting their ceramic panties in a bunch over the same damn thing we see every day...

Hi everyone, good debate over the vessels -- but I'm more interested in those mugs. I was just about to send in a 'good question' with a photo of white ones because a friend wants to find a wholesale distributor for them. Anyone have any ideas? Thanks!

They look like urinals, like the kind they use for bedridden patients.

Hey I know where you can buy these! A boutique in Houston carries the line- rayehouston.com. The lady who makes them is from the Netherlands, which makes the bottles interesting because, although you get the reference, you can't actually place the bottles as 'tide' or 'downy' or whatever. They are all made of ceramic & are a flat finish.

As a packaging designer who does indeed currently do industrial/innovation work for one of those evil multiglobal corporations dealing in everyday consumer product ... I find this thread incredibly hilarious. Grown folks arguing over an artist mimicking the design of cleaning product bottles ... so silly. Either you like them as products or you don't, but as long as the ceramicist isn't selling them with the Draino logo on the front, what's the big friggin' fuss about? I just don't get how up in arms people get over things that don't even affect them personally.