This was a quickie project that seems very compelling, but it also looks very familiar. Has anyone seen a similar design? I cannot find anything close, so its driving me crazy!
Very nice! The base vaguely reminded me of this…
It´s close to some projects of Karim Rashid.
I like it and close is just close, and not a the same!
Hey, good observation … I appreciate the feedback. So far, so good.
This is my challenge; I like to design things that look like timeless classics. The problem is that I end up copying other stuff without even realizing it.
I like the visual but I think there could be a little Problem with the angles of the inner form. It is possible to clean the form within a short time?
There is a slight draft for tooling & forming, but its not that deep. I also created fillets at the top and bottom of the three-legged recess – and – there are no sharp corners or crevices.
I always assume there will be tweaks if I were lucky enough that this go into production. The design is currently a pure concept I have developed on spec for licensing, so I was hoping for aesthetic feedback at this early stage. I have spent somewhere between 6 and 8 hours so far (sketch / model / render / Photoshop) and wanted to minimize my time if this has already been done.
Thanks for the feedback! Most people don’t take the time and everything helps.
I like the aesthetic but I thing the triangle could give a more strait way for the spheres or circles on the top. Why are they not a little bit more like a triangle?
You may be mis-reading the form due to the reflective materials. There are no triangles or spheres. I will post a gray-scale render later tonight.
OK, here’s a neutral form / gray-scale render to help read the forms.
Please keep in mind the original premise, “Have I encroached on another design / do you recongnize it?” Not, “how hard is this to clean?”
I think you’re getting the ‘echo’ of a Philips head screw - not a previous design.
Nice! This is encouraging. I definitely see a lot of familiar elements as well and that was my goal: to create a fresh new design that also has familiar elements.
It’s a little like trying to write something both serious and funny at the same time.
By the way, I know asking for design opinions on the internet is nutty.
My favorite example was when someone posted a new concept car design. The response was “four wheels AND an engine? Seen it! That’s been done to death!”
I Like this render better,
Probably because I want to read the shape and this material expression allows for that.
What I noticed in the first image already;
-The view is tilted to to lower right corner, to me that feels like something is off in a wrong way.
(tilting it upward is already better BTW)
- I would like a view inside the bowl when standing. The 2 standing bowls are at the same viewangle, making either of them obsolete IMO. A view more from the top would allow a sight into the bowl. (The one standing on it’s edge feels too unnatural for that.)
As for the design, I really like it in it’s simplicity! You describe searching both the serious and funny; As the current design to me still feels rigid and geometric it might be you can add some fun by loosening some of that rigidity.
I might be wrong but I read this as 2 geometries (stand and bowl) merged with some filleting.
The Bowl even feels be perfectly spherical.
If the curves used are slightly off and for instance the fillets from bowl to stand are larger on the inside corners you get a shape that has more variations and subtleties to it. I’ve learned that that is much more appealing (on the long run).
I wanted to make a quick example also to see for myself, and got carried away:
It’s not well balanced in shape but FWIW: test.3dm (345.6 KB)
Its the exact same view and camera angle, I just used a material override.
It was the exact same view / same tilt / same everything.
First, lower angled views are always more dramatic. Next, the second bowl was rotated around the Z-axis specifically to see another view of the feet and transition. But, since its helpful to see the inside of the bowl, I tilted one vertically. A group of two or three seems to be ideal for tabletop renders. The design presentation was also accompanied by additional data, like this dimension graphic seen below.
Thanks for getting inspired and making your own model. That’s a first!
Make sure to click on my first render so it will maximize. there is a lot of detail you might have missed when its smaller.
Here’s an earlier render camera study from a higher angle. Quality is lowered to save render time while I evaluate the camera angle and lighting.
That’s not copying, that is just ending up with the similar visual “beat” and it’s ok! Unless you already know the thing that it is similar to, then it can be subconscious copying of course.
I like the design, I find it appealing and quite masculine.
I totally get that. But, I can only research so much without knowing the name of any prior projects that MIGHT be similar, especially if they were done 20 or 30 years ago. I do share my development work with several smart friends, but I’m occasionally told by clients, “No thanks. We saw that before.” Ouch!
Anyways, this is being submitted soon to several well-known housewares manufactures for potential licensing. I thought it would be fun to share the work and open up my process a little bit.
FYI: Since I am doing this work on pure spec, a primary concern (after TOTAL coolness, of course) is to kick out the design as fast as possible in case I don’t get any interest. This went from sketch to 3D model (several versions) to rendering to a presentation PDF transmittal document in under 7 hours.
One big factor is that I sketch every day, developed a workflow for Rhino, have a standard V-Ray studio, and use a template in InDesign for my PDF submittal.
Ah, if you are there already then I fully understand your concern. Layers don’t care if you haven’t seen what they accuse you of copying. Good luck!
Nice and simple.
You might want to work on the encasement though, as it feels like a usability problem.
How about keeping the idea of mirroring the foot structure inside the bowl by having just a rounded embossment (of 1 or 2 millimeters deep) instead of a full length hole?
I would suggest that the overall design is minimal and subtle so the big hollow cross inside is not really aligned with the overall design feel. With the legs full (not hollow) , the design will gain in sturdiness and balance. A slightly carved cross inside the bowl will add to the aesthetic by echoing the legs (as you already have) and will give a subtle design character to the entire piece. The inside hollow cross can be the character mark of a series (cups, saucers, plates, etc…)
As for the originality of the shape combination (Cross legs + parabolic cradle), unfortunately there are a lot of vases with full crossed legs similar to yours but they are usually wood base with a stone cradle bowl or reversed cupola…
Thanks for the feedback.
I am actually not looking to change the design (or get into an aesthetic debate) but the original question was if this has already been done. If it has, then I was going to dump the project and re-boot. So far, the answer is no.
Since we have veered into design, keep in mind that the concept is contrast – between the curved bowl and linear legs, and between the positive form with a negative depression. It’s also an exploration of using the cast metal material and creating a single-piece form that captures all of the above elements at the same time.
Finally, my target manufacturer for licensing is high end brands. The goal is to create a product of timeless beauty that looks both original and fresh … as well as familiar.
Here’s an example from Alessi
DESCRIPTION: This unique Mediterraneo bowl takes inspiration from the gentle movement of marine plants. Adds a sophisticated touch to any space.
Let me try …
Why marine plants? I like cactus.
Red will not go with my dining table. Yuck! Not for me.
What if it wasn’t made of metal … and instead carved out a solid block of stone?