Not Excessive, But Gratuitous, Packaging
by Matthew Sparkes, London, UK on 05. 6.07
We're not fans of excessive packaging at TreeHugger. From an environmental perspective it's wasteful and energy-intensive, and from a personal point of view, it means I have to take out the trash more often. It's a lose-lose situation.
So it should come as no surprise that we're not very impressed by this product, Nothing, which consists of some molded plastic and card packaging with literally nothing inside. The idea on it's own is funny, and if it had been turned into a photo-shopped image instead of a real product then it would have been an intelligent and satirical cultural comment. However, as a real product, it's dumb.
We say that we're not impressed, but the fact that someone is actually making money from this is quite amazing. It would be better though, if people could cut out the middle man and just throw some of their money away, or even better, give it to charity. That way, they're still out of pocket, but the environment doesn't suffer. A fool and their money are easily parted. :: I Want One of Those
How is giving to charity being ripped off?
I think you miss the point. This packaging IS the product, so in fact, unless you get it in a bag, there is no packaging whatsoever!
I've seen very similar products for sale as part of a design exhibition and I think they should be viewed more as a thought provoking statement about consumerism than a flippant waste of time. By your standards, I'm sure you could also consider most paintings, photos and other art products to be a lose-lose situation. Does the question "what is art" need to be asked? Or is art simply not a "product" worth producing?
Of course, it would have been better if this had been made of bio-plastic. :)
No, I don't see this as art. It is mass produced and for sale in large numbers. I think that this is a gimmick, albeit one that narrowly missed being a clever satirical piece.
If it was a one-off piece then it could be taken more seriously, but you don't take a piece of art that comments on consumerism and then turn it into a consumer product, unless that's part of your message.
Idea is simply brilliant :) And people are simply people :)
I totally agree with Peter on this one. There's a flaw in your arguement in which you state that this product uses excessive packaging, however the entirety of the product is the packaging itself. In fact, I beleive that this product is very much environmentally sound because there is no way to dispose of the advertised product without disposing of the packaging, thereby, if someone wants to keep the gift, they have to keep the packaging, precisely the opposite of any other store-bought gift which could be given.
regardless of the debate whether this is packaging or no packaging at all is moot.
the product is junk with no utility value that will just go in the garbage after a few chuckles.
these are the kinds of products that should be regulated into illegality.
we didn't get into this horrid system of waste by accident. For this thing to be considered art it would have to be a singular art piece. The fact it is for sale on mass makes it lose all credibility as an art piece and just leaves it as pure junk headed straight for the massive garbage piles we create.
This is not art, it is a novelty piece made to make some rich guy richer.
This is a clever satirical piece. It is a consumer product with no use called Nothing and people buy it.
Whether you see it as art or not is irrelevant. It is a social statement on consumerism which opens debate about the true value of all consumer items. The fact that you can buy it makes it more satirical.
But most importantly I wonder how anyone can presume it is mass produced simply because it is for sale on one website. While I think the article and debate is a noble gesture, I wonder how much research went into finding out how many of these products were actually made.
There are a lot of presumptions here but without any facts it all feels like a bit of hot air.