
Let's just hope the LVMH attorneys don't learn of this one or we just never know what they'd do. In this episode, the gang attempts to verify an old story of a lighter more mobile version of the iron cannon that was evidently made out of leather. And of course if they were going to be doing some fine craftsmanship with leather, they may as well go luxury. I won't spoil the ending but do you think it'll work? Sorry but the Discovery Channel's website doesn't allow embedding of their videos so click here to watch it on their site.
Posts Tagged ‘Appropriation’
Mythbusters Fire off a Leather Monogram Cannon
Friday, April 16th, 2010Designer bags your bread & butter?
Wednesday, November 25th, 2009
No really- like flour, yeast, oil... Yeah.
New online mag "Flamboyant" has included various pictures of branded and otherwise odd baked goods in their "Daily Bread" section of their first issue.
We've seen this kind of Appropriation before- in candy, cakes, guns, antlers and remember the LV electric chair and LV monogram live PIGS?
Jean Charles de Castelbajac Logo Mania: Still Over It
Thursday, April 9th, 2009
I know I'm beating this dead horse- (and I hate that phrase- the poor horse!)-- but really. "Fusion art"? Come on now.
In case you've forgotten the formula (and how could you since literally EVERYONE is doing it...)
1. Take one unexpected item- Gun, Bullet, Electric Chair, Statue of African Baby, Lollipop, piece of Classic Art
2. Add internationally recognizable luxury brand signature monogram- LV, CC, GG, FF, YSL, Dior
3. Find an Art Gallery- and open your exhibit!

Seriously, though. Who isn't doing this? I guess luxury brands spend millions and millions of dollars promoting their brand's marks- so folks are going to do what they can to make a little money on it.
I love that I want to say "why would we care"... but obviously I'm blogging it...

Pic Credit: Hypebeast
Appropriating Arm Candy: It’s Lazy, Sucker!
Thursday, March 12th, 2009
It's getting boring blogging about "artists" who go the lazy route, and use designer logos and trademarks in their work.
I didn't even blog about the "Fashion Weapons" by still life photographer Massimo Gammacurta, because I'd blogged about so many other artists who've done exactly... the... same... thing. You know, take something violent and offensive like an electric chair or a bullet or a creepy looking dog... and wrap it all up in Louis Vuitton monogram, or quilted Chanel, or signature Dior or whatever. It's gotten so old.
But looks like the tactic worked for Massimo, cause now he's doing logos in candy. Like I've always said, appropriation: it's art for the lazy.
Louis Vuitton Doggie Bag
Saturday, January 24th, 2009
Just wondering if this (Marc Jacob's Louis Vuitton monogram canvas "Fantasy Dog" bag pictured above on a Damier Sauvage rug) inspired this frightening little bit of LV appropriation art from Meryl Smith:

... that I blogged about a while back...
What do you think?
Marc's Louis Vuitton Fantasy Dog pic credit: Marina Faust
Zzzzzzzzz, snoozefest
Tuesday, December 23rd, 2008
What is it with "artists" using the Louis Vuitton monogram in weapons and ammunition?
Apparently, this was part of the communications campaign kit by design firm 21:19 for Bita Haidarian's autobiographical film, "Finding Bibi". I'm just done with the whole, use the iconic Louis Vuitton logo on a bullet or gun to make a political statement. It's been done OVER and OVER.
Done to Death
Monday, September 8th, 2008Uh... yeah. So bizarre. Not the concept of using the Louis Vuitton trademark logos on automatic weapons- that's been done to death. What's bizarre to me, is how similar the "new" Justin Melnick "ARM ME" exhibition is in comparison with Peter Gronquiest's The Revolution will be Fabulous- A Weapons of Mass Designer Show in LA just a couple months ago. I mean, is it possible that Justin's "images" are pictures of Peter's work? Take a look:
From Justin's exhibition:

From Peter's:

The fact is that the whole thing bugs me on several levels.
First, it's just not clever. Sure, it's disguised as clever, but it's just not. It's the oldest, easiest trick in the book. Use Louis Vuitton (and other luxury label's good names) obviously without their permission and on something ugly and controversial. Quick money.
Such a direct copy of an already lousy concept just demonstrates a lack of imagination. It's just not impressive at all- and again- actually is only remotely interesting considering the irony and the real battles that Louis Vuitton et. al wage with people copying them everyday.
Don't get me wrong- I think Peter's work is just as bad. He's clearly using illegally manufactured counterfeit scarves and unlicensed fabrics (you can see in closeups that these pieces aren't painted- but use glued on fabric) to produce these "pieces of art" (and I use that phrase loosely). All this does is perpetuate the very problem that both exhibitions are meant to make statements on. Read articles on the connection between counterfeits and terrorism HERE and HERE.
Just my opinion. And I can tell from all over the web, that there are a lot of folks out there impressed and entertained by Justin & Peter's work.




