Stunning zip tie ring, and likely a good project to (re)make if you’re in to casting your own jewelry – [via] Link.
Update: Colleen suggests the following statement about this project – “This ring by the artist Metalnat is a good example of jewelry made from everyday objects. Reusing or purposing a disposable item and making it permanent. What items from around your home could be cast?'”
74 thoughts on “Zip tie ring”
Comments are closed.
ADVERTISEMENT
Support Make:
Join Make: Community Today
Join Make: Community Today
Why is that ziptie backwards?
That’s the first thing I noticed too.
That’s the first thing I noticed too.
That rules.
Why not spraypaint a real zip tie…
They make some fairly realistic metallic looking paint for plastics.
yeah- notcot ran this yesterday and I can’t understand why it would be considered anything but lame due to the fact that it’s inserted backwards.
i don’t know how much more clearly i could have said this, it’s pretty much all i said “likely a good project to (re)make if you’re in to casting your own jewelry”
It’s probably backwards to allow it to be tight enough for the finished ring to stay on, but still allow slipping the zip-tie off the finger. Or maybe it was made that way so the super-critics would self-identify. :-P
Paint would rapidly wear off a real zip-tie, as evidenced by every metallic plastic cell phone out there.
That looks to be in a strange configuration so that there aren’t hard edges pressed against the wearer, and its not painted plastic because something in so persistent contact as a ring needs to be of something that won’t react with the wearer’s skin, like silver or a good jewlery alloy. Also, plastic is generally considered meh jewlery, and it would wear rapidly, as has been mentioned.
i think many of you are missing the point. who wants to wear an actual zip tie? the idea is to take something transient and disposable and turn it into something beautiful and precious and lasting. it is a piece of art.
also, as a fellow artist, i really have a problem with this publication suggesting people replicate an artist’s work rather than helping to support them and their idea. especially if you are going to use the artists photo!!!
Wow! Are you really encouraging people to copy this artist’s work? For shame!
@Shannon – i think “inspire” is closer to why we put art here on MAKE…
i am sorry, but your caption really suggests you are encouraging people to make this on their own.
@nina – the artist can choose to never show the world their works if they don’t want anyone to ever look at it – it’s out in the world to inspire, to admire – maybe someone will learn casting because of something like this.
To use the phrase re(make), it gives the clear message that “one” could make it themselves.
Nowhere does the description state it is inspirational and go and buy one.
I feel you are encouraging others to “copy” this work. Copying an MP3 from an artist that is a millionaire is somehow acceptable to the masses, and it then becomes acceptable to copy a single artists work.
Shame on you. Support individual artists, don’t rip them off.
@Chris – we’re not going to demand that people buy anything – usually when we post something on MAKE lots of people investigate the projects and buy thing (many artists/crafters send their projects to appear on MAKE all the time. it’s up to the readers here to get inspired, follow a link to buy, or just ignore any of this.
i don’t see what this has to do with MP3s, this is a metal ring.
“(re)make” is a category here on MAKE to inspire people to learn new things.
where are there examples of a zip tie ring factory being built and this artist not getting supported? if anything this artist has had more inquires and more traffic from MAKE and other places.
are you the artist? feel free to email me directly.
“likely a good project to (re)make if you’re in to casting your own jewelry”
That is flat out telling people to try to make one themselves. I’m curious if you asked the artist before you posted this here?
Not the artist no.
I just think saying
++++++
to (re)make if you’re in to casting your own jewelry
++++
is quite clear in its meaning.
as opposed to
“if you like it, pop by their site…”
True, lots of people will see their work, but your caption is belittling of it.
The MP3 reference I thought was clear. You are implying that people copy their work. It is somewhat acceptable to the masses to steal a music artists work, and that is where the ethical barrier breaks peoples perception of copying and stealing others work.
i am not stating that everyone steals mp3 tunes, but it is almost acceptable, but in essence, what is the difference from that, to your caption above.
All I said was “Shame on you. Support individual artists, don’t rip them off.”
That still stands for me.
@Kathryn – “That is flat out telling people to try to make one themselves. I’m curious if you asked the artist before you posted this here?”
no, it isn’t “flat out” telling people to make one. i wrote the post, i know exactly what i meant – (re)makes are to inspire others to learn new skills. i don’t think any artist would say they go where they were without being inspired by something.
we did not “ask” the artist if we could write about their work on our site – for same the same reason the artist didn’t “ask” the zip tie manufacturer if it was ok to make a ring from their zip tie.
@Chris – the site is linked, that’s universal for “if you like it, pop by their site…” that’s how the web works. if we didn’t link to the artist then i could understand someone being upset, but we linked, people clicked it – usually people are excited to get featured on MAKE since it brings in lots of sales and interest.
i still don’t understand the mp3 reference.
I see the mp3 reference.
Perhaps if it were phrased differently it would be less contenious.
For instance, ‘This ring by the artist Metalnat is a good example of jewelry made from everyday objects. Reusing or purposing a disposable items and making it permanent. What items from around your home could be cast?’
I see the mp3 reference.
Perhaps if it were phrased differently it would be less contentious.
For instance, ‘This ring by the artist Metalnat is a good example of jewelry made from everyday objects. Reusing or repurposing a disposable item and making it permanent. What items from around your home could be cast?’
Way to encourage ripping off artists!
the fact that you continue to justify it is disgusting
“we did not “ask” the artist if we could write about their work on our site – for same the same reason the artist didn’t “ask” the zip tie manufacturer if it was ok to make a ring from their zip tie.”
Good luck with that one legally if someone gets angry! I am a jewelry artist and I would be mad as hell if you stated that someone could remake or be inspired to cast something similar. Whether a simple idea or complex, an original idea is not something that artist enjoy seeing others copy or use.
PT
Linking to someones work is one thing.
Saying
“…to (re)make if you’re in to casting your own jewelry”
is about a billion miles away from that.
I am not surprised that you miss the MP3 reference if you think the above is acceptable.
No artist likes to their work next to anything along the lines of “this would make a fun project- you should try it.”
@pt – You said: “i think “inspire” is closer to why we put art here on MAKE…”
In the world of independent art and design, there is a fine line between “inspire” and “copy”. If you do not understand how your caption crossed that line, you must not be an artist. I think that from the responses you have gotten here, you should spend less time defending yourself and more time coming up with a more appropriate caption. You have obviously struck a nerve…
(And from browsing your archives, I see this is not the first time you have encouraged people to copy – oh, I’m sorry “(re)make” – an independent artist’s work.)
i’ll try and address these the best i can…
first, i’m glad everyone here is talking about this project and art in general, good discussion – thanks for keeping it civil.
@Colleen – the wording you had is good, i think the same people who have a problem with what i wrote would have a problem with what you’re saying – they’re suggesting that having the project here with link to the artist is encouraging file-sharing like behavior.
@R – no one is ripping of artists, i think that’s pretty silly to say something like that.
@Christine – it’s called “remake” not resell, encouraging people to check out something cool an artist made and learn the skills to do something like it for their own personal benefit is a lot different than if we had a category called “resell” or “steal this art”. it’s called remake, so people consider making something.
@e – there are many many artists who say “please try this” – last week an artist released “the source code” for their works here on MAKE.
@Shannon – again, it’s called remake, encouraging people to look at something cool from an artist and learn the skills to do something like it. “copy” is very different, it’s not called copy, it’s called (re)make. dozens of artists and crafters make their living from doing things with MAKE.
the comments here are good, they’re part of the post – so as readers check this out they’ll see everything you’ve said too.
If your intent is truly “encouraging people to look at something cool from an artist and learn the skills to do something like it”
I would recommend that you start by asking the artist whose work you plan on showing if they would like their pieces shown in this context.
Then I would recommend that you use a caption like the one suggested by Colleen.
And lastly, perhaps you could explain casting and the process to make it educational for your audience so that they could ‘learn the skills’.
“there are many many artists who say “please try this” – last week an artist released “the source code” for their works here on MAKE.”
common sense –, get permission from the original artist (who may make her living from these, you’re undercutting her business). If s/he agrees that you can post suggesting to duplicate the piece (riiiight), then go for it. Posting this suggestion without permission from the original artist is a dirtball move.
@Kathryn – this is a blog post, a short one to inspire. i really liked this ring and i wrote about it briefly. people see the things we post and search the make archives (and using search engines like google) to learn more, sometimes we devote entire articles to a process (like casting, but don’t have that one yet). in the past we have cover similar projects, here’s one…
http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2007/06/how_to_make_a_green_lante.html
thanks for the comments, this post is about 4 months old – if and when i cover it again i’ll add some some of the feedback you mentioned.
Pt- it is Possible that people would also find my suggestion of rephrasing too close to the original but it was a quick attempt to rephrase in a way that the artist might prefer.
***
My suggestion was-
For instance, ‘This ring by the artist Metalnat is a good example of jewelry made from everyday objects. Reusing or purposing a disposable item and making it permanent. What items from around your home could be cast?’
***
I am emphasizing the ‘artist Metalnat’ and encouraging the viewer to Also think alternatively. Saying ‘can you also repurpose a household item?’ rather then ‘can you repurpose This household item’. Semantics perhaps but it seemed like a good distinction.
@r – i edited your comment, please do not curse.
how exactly is posting this interesting ring, with a link to the artist’s site undercutting a business? can you show examples of people selling identical rings from the information here? no, there isn’t anything other than saying it’s a cool project, good to “remake” if you’re interested in casting your own jewelry.
@Colleen – as far as i know the artist hasn’t posted here or contacted me about anything – are you the artist? do you represent them?
your comment is a good one, i have no problem with adding a reader comment like this to the post.
you too can have people tell you you’re unethical for encouraging someone making something they think is interesting :)
It’s something COMPLETELY different when the artist posts their own “source code”, than when you take an image of an artist’s work, without notifying them or asking permission, and say something like “you could (re)make this”. You don’t even mention who the artist is! Have some decency and moral decorum and at least mention the artist’s name (MetalNat). I would hate to find out if any of my work was up here and people were encouraged to “(re)make” it. You bet you’d be contacted by a lawyer then.
@Catherine – actually you don’t need permission to write about an artist’s work and even use a picture. this of course opens up a lot of discussion of fair use, it’s not black and white but i’m pretty confident this falls in to fair use.
we do link to the artist’s site, i think you’ll agree to that, when this post went up 4 months ago now we used our old format of linking to things, we’d put “- Link” – now we try and add more descriptive words to the links, i don’t have any problem updating the post with more information, but i do think it’s not right to say everyone needs permission from anyone for anything they do, did MetalNat ask the zip tie company for permission to make these great rings? of course not.
Just ran across this. Interesting that people are concerned about the intellectual property rights of an “artist” who pirated patented objects and recast them in a different material. Rather like MC hammer using the intro from “Superfreak” by Rick james, or Kid Rock using the intro from “Werewolves of London”.