revitalizer 2: regenerative wax lamp by merve kahraman revitalizer 2: regenerative wax lamp by merve kahraman
aug 12, 2012

revitalizer 2: regenerative wax lamp by merve kahraman

‘revitalizer 2’ by merve kahraman

the ‘revitalizer 2’ by london-based designer merve kahraman is a regenerative wax lighting piece that recreates itself over time as part of her ‘grow old series’. the design represents poetic transformation through metamorphosis: the wax embodying the cyclical death and rebirth of the object.

after the high voltage bulb inside the lamp melts, the material gradually collects into a retainer and the heat resistance inside the core allows the wax to create a new mold. once the wax cools down and takes its shape, one can take it out and replace it into the top compartment. the result is a soft glow created by the dripping substance, creating an ambience that is continually evolving.

kahmaran describes the philosophy behind the concept:

‘this project is motivated by a desire to create solutions to the negative effects of obsolescence, excessive consumerism, technology and lack of emotional attachment between users and their products. ‘grow old series’ consists of objects that have the ability to transform and recreate themselves, representing cycles.

the ultimate purpose is to design products with a poetic quality and create an emotional attachment even before interaction, which surprise users and engage their imaginations and emotions.’

after the high voltage bulb inside the lamp melts, the material gradually collects into a retainer

the heat resistance inside the core allows the wax to create a new mold

a video demonstrating the wax lamp concept

  • this is one of the baddest rip offs i\’ve ever seen. he was \”inspired\” by the famous lamp ikarus by Aylin Kayser and Christian Metzner. i feel pity for a \”designer\” like this, who takes a wonderful and by now well known piece of great work and turns it in something like this. even if he hadn\’t took the idea it would be an terrible design. but in awareness of ikarus its just poor and presuming behavior and damages the image of designers nowadays. it\’s to cry for

    makeyourownstuff says:
  • this projct goes a little beyond Aylin Kayser and Christian Metzner\’s ikarus lamp. if ikarus already made though a statement on sustainability, this one in turn takes the statement to the level of (re)usability. that ought to be (and mean) something more. further than taht, Merve Kahraman (and, for what it matters, all designers walking the Earth!) has the full right (and obligation) to recreate upon others\’ work (should the due mention be made for both the project\’s clarification and intelegibility).
    being the sheer act of designing an object, (also) the usage of material vocabulary and building upon others work, be they known or the historical colective unknown (see, for instance, Jasper Morrison), why, for Fukasawa\’s sake, could a designer not: (go to Ikea, buy and) dismantle some product in parts; go to a carpenter and have a new part executed – or make it him/herself; take another designer\’s idea/product (an idea as it seems) and reinvent it into a (new) proposal – one that actually is better than the one which might have been the starting point? huh?
    for all i can see, Kahraman defined (or, more accurately, interpreted) very well what can be perceived as a creating degree zero in a post industrialist world.

    vasco p. alves says:
  • I think I have seen this before. Shame designers stopped doing their research.

    http://christian-metzner.com/2012/ikarus/

    D. says:
  • This is just a bad copy and this person should be ashamed of : copying OR not knowing the previous project.

    Bad says:
  • This lamp is amazing! Never come across it before. What a subtle and captivating concept. Anyone know if you can buy these in New Zealand or Australia and if so what\’s the price?

    Nic says:
  • Some of these comments on top are funny:)

    Wax has been used for lighting and decoration purposes for the last 2000 years. It\’s not like this is a cutting edge innovation, but just two very cool lamps made of the same ancient material. I mean you could argue that Icarus copied the Lava Lamp and etc. This lamp anyway is a more of a home appliances object then the Icarus.

    Congrats really cool design!

    design4peace says:
  • forget the ikarus lamp! check this out they both ripped this guy off!!

    http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Candle-flame-no-reflection.jpg

    hahahaha, just another case of hate towards the second man to make a 4 legged chair. I missed the part where the ikarus lamp gets turned upside down and turned into a new lamp again. considering that wax is historically used for lighting, and melting is a big part of the process, is it really that insulting and mind blowing that their would be more than one persons project that harnesses these 2 common elements? and on top of that the forms of each lamp are completely different, oooooo he used wax and it melts! what a jerk!

    chill internet, chill

    Daedalus says:
  • to vasco p. alves: i try to be more comprehensible. What i think you tried to speak for was appropriation in design. there are certain rules for taking a piece of art, design or whatever and giving it a new meaning trough rewriting it\’s former one. that technique is indisputable. but kahraman did not appropriate, he destroyed the aesthetic of ikarus and turned it into one of these \”totally trendy machines\” because it\’s en vouge. look at the work that he has done before. same mechanism same cruel design, same lame idea. and i guess then he saw ikarus and took his old stuff and combined it. if you will he not just copied ikarus without rethinking it, he just copied himself too. so that it is just the same eclectic ignorance and boldness you see all the time. btw that handling is one of the reasons postmodernism is discredited. Louis ghost (phillip starck), cramer (konstantin gricic) and many more are examples for this matter. if you don\’t understand the difference between appropriation and copying, talk to someone who does.

    makeyourownstuff says:
  • to design4peace:
    if you want to be bigheaded you have to do better argumentation. ikarus and lavalamp? really?
    That\’s like saying… i don\’t know what to reply to that. it\’s not about the wax. it\’s about an electric lamp which melts the wax in a certain way. this way hasn\’t been there before ikarus and it was a sensation. taking a famous piece of design and turning it into this is just the worst kind of contempt.
    it\’s the same thing you hear from people who know nothing about art: \”why is this so famous. i could have done that myself.\” but they didn\’t!!! just painting it blue makes you no ives klein. and just taking wax makes it not a good design. it\’s the idea who does.

    makeyourownstuff says:
  • *which

    makeyourownstuff says:
  • to makeyourownstuff:

    I guess you are trying to promote ikarus lamp through this article, since it is obviously your design:)

    I think both of the lamps are very beautiful. What makes Kaharaman\’s special is not actually how the wax falls but how it preserves and remoulds itself in the cup. I think that is a very unique and environmentally friendly take on lighting.

    design4peace says:
  • 1- Personal Comments:

    It is quite interesting how the wax melts from the inner cylindrical surface of the wax towards outside, that should be reflecting the light much more penetrating at the late melting, which would obviously increase awareness towards the user (or the owner) that it is the time to re-maintain the cycle. By this process, I believe it is useful and owner-friendly in the sense that it naturally generates a signaling system. A good advantage will be that the wax, as a choice of material, will offer her to apply various colours to the system. Also when used with caution, which appears quite minimal, this product is safer than many other illuminatory objects or so-called wax/light implementations.

    At a glance, I was quite unsure about the easyness or the comfort of the recycling process. Main point of this argument was that, \”does the wax melts down in perfect uniform pattern so that the upcoming lower surface will be flat?\”. But then I realized that she applied a melting system for the pot from the bottom, which probably was added later on after trying the system for the first time or so; but was a very intelligent way of optimizing the system.

    2- To makeyourownstuff,

    First of all, you writing so aggressively and impatiently clearly shows how biased you are. Could yourself be more creative than your comments, or is it some kind of a misunderstanding of the idea of design- should there be only one designer who focuses over melting down a wax? Obviously the piece is not a copy and seems quite authentic. Unlike your comments, I believe she has clearly introduced a new and appliable version of wax implementation.

    I suggest you to reconsider your perception towards design and be respectful to others without even having any authority in the league; and please try not to appear like a freshman arts student, I think you can do better than that.

    In essence, this product appeared quite lovely to me, and if I could find it with a reasonable price, I would happily purchase it. Thanks Merve Kahraman.

    cnichols says:
  • Just read the comments and couldn’t prevent myself to write sth. Commenters such as makeyourownstuff or D., your comments appear absurd and effortless compared to her cool design. i think its a great idea and should be provoked and published in these kinds of media sorcues much more.

    also just please consider the concept “grow old series”!

    her main attention was towards a renewable process and this one seems verry suitable, congratz

    lehmann says:
  • pictures are quite professional just as the product! I am not an expert of it but I will buy this piece if it will be produced. Just imagine how different and original it will seem in a crowded area such as a restaurant or hotel. Nice idea by designer merve kahraman.

    Good! says:
  • Blaming designers by being shameful requires authority in some point (to comment of D and bad, who are you to write such lol :D)

    absolutely better than a lot of objects in this site.

    I must not that by doing this comment I also contribute, but why do they allow everyone to comment these stuff, people can be irrelevant to the idea or concept or biased such as cnichols states above. I see some failing comments, this lamp is good…

    stprice says:
  • Wow, its horrible reading really ignorant dialogues (makeyourownstuff), trying to use art terminology and flat out butchering it and themselves. Appropriation… blah blah blah. ” You get a gold star for today!”
    Icarus: follows the quiet charm of Drooog What was in “en vogue” 10+ years ago. It’s a great concept, wonderfully rendered and beautiful to look at. With that said; this lamp is interesting in it’s own right. Not a copy, wax melting as said above has been around for millennia, who’s to lay claim to who invented it. They both share that they are lamp shades, but the function/ process is intensely different. One is the shade for a pendant, hanging high, once it melts over the course of a night or a month – its gone. It’s process is temporal (this ones for you), once it’s done it cannot be repeated. I mean you could buy another one, but much like physics declares, it cannot be repeated in exactly the same way. On the other hand this project, shares the wax shade, but it doesn’t die (?), and its a side table/lamp, the basin below the lamp catches the shades wax, once it hardens the shade is made anew.
    Instead of looking at the basic concept, melting wax – the max being a lamp shade. Look at the process, the function of the object. Base that on all the things you’ve learned and make a valid decision. Don’t just pop on the comments and ramble off something or attack someone elses comment. Think about those big art words, think about the design. This isn’t just art, it’s also design.

    Gimmy says:
  • good morning 🙂

    makeyourownstuff, you do have a point when (angrily, it seemed) referring to the \”totally trendy machines\” in a deprecative way. at a first glance, the project also brought this \”minor\” problem of trendiness to my attention and, believe it or not, i too have a couple issues with this kind of projects (mostly because they are mystifying the discipline of design rather than clarifying it: see the case of lawyers or doctors or teachers, every mortal understands their profession). but, guess what? the products\’s arena is also made of cynical objects, poetic objects, experimental objects, partial or completely handmade objects… so i guess designers don`t really have the monopoly of creating them. the fact is even if, as you mention and i don`t agree, all the designer\’s other objects might be a reproduction of the same idea, the one here in appreciation is in fact a good evolution of precedent products/technologies mankind has been using and evolving. does it mean it is already a good product? i don\’t know: it does use (what it seems to be) an halogen bulb and a heat resistance to process the wax and that comes with costs… by presenting a charming, functional solution for the reuse of a material (forget for a moment the entropy issues and the vanity of the design scene), the designer really achieved something positive here.

    vasco.p.alves says:
  • This design is wonderful.

    To comment briefly:

    -Great and original idea, liked it!
    -Pretty good workmanship, reflected with elucidative photos
    -Highly adaptible to her concept series (Grow Old Series)

    jmcarthur says:
  • What a plagiat of Ikarus wax lamp!
    If you steal ideas, do it at least better!
    Try harder!

    Stephan T. says:

have something to add? share your thoughts in our comments section below.

comments policy
LOG IN
designboom's comment policy guidelines
generally speaking, if we publish something, it's because we're genuinely interested in the subject. we hope you'll share this interest and if you know even more about it, please share! our goal in the discussion threads is to have good conversation and we prefer constructive opinions. we and our readers have fun with entertaining ones. designboom welcomes alerts about typos, incorrect names, and the like.
the correction is at the discretion of the post editor and may not happen immediately.

what if you disagree with what we or another commenter has to say?
let's hear it! but please understand that offensive, inappropriate, or just plain annoying comments may be deleted or shortened.

- please do not make racist, sexist, anti-semitic, homophobic or otherwise offensive comments.
- please don't personally insult the writers or your fellow commenters.
- please avoid using offensive words, replacing a few letters with asterisks is not a valid workaround.
- please don't include your website or e-mail address in your comments for the purpose of self-promotion.
- please respect jury verdicts and do not discuss offensively on the competition results
(there is only one fist prize, and designboom usually asks renown professionals to help us to promote talent.
in addition to the awarded designs, we do feel that almost all deserve our attention, that is why we publish
the best 100-200 entries too.)

a link is allowed in comments as long as they add value in the form of information, images, humor, etc. (links to the front page of your personal blog or website are not okay). unwelcome links (to commercial products or services of others, offensive material etc. ) will be redacted. and, ... yes, spam gets banned. no, we do not post fake comments.

design news