Studio GetIt Turns 36 Days of Type Into Sculptural CGI Vases

By Priya Raman

Studio GetIt completed 36 consecutive daily entries for 36 Days of Type, translating A–Z and 0–9 into one collection of sculptural CGI vases that hold vibrant flowers and greenery.

The annual 36 Days of Type challenge is described as a massive open call for designers and artists worldwide to design one letter or number each day for 36 consecutive days; the project provides no participation totals. Studio GetIt’s submission applies that graphic exercise to product visualization, pairing functional product design with the freedom of 3D rendering. Its concept is a collection of sculptural CGI typography vases.

That count matters. The project covers 26 letters and 10 numerals, so its most concrete achievement is a complete, sequenced set rather than a single decorative object. Yet “complete” should not be mistaken for finished merchandise. The published work consists of digital imagery; the project description gives no dimensions, fabrication method, material specifications, price, release date, or evidence that the rendered forms were manufactured or tested with plants.

How does a letter become a vase?

The project’s own wording puts the central move plainly: “Rather than treating letters as flat shapes,” Studio GetIt reimagined each character as a tactile, functional object. A letter’s outline becomes the vessel’s exterior, while flowers and greenery establish its use as a container.

That dual assignment creates the main visual test. Each form must remain recognizable as a character while accommodating stems and foliage. The studio varies the result across translucent glass forms, terrazzo-textured curves, and bold geometric stacks. These are simulated finishes in CGI, however, not evidence of production glass or cast terrazzo.

In visual terms, the collection reads less like a conventional alphabet display than like a set of small sculptural products. A conventional specimen sheet isolates characters on a flat field; here, volume, surface, and contents compete for attention.

That is the strongest claim the series supports: it demonstrates several material and geometric treatments for one shared prompt. It does not establish how many designs work physically, because the project gives no measurements, user testing, or functional trials.

What does CGI change?

The production method is not incidental. Studio GetIt used CGI to explore quirky textures, glossy surfaces, and dramatic lighting without reporting a physical-production process. The studio presents that freedom as a way to shift the object between industrial design and digital artwork, its own stated framing for the playful experiment.

For viewers, highlights supply gloss cues, transparency suggests glass, shadows give the geometric stacks depth, and flowers provide scale and a reason to look at an opening. The project specifies no vase heights, stem counts, or arrangement rules, so scale remains an impression generated by the renders rather than a measurable specification.

The series also turns repetition into variety. Each of the 36 prompts starts with a different character, but the studio applies recurring strategies: sculptural volume, tactile surfaces, bright contents, and staged illumination. The daily format gives the collection an editorial sequence, while the finished set lets viewers compare how one object brief behaves across letters and numerals. Its playfulness comes from that consistency paired with differences in silhouette and surface treatment.

Is it functional product design or digital art?

Both, at least as an art-direction concept. The project describes each vase as a standalone piece of modern art and asks, “Which letter or number vase belongs on the living room shelf?” That final question acknowledges the unresolved practical layer. Deciding where an object belongs presupposes ownership, room dimensions, and an actual product, none of which the project description supplies.

So the claim that the letters become functional vessels is credible within the image narrative but unverified as a product claim. A 3D render can show how a terrazzo-textured curve or translucent shell might look without documenting whether that form can be cast, cleaned, filled, or produced at a sensible cost. No such evidence appears here.

What the project does deliver is a concentrated experiment in the range of 36 familiar symbols. It treats typographic identity as shape, surface, and volume, and it uses flowers to make that reinterpretation legible at a glance. The constraint is also the point: one daily design produces a set with internal consistency and visible differences, rather than a loose gallery of unrelated vessels.

If Studio GetIt adds dimensions, fabrication notes, and documented flower arrangements, the series could move from an engaging CGI showcase toward a product system that buyers and makers can evaluate. Until then, the shelf question remains rhetorical—but the visual argument is already specific: letters can carry both recognition and use.