[flagged]
Being a snob about things isn’t as cool as you think it is.
What was the intent of the media?
This is obviously open to interpretation, but to me I see the intent being that all these tools for creative expression are being combined/squashed/pressed into this thing which is very thin. That's why they chose the press. They also chose the press because it looks visually interesting, they are trying to make a fun ad.
I really can't imagine that anyone in that ad was trying to imply that the iPad destroys those objects, or that those objects should be destroyed, or are now valueless. They are saying that this device contains the functionality of all these big items squashed into one crazy tiny thing. Amazement at what it can do, NOT a desire to destroy or make obsolete real pianos.
From that viewpoint, it's clear they VERY clumsily applied a metaphor (combining + crushing into the iPad) with a visually fun thing (the explosions), resulting in people thinking they want to destroy pianos.
But importantly (if one takes the above as true, which you may not), you can't then say that the ad is trying to "tell that those tools are valueless, obsolete, objects of ridicule", that's not the intent of the author.
But if you want to infer values of the company from an ad, and say things like "Apple wants to destroy pianos", then considering the intent of the author is absolutely relevant.
You cannot ignore the impact of artistic decisions and processes when considering a piece of work, and calling that a "lack of media literacy" is grossly oversimplifying artistic analysis. Intent is important, but so is the impact on the audience. Art is a conversation between artist and audience, and as pointed out by the article and the other comments here in the thread, the message missed for a significant percentage of the audience.
But no! They thought it was more fun to destroy everything. They wanted to make porn. They wanted to make their own little snuff movie.
And nobody in what one imagines to be a long chain of command, felt physically sick watching it.
The problem with the ad is in the semiotics -- the visual language of the ad was all about succession _through destruction_. The message was "all these things, that represent _good_ memories and experiences you've had, are now destroyed." And at the very end they show you a brief shot of the new iPad.
Where the hell were the focus groups on this one?
Did you miss the many colours of "blood" dripping from the crusher's jaws?
I have spent most of my childhood dreaming that someday, maybe, I would own a prime photo lens and a trumpet.
To see a big company make a mockery of those artefacts of human creativity almost makes me cry (it actually hurts a little).
This reminded me of an interesting documentary from the LA Times on the LA Unified School District's musical instrument repair shop.
https://www.latimes.com/shortdocs/la-short-docs-the-last-rep...
I remember there was a Scene in one of the more recent mission impossible movies where the director was interviewed as joking about how they budgeted to destroy 3 lamborgini's for a action sequence but ended up needing to destroy 4 of them. These were brand new, straight off the lot lambos that just got shot at, crashed, and blown up for the movie. No one cries about that, instead they marvel at the "practical effects" of the movie.
This isn't even a unique example. A lot or props that DON'T get destroyed and are just used for one quick scene, like a chello in the background, often go straight to the dump after the scene is filmed, because they just bring in a dump crew to get rid of everything.
I guess the difference is ignorance is bliss. People don't see the amount of absurd waste that happens in commercials and movies, so they can enjoy it. Strangly, even seeing it on screen (like a car blowing up) doesn't bother them. But a slow crushing of an instrument for 20 seconds does trigger them.
The amount of waste that this produced is inconsequential, not even a rounding error for the amount of waste that a warehouse up the street from anyone reading this is performing as you read this comment. And yes, there are so many of these companies creating unfathomable amounts of waste that no matter where you live, you have one probably within a few miles of your home that you never knew about.
I would tend to side with those that are triggered if these instruments were antiques that couldn't be replaced. However, these appeared to be common instruments. I actually play guitar and the guitar actually looks like a pretty cheap guitar. These get bought at Costco and returned and dumped everyday. They are commodities, they are pumped out of factories en masse in Vietnam and contain a hundred bucks of parts, wood, etc. Most of these guitars end up in the dump anyway. The upright piano is a little different because they tend to be several thousands of dollars, but again this looks like a modern, generic piano.
I am happy to have discussions about the vast amount of waste humans have, because it is truly unfathomable. Most people have no idea how bad the problem is. But watching some paints, a metronome, a single guitar and piano get destroyed is not even the beginning of the real problem. So if we want to have a discussion about waste, let's have it. It's a serious problem, but this feels like a joke that a handful of items that doesn't even equate to what an average American probably dumps when they move houses, seems like a stupid hill to die on.
Spoiler alert: humans have emotions. Apple will gladly spit in your face about emissions all while giving you less product (taking chargers out of iPhones) so they can save the environment (more like, their profits). Not everyone wants to see the message of hundreds of years of art history being destroyed all so you can purchase new product to make some soulless AI generated garbage.
Disingenuous prick.