I've seen a few people mistake the outrage felt by artists as them misunderstanding the concept. I'm an artist, and I understand the concept just fine (all these tools are squeezed into the form factor of an iPad! Our thinnest one ever!) but the visual itself is tone deaf. Especially with artists feeling so threatened by tech companies this year, using a metaphor that shows their tools quite literally being crushed is insensitive.
It's a bit like if you made a video that showed my dog getting crushed in a hydraulic press and replaced with a tamagotchi-like device. Like, I get the idea, but it still makes me want to cry.
2. Something that is grossly offensive to decency, morality, or good taste.
3. Resentful anger aroused by a violent or offensive act, or an instance of this.
I think people are just a little critical, more than they are outraged. I have a deep hope that you're not outraged.
I'm typically critical of Apple's value and technology, but I am far more offended by what is a clear oversensitivity to art, and expression, which is by far the greater crime to the arts and to society as a whole.
The idea that people can't make art or express themselves for fear of other artists' outrage is what's truly outrageous.
To set my bias, I'm surrounded by music people and their instrument is basically an extension of themselves, they spent hours everyday touching it, for their whole life since 4. For some it's also the most expensive thing they own.
Some violinists are put off by music videos with violins played in the rain. Apple's ad would be traumatic.
> The idea that people can't make art or express themselves for fear of other artists' outrage is what's truly outrageous.
Eliciting a reaction is part of art, and people getting outraged is par for the course. You're also totally free to outraged at the outrage, that's the cycle.
On the other hand, many rock guitarists have destroyed guitars on-stage as an act of expression. Destruction is a perfectly valid mode of expression this way, and there's no "correct" way to handle an instrument just because one group of individuals idolise the form over its function.
That said, this is exactly what is interesting and "triggering" to many about the ad, IMO. That it emphasises destruction, and therefore is a metaphor for the replacement of material expression with the immaterial, or something along those lines.
Just to add, I play guitar every day. I don't handle my guitar with care: I ding it against walls, toss it onto the couch, fail to clean it as regularly as I should, drive with it in my car using no case to do so. But I love my guitar very much, because it enables me to play beautiful (to me) music. I don't want to be burdened by the "perfection" of my guitar. To each their own, I say.
I think modern guitars have their own niche, with a whole scene of people building, modifying, tweaking their guitars, and a flurry of accessories, variants and innovations that expand the artistic range.
I kinda feel it's not so far from synthesizers in a way.
Wind instruments will also probably fall in the "handle casually" space, while still sensible to being dinged and needing care ?
Classic instruments have a harsher split between the centuries old instruments that just can't be replaced [0], and the modern versions that are left mostly for amateurs or pros expanding their range and aiming for different sounds. That's where pro instruments end up at five~six figures prices, and are definitely not tossed around.
[0] I remember being told by a player that their instrument was there before their birth and will still be in people's hands way after they die.
I think that's broadly true, and possibly an aesthetic thing that in part is what pushes me away from certain types of classical music, but look up, for example, Rushad Eggleston[image: 0] for a counter-example of whether or not classical instruments (cello, here) are "allowed" to be tossed around.
I certainly want to put my guitar down and stop recording artists if I'm going to be faced with violence or any of the lesser definitions of the word "outrage."
You can dislike something without being outraged. Well, right up until someone is outraged with you. Then you can't say that you like or dislike things anymore.
That seems like a terrible society to live in. It's the one we're experiencing.
> I'm surrounded by music people and their instrument is basically an extension of themselves, they spent hours everyday touching it, for their whole life since 4. For some it's also the most expensive thing they own.
Meh. I was very into music growing up, and still play. It doesn't bother me in the least to see a musical instrument that is not my own being destroyed, any more than I have a reaction to seeing a car being destroyed in a movie ("some people really love cars!") or someone blowing up a building ("some people really love architecture!") or an artwork being burned/modified/mutilated ("some people really love art!"), or food being wasted/destroyed ("some people really love cooking!") all of which are more-or-less common in mass media.
(To wit: someone else here pointed out the OK Go music videos where they -- professional musicians! -- destroy all sorts of things, including musical instruments. Those were great, btw.)
While I do not exclude the possibility that some people may have feelings in reaction to seeing a generic musical instrument being destroyed, you can extend this metaphor to any number of areas where it's completely accepted to see similar acts of destruction.
> Some violinists are put off by music videos with violins played in the rain. Apple's ad would be traumatic.
More likely is that a few people are truly bothered, but lots of people engage in performative outrage for attention, which is so common that we have a name for it: pearl-clutching.
A better reference for us could be to look at a monitor getting smudged with greasy fingers, people eating crisps above a keyboard, or a ball pen repeatedly scratching an 8k monitor ?
If you truly value art and expression, then why do you oppose people expressing themselves when they say they don't like the ad?
The society you want is the one we have - an expression was made by Apple, and in response, thousands of artists have made their own expressions. This is what a society of free expression looks like.
The world you're arguing for would be one where the expressions of tech companies are beyond reproach and other people are not allowed to express themselves in response. Why should tech companies get that special treatment?
In my opinion, it says something about your mentality that you value the expression of one group but not the other.
I hate this idea - this apparent concern that Apple is getting "silenced". There is no such thing as being "silenced" when you're a billion dollar company. Moreover, the apparent "silencing" is simply people using their freedom of expression to voice an opinion of opposition. It is the core feature of being able to express oneself.
The ability of these common artists being able to speak their true thoughts against a billion dollar institution - and the institution feeling pressure to respond to them - is the whole point of having the freedom of expression. What else is even the point of allowing discussion, dissent, and expression if you don't want those to have any chance of affecting some outcome?
Interesting. I didn't say any of that. I'm saying "outrage" is too strong. You don't need to cancel someone else to express yourself. Note the downvotes for example.
Maybe they were trying to appeal to the MAGA audience, the same way Kristi Noem was so sure she could win the Vice Presidency by bragging and doubling and tripling down on shooting a puppy and a goat in the face with a shotgun.
It's a bit like if you made a video that showed my dog getting crushed in a hydraulic press and replaced with a tamagotchi-like device. Like, I get the idea, but it still makes me want to cry.