4 ms·

[flagged]

by bambax 2y ago

[flagged]

amgcbus 2y ago
I was flowing you until the analogy of crushing babies.
- davidmurdoch 2y ago
  Same. Replace condoms with abortion clinic and the analogy might a little more accurate - but only because I suspect some will see it as story about murdering souls and some will see it as beneficial and necessary. But even then it's still quite a stretch.
- bambax 2y ago
  I chose the analogy to try to reach people who don't find absolutely revolting the sight of musical instruments or photo lenses being destroyed. 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).
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
heeton 2y ago
There's a real element of media literacy (or lack thereof) that we have to consider in this issue. 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.
- speff 2y ago
  The intent of the author shouldn't matter when it comes to advertising - it's not the viewer's responsibility to figure out a deeper/alternative meaning. The ad company is injecting themselves between the viewer and the media they actually want to watch. The onus is on the advertiser to make the message as clear as possible to the viewer who doesn't care - and if it misses the mark, it's the advertiser which failed. Not the viewer's lack of effort on understanding it.
  - heeton 2y ago
    I agree, and I don't think this is a good ad for all those reasons. 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.
- mwigdahl 2y ago
  The whole point was the destruction -- they spent basically all the time in the ad on slow, loving shots of all these artifacts being mangled and crushed. They weren't being combined, subsumed, or absorbed -- they were being flat out destroyed. And not quickly -- slowly and remorselessly. 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?
- bambax 2y ago
  But there are many ways to show that the iPad incorporates all of those things. Make a mini character enter the iPad and visit a succession of caves, each one full of artists doing art with traditional tools. Or put mini instruments in a drawer, one after the other, and when the drawer is opened again it only contains an iPad. 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.
- 2y ago

[flagged]

by bambax 2y ago

[flagged]

amgcbus 2y ago

I was flowing you until the analogy of crushing babies.

davidmurdoch 2y ago
Same. Replace condoms with abortion clinic and the analogy might a little more accurate - but only because I suspect some will see it as story about murdering souls and some will see it as beneficial and necessary. But even then it's still quite a stretch.
bambax 2y ago
I chose the analogy to try to reach people who don't find absolutely revolting the sight of musical instruments or photo lenses being destroyed. 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).
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

heeton 2y ago

There's a real element of media literacy (or lack thereof) that we have to consider in this issue. 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.

speff 2y ago
The intent of the author shouldn't matter when it comes to advertising - it's not the viewer's responsibility to figure out a deeper/alternative meaning. The ad company is injecting themselves between the viewer and the media they actually want to watch. The onus is on the advertiser to make the message as clear as possible to the viewer who doesn't care - and if it misses the mark, it's the advertiser which failed. Not the viewer's lack of effort on understanding it.
- heeton 2y ago
  I agree, and I don't think this is a good ad for all those reasons. 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.
mwigdahl 2y ago
The whole point was the destruction -- they spent basically all the time in the ad on slow, loving shots of all these artifacts being mangled and crushed. They weren't being combined, subsumed, or absorbed -- they were being flat out destroyed. And not quickly -- slowly and remorselessly. 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?
bambax 2y ago
But there are many ways to show that the iPad incorporates all of those things. Make a mini character enter the iPad and visit a succession of caves, each one full of artists doing art with traditional tools. Or put mini instruments in a drawer, one after the other, and when the drawer is opened again it only contains an iPad. 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.
2y ago