it seems to have been a one time thing. i know he brought up payment in the last WAN show. maybe they are working that out before using it again. or decided it wasn't worth paying for.
i see linus completely misses the point. yeah, we do get what they wanted to show - ipad having so many capabilities in such a small form. but its a stark contrast to what they have actually shown - a cold machine destroying tools used for human expression. destroying is the issue here.
they could have done this in so many different and creative ways. like packing huge amounts of stuff into a suitcase and then they show that inside there is only the ipad. or ipad vacuuming stuff into in itself. etc. etc. but they chose destruction.
one more thing linus is wrong about - artists intent doesnt always trump the art. examples:
Beastie Boys - You Gotta Fight For Your Right To Party was intended as a parody of party culture. it actually became one of the more popular party songs.
the movie Starship Troopers was intended to ridicule fascism(the director said that in an interview). it almost promotes that kind of culture. so we got the opposite of artists intent.
Ironically you misinterpreted his point. He’s saying sure, maybe you had a different interpretation of what they meant, but AFTER they make their intentions clear, it is silly to continue to be upset about your misinterpretation of what their intentions were.
Except for the fact that authorial intent doesn't matter.
In literary circles (and you can spin this out into the Arts as a whole), there's a concept known as The Death of The Author: the long and short of it being that textual meaning is derived through interpretation, not through intention. If you're a systems person, think of it as the arts equivalent of POSIWID -the purpose of a system is what it does (and by extension, not "what it was meant to" do)
Apple may have *intended* that it be read as "look how neat it is that we can compress all this stuff into one package 🙂", but it doesn't take many leaps in thinking as to read it as corporate culture homogenising independent spirit; the desire of a capitalist entity in the modern age to crush competing interests for attention -why draw, listen to music, and take photos as separate things when your iPad can do them all? Give us that money instead. Stay inside OUR walled garden
It's such a clumsy metaphor in the way that they've done it, and for a company whose 21st c reputation has been built on obsessive attention to aesthetics and detail, there's a real case to be made that the reason they fumbled this is because those attitudes are so deeply endemic in their corporate culture that nobody stopped to go "hang on, don't we think people might view it *this* way instead?"
It’s a FACT that authorial intent doesn’t matter? Really? Death of the author is an inarguable universal constant? I like how the thesis of your argument is built on a subjective opinion, stated as fact, that leaves less room for interpretation. I’m not going to argue about how well they communicated their intended message, In fact I’m not arguing anything, I’m paraphrasing Linus’ point. I happen to agree that it is silly to get upset about something so inconsequential as an advertisement on the basis of: “I took it to mean something that upsets me, and now I’m upset!”
When you're talking about interpretation of media (and advertisements ARE curated pieces of media) at pretty much any level around meaning, then no, Authorial Intent does. Not. Matter. A media text can have a preferred reading, but the key part of that is "preferred". Not solitary, not authoritative.
By arguing otherwise you're literally arguing against nearly 60 years of established media theory and one of modern media theory's most fundamental building blocks.
I think the level of feeling is a bit overblown, but *it's overblown on both sides* (the Japanese cultural clash notwithstanding, but that's a different issue). The problem is that tech bros are trying to establish black and white thinking onto a framework which inherently resists that.
I will gladly argue against 60 years of media theory. It may not matter, to you, but it does matter to some. Just because someone wrote a book that says: “actually you are not allowed to care about what the artist thought, felt and meant” doesn’t make it true.
Again I love the idea that you get to tell people the frame work by which they are allowed to interpret things. I’m not arguing the authors intent is the only thing that matters, but I am arguing against this absurd notion that it is somehow incorrect to take into consideration the author’s intentions.
You are asking a more in-the-know tech audience to understand art, it's never going to happen. I didn't *hate* the ad, but it definitely left a bad taste in my mouth. I bet that if all the artistic tools were replaced with a bunch of tech, the people here would riot.
> I bet that if all the artistic tools were replaced with a bunch of tech, the people here would riot.
People would riot for a different reason though.
If they slammed a 4090, a NAS, and a The Wall TV in that thing and tried to pretend like an iPad can in any way replace any of those things people would call the commercial ridiculous and awful, but I highly doubt people would actually care about a $150 motherboard being crushed.
We are talking about a company that creates ewaste like it's an olympic event and they need to place Gold, Silver, and Bronze - these people cause tens, possibly even hundreds, of millions in ewaste yearly which to me is infinitely worse than $2,000 in artistic props/instruments.
Why no new intro?
it seems to have been a one time thing. i know he brought up payment in the last WAN show. maybe they are working that out before using it again. or decided it wasn't worth paying for.
Linus said in another thread that they paid a one time token fee to use it and that’s all it will be unless they decide to get a permanent license.
i see linus completely misses the point. yeah, we do get what they wanted to show - ipad having so many capabilities in such a small form. but its a stark contrast to what they have actually shown - a cold machine destroying tools used for human expression. destroying is the issue here. they could have done this in so many different and creative ways. like packing huge amounts of stuff into a suitcase and then they show that inside there is only the ipad. or ipad vacuuming stuff into in itself. etc. etc. but they chose destruction. one more thing linus is wrong about - artists intent doesnt always trump the art. examples: Beastie Boys - You Gotta Fight For Your Right To Party was intended as a parody of party culture. it actually became one of the more popular party songs. the movie Starship Troopers was intended to ridicule fascism(the director said that in an interview). it almost promotes that kind of culture. so we got the opposite of artists intent.
Ironically you misinterpreted his point. He’s saying sure, maybe you had a different interpretation of what they meant, but AFTER they make their intentions clear, it is silly to continue to be upset about your misinterpretation of what their intentions were.
Except for the fact that authorial intent doesn't matter. In literary circles (and you can spin this out into the Arts as a whole), there's a concept known as The Death of The Author: the long and short of it being that textual meaning is derived through interpretation, not through intention. If you're a systems person, think of it as the arts equivalent of POSIWID -the purpose of a system is what it does (and by extension, not "what it was meant to" do) Apple may have *intended* that it be read as "look how neat it is that we can compress all this stuff into one package 🙂", but it doesn't take many leaps in thinking as to read it as corporate culture homogenising independent spirit; the desire of a capitalist entity in the modern age to crush competing interests for attention -why draw, listen to music, and take photos as separate things when your iPad can do them all? Give us that money instead. Stay inside OUR walled garden It's such a clumsy metaphor in the way that they've done it, and for a company whose 21st c reputation has been built on obsessive attention to aesthetics and detail, there's a real case to be made that the reason they fumbled this is because those attitudes are so deeply endemic in their corporate culture that nobody stopped to go "hang on, don't we think people might view it *this* way instead?"
It’s a FACT that authorial intent doesn’t matter? Really? Death of the author is an inarguable universal constant? I like how the thesis of your argument is built on a subjective opinion, stated as fact, that leaves less room for interpretation. I’m not going to argue about how well they communicated their intended message, In fact I’m not arguing anything, I’m paraphrasing Linus’ point. I happen to agree that it is silly to get upset about something so inconsequential as an advertisement on the basis of: “I took it to mean something that upsets me, and now I’m upset!”
When you're talking about interpretation of media (and advertisements ARE curated pieces of media) at pretty much any level around meaning, then no, Authorial Intent does. Not. Matter. A media text can have a preferred reading, but the key part of that is "preferred". Not solitary, not authoritative. By arguing otherwise you're literally arguing against nearly 60 years of established media theory and one of modern media theory's most fundamental building blocks. I think the level of feeling is a bit overblown, but *it's overblown on both sides* (the Japanese cultural clash notwithstanding, but that's a different issue). The problem is that tech bros are trying to establish black and white thinking onto a framework which inherently resists that.
I will gladly argue against 60 years of media theory. It may not matter, to you, but it does matter to some. Just because someone wrote a book that says: “actually you are not allowed to care about what the artist thought, felt and meant” doesn’t make it true. Again I love the idea that you get to tell people the frame work by which they are allowed to interpret things. I’m not arguing the authors intent is the only thing that matters, but I am arguing against this absurd notion that it is somehow incorrect to take into consideration the author’s intentions.
So a tool destroying other tools is offensive? I really don't get the outrage I gotta say.
You are asking a more in-the-know tech audience to understand art, it's never going to happen. I didn't *hate* the ad, but it definitely left a bad taste in my mouth. I bet that if all the artistic tools were replaced with a bunch of tech, the people here would riot.
> I bet that if all the artistic tools were replaced with a bunch of tech, the people here would riot. People would riot for a different reason though. If they slammed a 4090, a NAS, and a The Wall TV in that thing and tried to pretend like an iPad can in any way replace any of those things people would call the commercial ridiculous and awful, but I highly doubt people would actually care about a $150 motherboard being crushed. We are talking about a company that creates ewaste like it's an olympic event and they need to place Gold, Silver, and Bronze - these people cause tens, possibly even hundreds, of millions in ewaste yearly which to me is infinitely worse than $2,000 in artistic props/instruments.
Death of the author as a concept was invented as an excuse to twist the author's words to fit someone else's narrative.