Honestly, for me things like this are not mildly interesting, but infuriating. I don't care how pretty it is, it's not gonna sound better because of aesthetics. Hell, although I'm not sure on this case, musical instruments crafted to look pretty will often sound worse. And I don't support savaging nature just to find shit to make fancy ass things for pedophile sociopaths that dedicate their lives to making things worse for everyone else.
Just to infuriate you more: Plastics originally were viewed as a great alternative to such waste - instead of ivory, tortoiseshell, mother of pearl, expensive wood, you could use this human-made, often much stronger, material in different colors.
There is something incredibly poetic about the hubris and cruelty required to create an instrument or other tool that enables art, something that does makes us distinct from the animals, out of the remains of needlesly taken lives. Transcending through art beyond human morals, somehow landing us back in the dirt with other worms, struggling only to self-satisfy. It's only fitting that it looks pretty, it better does when the price is so high.
One could argue that every instrument made out of wood is needlessly taking lives, since the tree died. It's also possible to extend the argument so that every instrument is needlessly taking lives, since no matter what material you use requires use of energy and we have no way to generate energy without something dying.
The question naturally comes down to what is needless. Needless for what? Needless according to whom? When it comes to art, as music does, it is completely subjective. It is completely valid to think this use of materials is needless but who's to say what's correct. The marker of this probably didn't think their work was needless.
I'll counter your trees with my humans. Would you agree that skinning children to make drums would be "needlessly cruel"? The creator might have thought that it was necessary for whatever reason, but neither the children nor any sane observer would agree. It's fine to disagree on what's moral and what's not, and it's up to the invidual to decide for themselves. I think killing turtles for vanity project is cruel, especially since you have all those trees that just deserve to be carved up for being so tall. I believe there is some common ground most interested parties can agree on. And if not, then the situation is probably quite complicated and you should rethink making those drums.
If it hadn't used mother of pearl and tortoiseshell, which weren't particularly rare at the time, they would have used things like rosewood, ebony, and ivory. So either way, precious materials were going to be used.
At least they are being used in the service of Art, and Music, instead of something vain, or selfish, like jewelry or beauty accessories. If these materials are going to be harvested anyway, using them to create a fine musical instrument, which can then be used to create beautiful music for a century, or possibly longer, is a worthy use of those precious natural materials.
It's not that I disagree with you. I do think I get where you're coming from.
I specifically have a problem with those looks being prioritized. I mean, think about it if they're worried more about the appearance than they are about the sound quality, that hubris has become straight up pride. But I'm not talking like the positive connotation. I'm talking pride as in the sin from the Bible.
I do think that there are layers to the corruption in play here. It'd be plenty evil even if it sounded good and looked bad, since cruelty and stuff. Pianos are expensive, and were even more back in 1853, so having and playing one was a hobby limited to elites, which had to exploit the work of the poor to afford it and the rest of their luxurious lifestyle, which makes it worse again. Due to it being one of the possible symbols of the class status, it's very ownership rather than a function became a priority, which then made it a piece of visual art to be admired rather than the tool to create such art, which degenerated the meaning of such expense even further. The author most likely wasn't thinking about the cruelty, about the class or about the demeaning the art, or maybe they were and it was the point. Either way, the result is something beautiful that shouldn't have ever existed, and the "incredible poetic" characteristic that I mentioned earlier (maybe a bit of an overstatement) referred in part to this contradiction.
I meant to convey something more of a "yes, and..." rather than argue. It would be different kind of messed up if it sounded angelic but required a blood of a endangered turtle to be fed into the unholy tube in order to keep playing. But like this, there wasn't even the point. Vain, cruel, corrupt. Which is to say, I agree.
I'm imagining this comment as an I Think You Should Leave sketch. A bunch of people are on a tour in a museum and Tim Robinson starts going off on more and more unhinged rants about every art work the tour guide presents.
Critical Thinking, huh? Let's apply some critical thinking to the comment you responded to:
I sincerely doubt that tortoises were killed for their shells. Their skeleton was a waste product in a sense.
In the first sentence, the author expresses doubt that, contemporaneous with manufacture of this piano, Testudines would have been hunted for their shells. In the second sentence, the author provides additional context, asserting that the skeleton could be considered a waste product by those hunting turtles and tortoises.
Is the author implying that Testudines were hunted for sport, or for the purpose of gathering another resource?
The shells of turtles and tortoises are components of their skeletons. When the author claims skeletons were waste products, do they imply that shells were commonly discarded?
If the author is correct, and Testudines were hunted as a resource but the skeleton was not the target, what resource was most likely to have been sought after?
Do the author's claims contraindicate poaching, i.e. that hunting Testudines was a legally sanctioned activity during and/or before 1853?
Homework:
Verifying the author's claims: were turtles and tortoises legally hunted in the mid-19th Century, and what were the most common commercial and/or industrial applications of each part of their carcasses? Was it common to discard the skeletons?
Was turtle and tortoise meat eaten more commonly in the past?
Do you think attitudes toward wastefulness and conservation in the gathering of marine resources have changed since the 1850s? Why or why not?
What topic or topics would offer the best starting point when asking your librarian for reference materials?
(A) Musical instruments
(B) Marine biology
(C) Commercial fishing
(D) Ornamental furniture
Please have this on my desk by tomorrow morning for full credit.
I did some digging, and here is what I found: "This is the Nunns & Clark square piano from 1853, a masterpiece of American Victorian craftsmanship featuring a rosewood case, mother-of-pearl key covers, tortoiseshell veneers on accidentals, and abalone inlay, built in New York City for display at the 1853 Crystal Palace Exhibition."
It's at the Met in NYC. So while theoretically it is playable, they wouldn't let you.
45 Comments
SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world · 66 pts · 199d
All those poor tortoises walking around without their shells.
murmelade@lemmy.ml · 39 pts · 199d
If you do it right, horizontal stripes, they just become armadillos. It's quite eco friendly.
oce@jlai.lu · 16 pts · 199d
They were forced to transition to lizard.
RagingRobot@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 198d
And all those pearls that lost their mothers
forrgott@lemmy.sdf.org · 39 pts · 199d
Honestly, for me things like this are not mildly interesting, but infuriating. I don't care how pretty it is, it's not gonna sound better because of aesthetics. Hell, although I'm not sure on this case, musical instruments crafted to look pretty will often sound worse. And I don't support savaging nature just to find shit to make fancy ass things for pedophile sociopaths that dedicate their lives to making things worse for everyone else.
Yaky@slrpnk.net · 30 pts · 199d
Just to infuriate you more: Plastics originally were viewed as a great alternative to such waste - instead of ivory, tortoiseshell, mother of pearl, expensive wood, you could use this human-made, often much stronger, material in different colors.
...and look where we are now.
yakko@feddit.uk · 8 pts · 199d
Those poor savages back then, with tortoise shell particles in their blood probably
/s
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today · 16 pts · 198d
It's history, we should just appreciate that it exists, is beautiful, and never make more again.
voldage@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 199d
There is something incredibly poetic about the hubris and cruelty required to create an instrument or other tool that enables art, something that does makes us distinct from the animals, out of the remains of needlesly taken lives. Transcending through art beyond human morals, somehow landing us back in the dirt with other worms, struggling only to self-satisfy. It's only fitting that it looks pretty, it better does when the price is so high.
Johandea@feddit.nu · 8 pts · 199d
Hi, it's me, the devils advocate.
One could argue that every instrument made out of wood is needlessly taking lives, since the tree died. It's also possible to extend the argument so that every instrument is needlessly taking lives, since no matter what material you use requires use of energy and we have no way to generate energy without something dying.
The question naturally comes down to what is needless. Needless for what? Needless according to whom? When it comes to art, as music does, it is completely subjective. It is completely valid to think this use of materials is needless but who's to say what's correct. The marker of this probably didn't think their work was needless.
voldage@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 199d
I'll counter your trees with my humans. Would you agree that skinning children to make drums would be "needlessly cruel"? The creator might have thought that it was necessary for whatever reason, but neither the children nor any sane observer would agree. It's fine to disagree on what's moral and what's not, and it's up to the invidual to decide for themselves. I think killing turtles for vanity project is cruel, especially since you have all those trees that just deserve to be carved up for being so tall. I believe there is some common ground most interested parties can agree on. And if not, then the situation is probably quite complicated and you should rethink making those drums.
pimento64@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 192d
As someone who has been on public transportation with children who were in tantrums, I'm going to call that one not cruel enough.
Dragonborn3810@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 199d
Wind turbines
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 198d
If it hadn't used mother of pearl and tortoiseshell, which weren't particularly rare at the time, they would have used things like rosewood, ebony, and ivory. So either way, precious materials were going to be used.
At least they are being used in the service of Art, and Music, instead of something vain, or selfish, like jewelry or beauty accessories. If these materials are going to be harvested anyway, using them to create a fine musical instrument, which can then be used to create beautiful music for a century, or possibly longer, is a worthy use of those precious natural materials.
forrgott@lemmy.sdf.org · 1 pts · 199d
It's not that I disagree with you. I do think I get where you're coming from.
I specifically have a problem with those looks being prioritized. I mean, think about it if they're worried more about the appearance than they are about the sound quality, that hubris has become straight up pride. But I'm not talking like the positive connotation. I'm talking pride as in the sin from the Bible.
voldage@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 198d
I do think that there are layers to the corruption in play here. It'd be plenty evil even if it sounded good and looked bad, since cruelty and stuff. Pianos are expensive, and were even more back in 1853, so having and playing one was a hobby limited to elites, which had to exploit the work of the poor to afford it and the rest of their luxurious lifestyle, which makes it worse again. Due to it being one of the possible symbols of the class status, it's very ownership rather than a function became a priority, which then made it a piece of visual art to be admired rather than the tool to create such art, which degenerated the meaning of such expense even further. The author most likely wasn't thinking about the cruelty, about the class or about the demeaning the art, or maybe they were and it was the point. Either way, the result is something beautiful that shouldn't have ever existed, and the "incredible poetic" characteristic that I mentioned earlier (maybe a bit of an overstatement) referred in part to this contradiction.
forrgott@lemmy.sdf.org · 1 pts · 198d
Oh, yes, I'm being horribly pedantic due to quite obviously being triggered, so I don't argue the related points you are making. Not at all.
voldage@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 198d
I meant to convey something more of a "yes, and..." rather than argue. It would be different kind of messed up if it sounded angelic but required a blood of a endangered turtle to be fed into the unholy tube in order to keep playing. But like this, there wasn't even the point. Vain, cruel, corrupt. Which is to say, I agree.
forrgott@lemmy.sdf.org · 1 pts · 198d
Ah, that does make sense
lastlybutfirstly@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 198d
I'm imagining this comment as an I Think You Should Leave sketch. A bunch of people are on a tour in a museum and Tim Robinson starts going off on more and more unhinged rants about every art work the tour guide presents.
forrgott@lemmy.sdf.org · 1 pts · 198d
Uh..
Yes. Lol
Gladaed@feddit.org · -2 pts · 198d
I sincerely doubt that tortoises were killed for their shells. Their skeleton was a waste product in a sense.
spicehoarder@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 198d
Poaching was and still is a very serious problem. Your comment is embarrassingly devoid of critical thinking.
Gladaed@feddit.org · 6 pts · 198d
Back then loads of turtles were hunted for meat. I.e. you would have a large supply without hunting for it explicitly.
pimento64@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 192d
Critical Thinking, huh? Let's apply some critical thinking to the comment you responded to:
In the first sentence, the author expresses doubt that, contemporaneous with manufacture of this piano, Testudines would have been hunted for their shells. In the second sentence, the author provides additional context, asserting that the skeleton could be considered a waste product by those hunting turtles and tortoises.
Is the author implying that Testudines were hunted for sport, or for the purpose of gathering another resource?
The shells of turtles and tortoises are components of their skeletons. When the author claims skeletons were waste products, do they imply that shells were commonly discarded?
If the author is correct, and Testudines were hunted as a resource but the skeleton was not the target, what resource was most likely to have been sought after?
Do the author's claims contraindicate poaching, i.e. that hunting Testudines was a legally sanctioned activity during and/or before 1853?
Homework:
Verifying the author's claims: were turtles and tortoises legally hunted in the mid-19th Century, and what were the most common commercial and/or industrial applications of each part of their carcasses? Was it common to discard the skeletons?
Was turtle and tortoise meat eaten more commonly in the past?
Do you think attitudes toward wastefulness and conservation in the gathering of marine resources have changed since the 1850s? Why or why not?
What topic or topics would offer the best starting point when asking your librarian for reference materials?
(A) Musical instruments
(B) Marine biology
(C) Commercial fishing
(D) Ornamental furniture
Please have this on my desk by tomorrow morning for full credit.
aeronmelon@lemmy.world · 32 pts · 199d
Liberace’s tomb just rattled.
Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone · 16 pts · 199d
You reckon they still play it, or is it just decorative now?
ickplant@lemmy.world · 26 pts · 199d
I did some digging, and here is what I found: "This is the Nunns & Clark square piano from 1853, a masterpiece of American Victorian craftsmanship featuring a rosewood case, mother-of-pearl key covers, tortoiseshell veneers on accidentals, and abalone inlay, built in New York City for display at the 1853 Crystal Palace Exhibition."
It's at the Met in NYC. So while theoretically it is playable, they wouldn't let you.
Source - a lot more info on the piano: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/503678
Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works · 13 pts · 199d
Those legs! Ridiculous.
Oops, limbs. Victoria would not approve.
mbp@lemmy.sdf.org · 8 pts · 199d
Holy shit! That thing is a monster
ParadoxSeahorse@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 199d
Arguably the rest of this piano is way more interesting than the keyboard pictured above
AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 198d
Wow, it's gloriously hideous.
Gork@sopuli.xyz · 14 pts · 199d
Probably still works. The actions on these old pianos are fairly robust.
hardcoreufo@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 199d
Looks like its behind glass. There seems to be a reflection in the right corner, but I can't tell for sure.
Proprietary_Blend@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 199d
Who's the craftsperson?
Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works · -11 pts · 199d
Don't answer this. Probably some PETA nut that just wants to dox the poor old guy.
Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 199d
The poor guy from the 1800s? Also, it wouldn't be doxing if it's public info. Wtf are you on about
Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works · -3 pts · 199d
You sound like a real ageist.
Proprietary_Blend@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 199d
You sound like a fucking cunt
Lemminary@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 199d
Bruh... Lol
pimento64@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 192d
Don't feed the trolls homie
Proprietary_Blend@lemmy.world · -7 pts · 199d
Fuck you. Blocked head
Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 198d
Glad we've moved on from farming animals to make pianos.
Still doesn't stop humans raping and pillaging the natural world, of course.
maniacalmanicmania@aussie.zone · 2 pts · 198d
Have we though?
Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 198d
I hate humans.