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.
It’s history, we should just appreciate that it exists, is beautiful, and never make more again.
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.
Uh…
Yes. Lol
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ah, that does make sense
I sincerely doubt that tortoises were killed for their shells. Their skeleton was a waste product in a sense.
Poaching was and still is a very serious problem. Your comment is embarrassingly devoid of critical thinking.
Back then loads of turtles were hunted for meat. I.e. you would have a large supply without hunting for it explicitly.
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
© Commercial fishing
(D) Ornamental furniture
Please have this on my desk by tomorrow morning for full credit.
-
Liberace’s tomb just rattled.
Who’s the craftsperson?
Don’t answer this. Probably some PETA nut that just wants to dox the poor old guy.
The poor guy from the 1800s? Also, it wouldn’t be doxing if it’s public info. Wtf are you on about
You sound like a real ageist.
You sound like a fucking cunt
Bruh… Lol
Don’t feed the trolls homie
Fuck you. Blocked head
Glad we’ve moved on from farming animals to make pianos.
Still doesn’t stop humans raping and pillaging the natural world, of course.
