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 6 points 5 days ago (3 children)

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 4 points 5 days ago

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.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 1 points 5 days ago

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.

[–] Dragonborn3810@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

Wind turbines

[–] forrgott@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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 points 5 days ago

Ah, that does make sense