Discussing Linus's take on "Crush"

[GoStormPlays]

here’s a little “the more you learn” segment:

Context for those who haven’t seen the Ad or the WAN Show: Apple made a controversial ad showing a bunch of objects that are used as ways of human creativity and expression. The press interpreted the ad as the destruction and coming irrevelence of humans. Apple had a different interpretation of the ad.

 

I was listening to Friday’s WAN Show, and I was (and am) quite intrigued by the Apple commercial controversy. Linus was talking about art that has a solid meaning and what doesn’t, and I thought I’d clarify some of the things said (since I’ve been learning about this very topic in school recently lol). 
 

The art that’s being referred to as Postmodern Art. Essentially, it’s art that doesn’t have any definite meaning and is “open to interpretation”, so to speak. Usually, the artist or creator of the work doesn’t have any meaning in mind when creating the piece. Postmodern art has really only become a popular form of expression in the last century or so.
 

Here’s one of my favorite examples of postmodern art, in the form of an orchestra:

 

 

All other art has a definite meaning that’s expressed by the artist. What makes non-postmodern art appealing is primarily how clear that meaning is in art.

 

Apple’s ad is not postmodern art, as Apple have a definite meaning. I can give any meaning to a piece of art that I want, but that doesn’t mean that my interpretation is correct or even valid.

 

 

thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.

[Brian McKee]

 

I want to be clear that this post isn't coming from a place of outrage or anger, I just wanted to discuss this take on the video because there's a few things that I just don't really agree with. Also I apologize if this is already being discussed elsewhere.

 

Linus's main argument to me (and I might be wrong) is that the intent was clear on the ad and that the viewer should take this into account when viewing it. I find this a little odd because as an artist myself, if I felt this way about my own art when others viewed it, it wouldn't be constructive at all. If a piece makes a lot of people uncomfortable or upset, and that wasn't the explicit intent of the piece, then you the artist probably did something wrong in conveying your point.

 

But giving it the benefit of the doubt, being as I hadn't seen it before watching the WAN show vod, maybe it was as obvious as they say. Linus had mentioned that the intent was the ipad being a "mix" of all these objects. So I went ahead and studied the ad for about 20-30 mins to get a solid idea of what they were trying to do. My initial impression of the video was that this was "crushing" things to get the ipad super thin. I really didn't get this "combination" feel from the ad. You don't usually crush things to combine things, a hydraulic press is not a blender or vitamix. I think this is where the confusion comes from, such a large focus of the ad was on the ways these beautiful items were just being obliterated from the face of the earth. To me it was pretty uncomfortable to watch, especially when I was watching it frame by frame.

 

Now I don't believe anything was actually destroyed for this video obviously. I think based on watching it frame by frame that the video was either CG or using models and some special effects. Crushing a CRT is obviously a very very large hazard after all, and the lenses were nonsense. But at the end of the day, to my eyes, this ad missed the mark if the original intent was as Linus said. Taking a lot of beautiful items and tools, stuff that people really cherish in such a nostalgic era, and just destroying them in a way that seems to satiate someone's destruction fetish ala techrax, doesn't get me in the mood to buy an ipad. I don't believe this is (all) manufactured outrage, I can completely understand why people don't like this ad, as I myself am not particularly fond of it.

 

Going back to the original point, I just don't see how even if Apple explicitly stated the point of ad that people shouldn't feel a certain way about it. Criticism and embodying the lessons from it I think is the hardest and most important part of any work. Simply saying "you don't understand it" and telling them they're wrong isn't how you deal with valid critique. I mean Linus himself has to deal with critique constantly obviously, and a lot of it of course is just noise, but if there's a very consistent theme are you just going to ignore it?

 

And to be double clear, I know Apple apologized. And to be honest, I wouldn't really care about any Apple response. This is just a corporate ad for a corporate product. I just thought the take Linus had was interesting so I wanted to discuss it.

 

But I'd love to get your opinions, how'd the ad make you feel? Do you agree with Linus? Am I the one off the mark here?

[ARandomPerson]

     All I can say is that the Hydraulic Press Channel as well as "How Ridiculous" doesn't get much of a following in Japan.

 

Edit: Now I am curious how the iPad would do under a hydraulic press with the battery fully charged. 

Edited May 13 by ARandomPerson
Extra thought + clarity

[Brian McKee]

1 minute ago, ARandomPerson said:

     All I can say is that the Hydraulic Press Channel as well as "How Ridiculous" doesn't get much of a following in Japan.

Yeah I didn't really want to touch the Japanese culture thing because I'm not Japanese obviously lol. But I think especially the Japanese criticism was not manufactured outrage.

[Kilrah]

Wonder if there's an age gap thing. The "We squeezed all of THIS into this, now you can use it for everything and it's all you need!" marketing's been used many times over the years, it's not even original... e.g.

 

 

But maybe younger people don't get the references, and yeah I can see how some may be "on the edge" with the recent AI stuff and see it that way, but IMO the ad doesn't really take that angle.

 

[adm0n]

47 minutes ago, Brian McKee said:

My initial impression of the video was that this was "crushing" things to get the ipad super thin. I really didn't get this "combination" feel from the ad. You don't usually crush things to combine things, a hydraulic press is not a blender or vitamix.

I guess the main idea was to compress everything into an iPad rather then crushing, but from a marketing point crushing seems more drastic and attention grabbing. Explicitly showing all the objects explode or buckle under the stress is probably more there for the excitement (even if it is negative) rather than having anything to do with the iPad.

 

At most I'd say that some of the imaginary is a bit confusing, since the iPad does replace part of the things shown. So I could actually see it "crushing" a CRT with the new OLED or an arcade. While it can only partially replace functions of the other times (like music instruments, paint, ...).

There could be a point made for them saying, that you first have to reduce everything to its basic components and then combine them together into an iPad, but as you already mentioned, an blender would make more sense for that (or melting them down and then casting it).

 

This all especially stings under the recent AI-tools explosion. There would be even more outrage, if they stuck a poor programmer under that hydraulic press. But I think if they'd run this add in 2019, when AI tools were way less ambiguous and proficient, I doubt there would have been any outrage. It would've been seen more as compressing everything into an iPad. So giving the designer the benefit of the doubt, I'd say they didn't intend the meaning of it crushing artists and their tools as they will be replaced by AI. I'd argue that it was still tone deaf, just based on the outcry. Can't fault them for having impactful marketing though. Way more people heard about this now, than would've without the outcry. So it might've even been intended ...

[Brian McKee]

6 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

Wonder if there's an age gap thing. The "We squeezed all of THIS into this, now you can use it for everything and it's all you need!" marketing's been used many times over the years, it's not even original... e.g.

 

 

But maybe younger people don't get the references, and yeah I can see how some may be "on the edge" with the recent AI stuff and see it that way, but IMO the ad doesn't really take that angle.

 

I had never seen this ad (and I don't really consider myself that young anymore lol). But it doesn't hit the same as the Apple one. It's senseless to me all the same, it's not my cup of tea, but the way the Apple ad makes you feel like the object is in pain almost just disturbs me. The noises they make, the ways they're destroyed. Maybe it's just me.

[05032-Mendicant-Bias]

I'll take some heat from this: It had nothing to do with the AD itself.

 

Artists right now are touchy about Generative AI, because it's getting really good, artists are very vocal about anything tangentially related. E.g. Stellaris is being review bombed because it used a TTS for a in game AI race. And not because it has hundreds of dollars in DLCs.

If you ever took a picture with a modern phone, congratulation, you are a Generative AI user, reaping the benefit of a powerful productivity tool that gets you more for less. Phones that don't use ML to enhance photos are hopelessly outcompeted in picture quality.
 

At least in this case, Apple did nothing wrong. If anything, it's the best AD apple could have made because of the additional reach they got.
 

My prediction is that all anti-generative-ai resistance will be shelved in the annals of the wrong side of history in a few years. Generative AI will become the standard in all productivity tools, from photoshop to blender, and the controversies around it will go away. Just like it happened with portrait artists vs cameras in the 1900s, or opposing digital art, or opposing 3D modeling, etc...

[starsmine]

45 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

Wonder if there's an age gap thing. The "We squeezed all of THIS into this, now you can use it for everything and it's all you need!" marketing's been used many times over the years, it's not even original... e.g.

 

 

But maybe younger people don't get the references, and yeah I can see how some may be "on the edge" with the recent AI stuff and see it that way, but IMO the ad doesn't really take that angle.

 

I don't think its age gap, its that back when LG made that commercial, smart phones were novel and all that tech was "relevant". Now 15 years later, People are strongly valuing the analog, and have nostalgia and respect for doing it the old way, and a strong desire to preserve those devices as they are only getting rarer. 

15 years ago, it was cool a digital device that could fit in your pocket could do all those things and more, NOW, its assumed, so why tell us the consumer that? Why tell us by being destructive to that end? The LG phone had one of the best camera on a phone at the time, it was around the first time you realistically COULD make the argument of a phone replacing everything you see being crushed. 

  

10 minutes ago, 05032-Mendicant-Bias said:

I'll take some heat from this: It had nothing to do with the AD itself.

 

Artists right now are touchy about Generative AI, because it's getting really good, artists are very vocal about anything tangentially related. E.g. Stellaris is being review bombed because it used a TTS for a in game AI race. And not because it has hundreds of dollars in DLCs.

 

At least in this case, Apple did nothing wrong. If anything, it's the best AD apple could have made because of the additional reach they got.

 

My prediction is that all anti-generative-ai resistance will be shelved in the annals of the wrong side of history in a few years. Generative AI will become the standard in all productivity tools, from photoshop to blender, and the controversies around it will go away. Just like it happened with portrait artists vs cameras in the 1900s, or opposing digital art, or opposing 3D modeling, etc...

I really think AI is the last thing on peoples mind with this commercial.

[Needfuldoer]

1 hour ago, starsmine said:

I don't think its age gap, its that back when LG made that commercial, smart phones were novel and all that tech was "relevant". Now 15 years later, People are strongly valuing the analog, and have nostalgia and respect for doing it the old way, and a strong desire to preserve those devices as they are only getting rarer. 

I agree.

 

The creative market is already on edge because tech bros are trying to replace them with generative machine learning, now here comes Apple with an ad that says to them "you don't need all this analog cReAtIvItY crap anymore, just get an iPad". They probably meant to say something like "look at everything you can do with the new iPad", but they didn't show anything you can do with the new iPad.

 

This is far from the first time Apple marketing missed the mark. Back in 1985, they tried to introduce "The Macintosh Office", basically a LAN of Macintosh 512ks, Lisas, LaserWriter printers, and a NAS aimed at businesses. In theory it would change the way collaboration is done, necessitate only one expensive hard drive (in the NAS instead of one for every Mac in the office), and take the budding desktop publishing industry by storm. They even rehired the creative team behind the now-iconic 1984 commercial to make the Super Bowl ad. What could go wrong?

 

They called their target demographic brainless lemmings who only buy IBM computers because everybody else buys IBM computers.

 

The Macintosh Office never happened as envisioned, because this ad killed the appetite for it. 

 

[Kilrah]

Merged, but forgot it'd appear on top. Welp.

[GoStormPlays]

4 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

Merged, but forgot it'd appear on top. Welp.

 

[Theorize5061]

8 hours ago, Brian McKee said:

 

I want to be clear that this post isn't coming from a place of outrage or anger, I just wanted to discuss this take on the video because there's a few things that I just don't really agree with. Also I apologize if this is already being discussed elsewhere.

 

Linus's main argument to me (and I might be wrong) is that the intent was clear on the ad and that the viewer should take this into account when viewing it. I find this a little odd because as an artist myself, if I felt this way about my own art when others viewed it, it wouldn't be constructive at all. If a piece makes a lot of people uncomfortable or upset, and that wasn't the explicit intent of the piece, then you the artist probably did something wrong in conveying your point.

 

But giving it the benefit of the doubt, being as I hadn't seen it before watching the WAN show vod, maybe it was as obvious as they say. Linus had mentioned that the intent was the ipad being a "mix" of all these objects. So I went ahead and studied the ad for about 20-30 mins to get a solid idea of what they were trying to do. My initial impression of the video was that this was "crushing" things to get the ipad super thin. I really didn't get this "combination" feel from the ad. You don't usually crush things to combine things, a hydraulic press is not a blender or vitamix. I think this is where the confusion comes from, such a large focus of the ad was on the ways these beautiful items were just being obliterated from the face of the earth. To me it was pretty uncomfortable to watch, especially when I was watching it frame by frame.

 

Now I don't believe anything was actually destroyed for this video obviously. I think based on watching it frame by frame that the video was either CG or using models and some special effects. Crushing a CRT is obviously a very very large hazard after all, and the lenses were nonsense. But at the end of the day, to my eyes, this ad missed the mark if the original intent was as Linus said. Taking a lot of beautiful items and tools, stuff that people really cherish in such a nostalgic era, and just destroying them in a way that seems to satiate someone's destruction fetish ala techrax, doesn't get me in the mood to buy an ipad. I don't believe this is (all) manufactured outrage, I can completely understand why people don't like this ad, as I myself am not particularly fond of it.

 

Going back to the original point, I just don't see how even if Apple explicitly stated the point of ad that people shouldn't feel a certain way about it. Criticism and embodying the lessons from it I think is the hardest and most important part of any work. Simply saying "you don't understand it" and telling them they're wrong isn't how you deal with valid critique. I mean Linus himself has to deal with critique constantly obviously, and a lot of it of course is just noise, but if there's a very consistent theme are you just going to ignore it?

 

And to be double clear, I know Apple apologized. And to be honest, I wouldn't really care about any Apple response. This is just a corporate ad for a corporate product. I just thought the take Linus had was interesting so I wanted to discuss it.

 

But I'd love to get your opinions, how'd the ad make you feel? Do you agree with Linus? Am I the one off the mark here?

I think this is a great take.

First off, let me say that English is my second language. I may have misunderstood things that were said in the forum and in the podcast and may be explaining myself unclear. I hope for your understanding. Just let me know if anything is sus and I will take a look.

It is (to me) very not clear what Apple meant. With as many eyes as that company has, they must've been aware that the (according to Linus) 'obvious' interpretation was not the only one.
Honestly, I believe that Linus and Luke may not have understood that it is not so much about the instruments and such as just tools that are broken. But, as Linus reads himself out loud, the SYMBOLISM → the special value that these things hold in cultures and societies around the globe.
The other side of the medal becomes very obvious, I don't understand why Linus and Luke don't (seem to) understand it or, perhaps more so in Lukes case, care.
The tools stand for the human made things of high cultural value → craftsmanship in the broadest sense, which is being reformed (crushed by the press) into a convenient, non-effort and slim piecemeal of the future (the iPad) / be it the medium or the tool. Sculpting vs. 3D printing, artist generated everything vs. AI-generated everything etc… Remember, the song in the ad ends with “ALL I EVER need is YOU” — and this surely doesn't mean the manual tools and media... Apple (I find) clearly alludes to REPLACING the old ways and seems to show little respect to the value that these things have to a large group of people (but clearly not Linus and Luke).

Furthermore, I am surprised that the word 'violence' is not represented in this discussion at all. There is a way to communicate the merging of multiple tools into one which is not disruptive to the original tools. This IS a choice Apple made, so they MUST be communicating something by using violence; otherwise there wouldn't be a reason for it, which it highly unlikely — it's marketing by Apple. Then, why must they be using violence in this ad, if not to provoke exactly the provoking meaning?

I would also like to add that I am disappointed that Luke and Linus find this to be of no relevance in general. I know they were making fun in the end but 'go touch grass' instead of standing up against what one believes to be a bad direction in which society is moving... Maybe they said it hastily, but I think there was so much more nuance. As it is prefaced by Linus (I know, I am kind of not differentiating between them right now) 'I'm siding with Apple' is in my opinion the result of a gross oversimplification — I hope this is not just for clickbait, but I understand that this may be the case. I also know that they probably don't have enough time to think a lot about stuff. But I am simply disappointed in the sentiment of “Why are you upset about it, this is not what they meant, bro”.
Sure, this is not a big global issue, but come on....

I think Linus and Luke are giving Apple a break where it is not deserving of it, and are belittling the offended people. And just because these practices and messages have already existed before, doesn't make the offended people's concerns less valid.

[wanderingfool2]

2 hours ago, Theorize5061 said:

I would also like to add that I am disappointed that Luke and Linus find this to be of no relevance in general. I know they were making fun in the end but 'go touch grass' instead of standing up against what one believes to be a bad direction in which society is moving... Maybe they said it hastily, but I think there was so much more nuance. As it is prefaced by Linus (I know, I am kind of not differentiating between them right now) 'I'm siding with Apple' is in my opinion the result of a gross oversimplification — I hope this is not just for clickbait, but I understand that this may be the case. I also know that they probably don't have enough time to think a lot about stuff. But I am simply disappointed in the sentiment of “Why are you upset about it, this is not what they meant, bro”.
Sure, this is not a big global issue, but come on....

 

10 hours ago, Brian McKee said:

Linus's main argument to me (and I might be wrong) is that the intent was clear on the ad and that the viewer should take this into account when viewing it.

Linus is tone deaf and has shown to be when it comes to situations where when he thinks his view is the only correct view to have and anyone else is out to get him, stupid, or uneducated ideas kind of thing.  Even in this case where the argument is that they have always shown it's a platform etc...when in fact he misses the biggest piece of evidence that this ad could be regarding AI.

 

The fact that on Apple's own website, https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2024/05/logic-pro-takes-music-making-to-the-next-level-with-new-ai-features/, released May 7, they are talking about the new AI features.

 

I disagree with the way Linus was dismissive of the views of people.

[GoStormPlays]

10 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

 

Linus is tone deaf and has shown to be when it comes to situations where when he thinks his view is the only correct view to have and anyone else is out to get him, stupid, or uneducated ideas kind of thing.  Even in this case where the argument is that they have always shown it's a platform etc...when in fact he misses the biggest piece of evidence that this ad could be regarding AI.

 

The fact that on Apple's own website, https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2024/05/logic-pro-takes-music-making-to-the-next-level-with-new-ai-features/, released May 7, they are talking about the new AI features.

 

I disagree with the way Linus was dismissive of the views of people.

No, he acknowledges that point. However, what he also recognizes is that it’s not the meaning of the piece, and thus can’t be validly interpreted as such. It doesn’t matter what the other interpretation is.

[wanderingfool2]

1 minute ago, GoStormPlays said:

No, he acknowledges that point. However, what he also recognizes is that it’s not the meaning of the piece, and thus can’t be validly interpreted as such. It doesn’t matter what the other interpretation is.

By essentially saying that only his interpretation of the meaning is correct; and can't be validly interpreted as such is exactly why it is tone deaf and what I essentially said.

 

 

[starsmine]

51 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

By essentially saying that only his interpretation of the meaning is correct; and can't be validly interpreted as such is exactly why it is tone deaf and what I essentially said.

 

 

It is not that other interpretations can't be correct, but other interpretations can be incorrect. 

 

His interpretation is a correct one, other interpretations can be correct ones. But the one that he is pushing against happens to be one of the incorrect ones. People offended by the commercial are doing so via a misinterpretation, One can argue apple opened themselves up to being misinterpreted, however, its also up to people to NOT misinterpret things, and misinterpreting out of bad faith, IS an incorrect interpretation. 

[Theorize5061]

8 minutes ago, starsmine said:

its also up to people to NOT misinterpret things, and misinterpreting out of bad faith, IS an incorrect interpretation.

I am, for example, not 'mis'interpreting out of bad faith. Neither do I even think that their interpretation is the 'correct' one. It is the one that may be wished for by Apple. But they do NOT have authority over interpretation. It just as incorrect as if an artist could claim the full authority over how their artwork is to be interpreted. They can wish for a certain interpretation, work towards it, sure. But once you have put your piece out into the world, it becomes an object. This object is then open for interpretation, there is no inherent 'correct' one.
And, as I have said before, please keep in mind that Apple chose to have this specific ad. They used this specific imagery. Crushing instead of joining things. I don't even find the argument of 'this is the obvious interpretation' very convincing, but that may be more telling of that I am not the target audience.

[starsmine]

11 minutes ago, Theorize5061 said:

I am, for example, not 'mis'interpreting out of bad faith. Neither do I even think that their interpretation is the 'correct' one. It is the one that may be wished for by Apple. But they do NOT have authority over interpretation. It just as incorrect as if an artist could claim the full authority over how their artwork is to be interpreted. They can wish for a certain interpretation, work towards it, sure. But once you have put your piece out into the world, it becomes an object. This object is then open for interpretation, there is no inherent 'correct' one.
And, as I have said before, please keep in mind that Apple chose to have this specific ad. They used this specific imagery. Crushing instead of joining things. I don't even find the argument of 'this is the obvious interpretation' very convincing, but that may be more telling of that I am not the target audience.

Im not saying apple has an authority over interpretations. Im saying there is such a thing as wrong interpretations. Anything interpreted with bad faith, is a wrong interpretation.

[Brian McKee]

8 minutes ago, starsmine said:

Im not saying apple has an authority over interpretations. Im saying there is such a thing as wrong interpretations. Anything interpreted with bad faith, is a wrong interpretation.

I think interpreting in bad faith implies the person "interpreting" the media is either:

 

1. Aware what the content meant and is just manufacturing outrage for some other reason.

 

2. They weren't aware of what the content meant but hate the person or entity who created it so much they'd hate the work no matter what.

 

I don't think either of these are accurate. Especially not the second one since we'd see such outrage whenever Apple makes any ad. At the end of the day I believe the critique that people have brought forward is valid. It's not even like it was a nuanced and delicate subject, Apple just flat out failed in making their point clear.

[GoStormPlays]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

By essentially saying that only his interpretation of the meaning is correct; and can't be validly interpreted as such is exactly why it is tone deaf and what I essentially said.

 

 

No, Apple gave an interpretation, and that is the only correct interpretation for this ad.

[Theorize5061]

1 minute ago, GoStormPlays said:

No, Apple gave an interpretation, and that is the only correct interpretation for this ad.

This is simply not how interpretations work, though. You don't get to decide 'what the correct interpretation is'. No one gets that privilege.

[Brian McKee]

2 minutes ago, Theorize5061 said:

This is simply not how interpretations work, though. You don't get to decide 'what the correct interpretation is'. No one gets that privilege.

And thus Apple's intent is irrelevant.

[GoStormPlays]

Just now, Theorize5061 said:

This is simply not how interpretations work, though. You don't get to decide 'what the correct interpretation is'. No one gets that privilege.

Only if it's Postmodern Art. If the artist doesn't give an interpretation, then the art can mean whatever the audience wants it to mean. The artist (Apple) gave a meaning to this piece (the ad) in their apology. Thus, people can say whatever they want about what they think the ad means, but that's not the message being communicated. People were upset because they thought that Apple was sending a message that they weren't. Apple cleared that up, so there's no reason to say that the ad is stupid. 

 

Here is some more info on art:

On 5/12/2024 at 4:29 PM, GoStormPlays said:

here’s a little “the more you learn” segment:

Context for those who haven’t seen the Ad or the WAN Show: Apple made a controversial ad showing a bunch of objects that are used as ways of human creativity and expression. The press interpreted the ad as the destruction and coming irrevelence of humans. Apple had a different interpretation of the ad.

 

I was listening to Friday’s WAN Show, and I was (and am) quite intrigued by the Apple commercial controversy. Linus was talking about art that has a solid meaning and what doesn’t, and I thought I’d clarify some of the things said (since I’ve been learning about this very topic in school recently lol). 
 

The art that’s being referred to as Postmodern Art. Essentially, it’s art that doesn’t have any definite meaning and is “open to interpretation”, so to speak. Usually, the artist or creator of the work doesn’t have any meaning in mind when creating the piece. Postmodern art has really only become a popular form of expression in the last century or so.
 

Here’s one of my favorite examples of postmodern art, in the form of an orchestra:

 

 

All other art has a definite meaning that’s expressed by the artist. What makes non-postmodern art appealing is primarily how clear that meaning is in art.

 

Apple’s ad is not postmodern art, as Apple have a definite meaning. I can give any meaning to a piece of art that I want, but that doesn’t mean that my interpretation is correct or even valid.

 

 

thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.

 

[Theorize5061]

9 minutes ago, GoStormPlays said:

Only if it's Postmodern Art. If the artist doesn't give an interpretation, then the art can mean whatever the audience wants it to mean. The artist (Apple) gave a meaning to this piece (the ad) in their apology. Thus, people can say whatever they want about what they think the ad means, but that's not the message being communicated. People were upset because they thought that Apple was sending a message that they weren't. Apple cleared that up, so there's no reason to say that the ad is stupid. 

 

Here is some more info on art:

 

I understand where you are coming from. But this applies to a scope well outside of art. Anything 'produced' by anyone will become an 'objective matter', detached from its creator. This is very common in philosophy. You don't read Plato, you read Plato's dialogues. A strict problem of attaching creator to interpretation is that only the creator will truly fully know the right interpretation; therefore it is irrelevant — it doesn't change anything. Second, attaching the creator to the interpretation gives the creator a LOT of plausible deniability (see exercised by Apple in this case) → "That's not how I meant it, bro", as an illustrative example. Even though other interpretations seem very obvious to some people (also as evident in this case). 
Interpretable things don't have inherent, correct interpretations. Interpretations can go well beyond what the creator meant by it. This doesn't mean that the other interpretations are not implicit in the whatever was created. 
We may disagree on this point, very well. But I think that applying your perspective in this case grants Apple unwarranted trust and neglecting valid concerns.

Edited May 13 by Theorize5061