Good angle on the photo, but you shoulda stopped down on the aperture f/16 or more to get increased depth of field. Could have been difficult in low light conditions, this can be cured with flash. I know direct flash can be nasty, so get cable with external flash and bounce off the ceiling for a quick and dirty solution if you don't want to mess with gels, cards, etc.

The angle is a little bit too sharp. Might want to circumnavigate about to the front and top of the units just a smidgen. Also use a trip-rod, like the heavy weight Manfrotto I have. Not a cheap lightweight one. Also use remote shutter.

Obviously some focus issues here. Bad crop job. Noisy and lacks dynamic range. White balance off (you may need to manually set that.) Might want to rethink the framing of this photo. The cut-off the top looks like a bad accident. Again, proper lighting and trip-rod should do wonders. Should allow you to shoot at lower ISO so viewers can see the fine aluminum brushwork of the Gungnir.

BTW, I do have bone to pick with the "artistic license" thing. Everyone kid wants to be a Dali or Pollack. Except that Dali or Pollack could actually paint realistic shit, i.e. the technical basics, if they wanted to. I think it shows. Rothko is much more debatable though.

You're missing the point.  You need (at least some) technical mastery to have enough control over the medium inorder to do what you want with it.  Art is about communicating something.  What purrin is talking about is the photo 1 students who claim "art" for their mistakes and fuckups. 

When people start learning photography, specifically black and white darkroom printing, there is often a tendancy to make art out of mistakes and the new photographer/printer's inability to make a print that is technically proficient in the generally accepted terms of contrast, highlight, shaddow detail, tonality, etc.  And while you can't say that these mistakes, or "bad prints" aren't works of art, they aren't usually that intentional.  The new printer doesn't have control over their printing.  So by teaching them how to make a "good print" you are teaching them how to control the process, and how to make prints look the way they want.  After being able to do this, then you can make "bad prints" with more intention rather than just because you can't make a good one.  All the photographers who make abstract, "messed up" prints know how to make perfect prints, and are doing what they're doing on purpose.  That's not to say that you need to be able to make perfect prints inorder to create works of art, but you need to be able to communicate.   It's certainly possible.  Just like there are great musicians who can't play their instruments very well but are still able to communicate something profound. 

The place headphones are currently at kind of reminds me of the novice black and white printer.  They aren't able to make a technically proficient good sounding phone with the qualities of low distoriton, flat FR, clean decay.  But they want to claim victory inorder to sell phones, so they just claim intentionality for their fucked up phones.  And Head-fiers eat it up by googling over all the different variations of colored fucked up headphones. 

I'd like to see these companies actually figure out how to make a good print before they claim "art" for their fuckups.  I'd like to se them make a flat, clean, low distorion headpone.  Then they can intentionally color some of their other phones with control and precision.  As it is now, it's just an excuse.

that was my premise as well.