I've never seen the point of "art" that's entire schtick is making a non-violent object appear to be a weapon.
Does the appearance of a weapon add to the object's aesthetic value? No, because weapons aren't designed for their aesthetics.
Does the appearance of a weapon add to the object's artistic value? No, not in and of itself.
A sculpture of a gun with the barrel tied into a knot conveys a distinct and obvious message via subversion of the weapon aesthetic. A music box that is externally indistinguishable from a grenade without any such aesthetic subversion does not.
One might argue that the point of the object is the contradiction of the form and function of the device, but merely being contrary is hardly artistry and is essentially arbitrary. (Which I suppose might work if you're a Dadaist, but then why settle for something so mundane?)
Ultimately this is just someone's half baked concept made manifest. It's sheer dark whimsy, an errant grim thought given physical form. It is neither beautiful nor edifying nor challenging on any level - it merely is a trinket, a knick-knack, a mild curiosity at best and an alarming confusion at worst.