How large of a safe space would the creator of the Fearless Girl need if someone installed a statue of a table with a butcher's implements, or a bullfighter's swords, in front of her statue?
in order for his meaning to have been co-opted, he would have had to be communicating it in the first place. he says it's "the strength and power fo the american people", but i always saw pursuit of a financial goal without concern for collateral damage, like a bull in a china shop.
Indeed. I too found it kinda funny, since I'd always interpreted that particular sculpture as a symbol of the damage done when bankers and finance types get out of control.
I actually thought it was a reproduction of photos of the running of the bulls. Specifically, that moment in time where the fool in front and the bull both go round a corner. The bull tries to turn on the cobble stones of pamplona, but as a result, its hoofs begin to slide out from underneath it, and you tend to get photos like this one:
Which is to say, the bull (market) has gotten out of control, and that statue represents the classical view you see of a bull that gotten out of control in the split second before everyone gets really hurt.
I didn't know that Di Modica still owns it. I suppose if he disagreed with what SHE has done, he could simply arrange to have the bull point the other way.
Just because Picasso (or some living author if you prefer for the example) doesn't own one of his paintings anymore, it's not artistically acceptable (arguably even culturally acceptable) for the owner of the painting to go there and just paint something over it that totally changes the meaning of the original painting.
Just because you are legally entitled to do something, it doesn't mean you should do something. As a recent example, just look at the United Airlines example for instance.
Have you been to the site? Pointing the bull the other way wouldn't affect the artistic expression. Most people wouldn't even notice. On the other hand it might be tacit acknowledgement of the power of the other statue.
Which power is that, that corporations are good at advertising themselves by playing to our emotional biases? I believe that was established before this arrangement.
Except in this case, no one is "painting over" the Picasso, they're putting another painting beside it. The Picasso is still there, untouched, it just exists in another context.
But what authority determines what is artistically acceptable, or which work's meaning is not allowed to be reinterpreted, commented upon or even ridiculed by another artist? What art permits in the service of social commentary and criticism is often at odds with what culture permits.
Does the canvas of a painting necessarily include the viewing space around it? Why would the equivalent be true for a statue?
The actual physical form of the statue is probably the equivalent to its canvas - or I suppose it would also be the sidewalk underneath it, since that "contains" the artwork.
But to me it makes little sense to claim any arbitrary space around a statue as being equivalent to the artwork itself.
Which if the bull turned away it wouldn't anymore.
So the difference in the end would be just who has to turn:
- The statue that is there for decades.
- The statue that is there for less than one year.
If people where not doing this about (what they think in their heads is) some politically correct argument but about art (which is the point of the author of the article) than the answer would be obvious.
Interesting. I'm actually ambiguous on the political perspective, but I fully disagree that the answer is obvious. Why should longevity protect a work of art from being subverted? On the contrary; to paraphrase Stroustrup, I'd say there are only two kinds of monuments: the ones that have been subverted and the ones nobody cares about. Fighting that is tilting at windmills.
I don't know, if you wrote a sentence saying "America is great" and someone came and appended "but women aren't afraid of it", that would change your sentence in ways you didn't intend. It's not longevity that drives you to defend your sentence, but the fact that you didn't intend it to read that way.
The girl is facing where it's meant to be facing, twisting the meaning of the bull into something the creator did not intend. The creator of the bull can't turn the girl, because it's not his statue, and the creator of the girl doesn't want the girl turned, because that's where she wants the girl to be facing.
The creator of the bull, the person who doesn't like this situation, can only affect his statue. Therefore, all he can do is turn the bull.
She looks more like sassy entitled girl imho. So, in this sense, I think the statue is a beautiful display of what is going on. "If you don't like it, you're a sexist."
It depends on the reasons for your dislike, as the article explains beautifully. If you don't like the statue because you disagree that women should have the same entitlements as men, then you may need to open yourself to the possibility of being called sexist.
that seems like an uncharitable interpretation of Kenji's comment. Perhaps one can dislike the statue because it's a vapid statement, a girl standing up to something that isn't trying to keep her down in the first place. It's not like the bull had become a symbol of women being oppressed - and the fact that the original artwork was genuinely created by a street artist (and immigrant) and the new addition has been created by a multi-billion-dollar firm to attempt to profit from a political trend is telling.
But if you don't like it because it appropriates the power of declaring someone a sexist in order to undermine the original artist's intent...you're still a sexist! That's the beauty of it.
I'm not convinced that this sort of dishonest communication is what's required to give women a more even playing field in business. If that was the commissioners' intent, of which I am also not convinced.
Yes, indeed I do disagree that women should have the same entitlements as men. I think women should have the same rights and opportunities, but not the same entitlements. I think everyone should work for what they've got, thus earning their entitlements. In that sense, I am for as pure a meritocracy as possible. More power to those who are able, irrespective of their (physical) nature. I open myself to the possibility of being called sexist every single day for my opinions, but I know that what I believe is right and fair and has nothing to do with gender.
You can climb a ladder and stick your head in the sculpture’s arse to see a video of two Czech politicians feeding each other slop to a soundtrack of "We are the Champions"
[...]
The idea is disarmingly simple. Two bronze sculptures pee into their oddly-shaped enclosure (Update: actually it’s the shape of the Czech Republic – thanks Cirrat).
While they are peeing, the two figures move realistically. An electric mechanism driven by a couple of microprocessors swivels the upper part of the body, while the penis goes up and down. The stream of water writes quotes from famous Prague residents.
Visitor can interrupt them by sending SMS message from mobile phone to a number, displayed next to the sculptures. The living statue then "writes" the text of the message, before carrying on as before.
I think the bull, standing alone, is reflective of a bygone era. Maybe some folks want to go back. I certainly never really got the meaning, it was just a bull in a public space. It could have been an elk, an explorer, or something abstract. To me, the girl improved the bull - and the other way around. The bull improves the girl.
I don't think it matters what the artists intent was. The public's interpretation changes, and if he'd really like, he can ask for a plaque describing his original intent.
So this art is advertisement. It isn't like we don't look back and marvel at the glory of old movie posters or anything... Those were advertisements. It doesn't matter if it started as an advert.
I'd have been offended if they did shitty art, but in this case, they took care and did an actual piece.
Wow, I'm glad I read this! I knew the bull was guerilla art (put there without permission), and I knew (thought) that the girl was, too. And as such I thought it was a brilliant work of appropriation, and should stay.
But it turns out the girl is the result of a marketing campaign by a global advertising corporation for a giant investment fund. That changes everything.
Companies should not be let to use individual artists' work for their own corporate agenda. That's not right, whatever the message.
Di Modica, who still owns the bull, should put it somewhere else -- maybe in a different city.
My first thought on this has always been the famous statue of David. It originally had political undertones (David meant to show what a good ruler would be). Later, the Perseus with the Head of Medusa statue was erected. [1] Subversively, the head of Medusa is positioned so that David would be turned to stone. Rather clever, but I think the greatness of David has rather out shown the political commentary there. (All this according to my tour guide.)
Do you have a problem with all privately funded art? Because every private entity that funds a work of art has an agenda.
It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the artist's agenda. Should an artist be expected to turn down funding for their work just because they don't like the way the funder interprets their work?
If someone were to add a board of advisors, makeup crew and branding group just behind the girl, that would make the whole piece perfect, in my opinion
> It’s been almost thirty years, and Charging Bull is still owned by Di Modica, still on temporary loan to the city, still one of the most recognizable symbols of New York City.
Maybe Really Quite Confident Girl could be turned around and placed rather close next to the bull, so that she's not shitting on the very soul of the American people.
Well not no one. The op cares that much. I care a bit too because I always knew the history and intent of the statue thanks to a little Google search I did the first time I saw it.
Isn't the bull also the symbol of a impoverishment of workers?
In financial jargon:
Bulls are peoples betting in growth saying buy, and betting on more dividends given to share holders vs work costs.
Bears are the one selling. (Bad news too to be honest, but more for share holders than workers)
A long trend in bullish behaviour is related to the richs getting richers.
Since it is in the financial district and they were pissed, it looks indeed the girl can be seen as a counter guerilla meaning finance is a symbol of countering the excess of finance.
Which, if it were the meaning would be kind of a strong alteration of one of the meaning of the oeuvre.
Knowing that among the undeniable moral right of the author there is right to prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation, the guy do not have a point, he is in his lawfull right! Denying his point is just undermining the very few protection of authors.
As a coder whose work is protected by Author's rights I strictly see as dangerous to fight against hardly claimed rights that makes our value.
I do free software and I do not give up on my moral rights and I think as a worker protected by these rights we should be educated in author's right and whether or not we like his point of view, we should stand for his claim because that is a fair right.
Imagine you make a software or an essay saying HN is full of interesting bright mind, and someone defaces it adding contents to mean HN is full of pedantic idiots. Would you like this?
He probably doesn't actually have any legal claim; the purpose of those laws is to protect the physical integrity of artworks, not the conceptual integrity.
No, moral rights go beyond physical integrity, but at the same time they only protect "the author's honor or reputation". I don't think they apply in this case.
At which point the question becomes: does it react like the Girl, and just stare you down going 'I don't care because this is important on a whole other level'?
Pretty much the whole concept and the intended message of the artwork is 'falling back on power alone is not good enough', or indeed 'justice matters'. In that context, it doesn't matter if the fund underperforms its peers or a simple index fund, it matters whether people can be persuaded to support it on other grounds.
So if I read the article correctly, the bull originally represented the strength of the American people.
The girl is sold as representing the strength of women, but in fact it's a secret ad campaign that was put in front of the symbol representing American strength by a global fund. And people (unknowingly) support the ad campaign and react very aggressively to people questioning the ad and call anyone who questions the ad a woman hater.
And people who want to remove the ad don't care about the symbolism, they think things are fine or they don't like uppity women.
You don't plop a massive bull in the middle of the Manhattan Financial District soon after a market crash to generally represent the "strength and power of the American people." It represents exactly what everyone who sees it thinks it represents.
I wish this kind of stuff was being resurfaced more aggressively in the face of all of this absurd backlash about 'the meaning' of a piece of public art.
True enough. But while that's the meaning he put into the bull. I would say the bull was the strength of the American people in the face of a market that said otherwise. The girl was put there by an advertising firm --and some people have interpreted it as a native form of women's strength in the face of male dominance (which requires the bull transform from representing America to only representing men and the girl not representing a marketing campaign but all women facing patriarchal oppression). As the article mentions, the bull without the girl retains its strength, the girl without the bull becomes "really confident girl".
The bull in deep space Queens becomes, I dunno, a pair of brass balls attached to a bull? The whole thing is pretty silly no matter how Di Modica feels about it.
>>in the face of male dominance
>It's a big jump to that from "Fearless girl".
In that case, the secondary statue would not have become so symbolic for some (as referenced by current NYC mayor).
>The bull in deep space Queens becomes, I dunno, a pair of brass balls attached to a bull?
I don't think so. It may become detached from the wall street aspect, but it's still a bull ready to charge. It's like saying Michelangelo's "David" loses its meaning if it were moved to a commercial square in Shenzen.
And you may say David is more like the girl in that they're both defiant. However, I think not due to the symbolism behind the David as well as the bull.
It may become detached from the wall street aspect
I.e. it would become something completely different. There is no parallel to David, David's context is not as closely tied to its location - in fact, the statue is not displayed at its originally intended location.
I think I was not clear. Moving the bull might disconnect it from wall street [but not from representing the American economy.] Like the David [sculpture] its meaning can follow it, despite physical shift in location.
> And people (unknowingly) support the ad campaign and react very aggressively to people questioning the ad and call anyone who questions the ad a woman hater.
Stuff like this really makes me wonder what is going on with gender politics these days. It's a borderline witch hunt, where people are being singled out as "witches" to short circuit public opinion against them.
>He said he wanted the bull to represent “the strength and power of the American people”.
Di Modica can't really remove the bull statue then since that would signify defeat. Likewise with facing it in another direction. As other commenters have said, doing either could potentially start a positioning war anyways.
As far as symbology is concerned, I think the most forward-looking solution is to have the girl statue positioned slightly beside the bull, facing the same direction—signifying that America has her back and that everyone's on the same team.
Obviously the United States has a history of repressing women, so I could see the intentional choice to face her in opposition—if it were a legit piece of guerrilla art, and not an advertisement.
Commissioned corporate art hijacking classic guerilla art by twisting its meaning is, well... bullshit.
Of course he can remove the bull if he wants to. If he wants to send a particularly strong message, he can auction it and stipulation of the sale that the bull may not be positioned anywhere in New York City, and make the subsequent story his art.
A corporate advertising campaign co-opts social media and a vacuous fawning politician into demanding its advert must stay and be worshipped, and the symbol of America's indomitable spirit and dynamism is packed into a shipping container and sent to Shanghai...
I think it'd be hard to say Di Modica had been "defeated" as an artist if that all unfolded... and he'd probably have quite a few million from the sale to take solace in (plus being able to charge the city copyright royalties when it commissions a replica replacement).
On the other hand, it could be argued that the statue commissioned by SHE is an example of the very dynamism he was extolling, by using a bull in Wall Street as a symbol of the American people.
>I think it'd be hard to say Di Modica had been "defeated" as an artist if that all unfolded ...
Defeat in context of the principles the statue represents, not Di Modica personally as an artist. Sorry, I should have been more clear.
That said, I suppose the beauty of art is that it's open to interpretation, and even the scenario you outline could be construed as congruent with the principles the statue represents. Removal may not constitute defeat after all.
Seeing as Shanghai already has paid Di Modica for an edition of the bull installed on the Bund, seems unlikely they'd be interested. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bund_Bull
> Di Modica can't really remove the bull statue then since that would signify defeat.
The bull should be challenging a bear in the Wall St. iconography. I think a bear statue would compliment the bull nicely in this case. And additionally, if you've made it a pedestrian bear then, I am sure, the ad agency would have moved the girl statue away promptly.
I don't think this makes a convincing case. Why, for example, is it wrong for a new piece of art to change the meaning of an older piece of art? To me, art should make us feel and think, and this does both.
I can appreciate the wishful statement of the 'Fearless Girl', but the fact that State Street Global Advisors ($2.4 trillion in assets under management) put it there dilutes the overall message. It's a brilliant ad campaign, but this was not intended for anything other than an opportunity to attract a lot of media attention for a specific investment group.
In this case, the sooner its removed the better. However, I do hope that this inspires someone with good intentions to one-up the piece for the greater good and not a corporation's bottom line.
Well, much of the point of making a statue for a sculptor is to gain recognition. Not every artist wants to be a heremit. I don't see the problem of having one of your works publicizing how good you are at doing that kind of work.
So art studios owned by one person are real art and art funded by corporations aren't real art? Is this like 'I only eat Italian food made by italians'?
Well, the goal of an art studio is to make art (and money by doing so, to be able to create more art). The goal of those dirty (/s) corporations is only marketing, or something else, but it isn't art.
What if artists exhibit in shows sponsored by corporations or organizations like the Dubai International Financial Centre (as di Modica did in 2011)? Is it still art? Or is it just filthy advertising for filthy corporate DIFC (/s)?
I think there's a difference but I don't think it matters. Do you like the work? Does it get people talking? Is it iconic? Does it elicit political change? I don't think the answers change if we follow the money (except, sure, drop the plaque).
The Fearless Girl would have been a completely different story if they didn't put the plaque in front of it. Had it been the statue alone, it would have left more room for interpretation.
The same goes for the bull. If he had a plaque on it with his name, an artist statement, and some information to contact him, the piece wouldn't have had such an impact.
As if people from other countries are not equally strong and powerful and as if a statue of an animal could symbolize that in some way.
On some level though it makes sense, American actions the world over often recall the bull-in-a-china-shop image.
Art does not exist in a vacuum, it exists in the world around it and if you place a work of art in a public space you have to assume that that context can and will change over time. Deliberately or by accident. After all, the artist took a risk by placing the statue in a public space without permission, he can't now turn around and claim that others should not take similar rights.
In this case it seems that 'the guy' has under-estimated the amount of empty space he would like to see around his art but he can solve that by simply taking his bull home and putting it in his garden. Fearless girl won't be able to follow and the bull will be safe from any further artistic intrusions.
As if people from other countries are not equally strong
This is unfair; while chauvinists obviously extol their country, one can celebrate it without declaring its superiority. As a non-American myself, I understand the antipathy against American Exceptionalism, but let's not put everything in the same bucket.
It irritates me because it is totally lacking introspection and this kind of statement make it into the media with great regularity, in fact, so frequently that it becomes a meme in its own right.
Maybe it's my jealousy coming from a small country with puny and weak people. But I suspect that if some immigrant artist would put up the statue of a lion on Dam Square here to commemorate the strength and power of the Dutch he or she would likely be laughed out of town, statue included.
You are just projecting your own inferiority complex.
American people have several reasons to be proud of themselves. Even when you add up all the missteps the balance is undoubtedly a net positive effect on the world.
I don't see it as a positive statement. I see it as a statement of insecurity that you have to equate people to bulls. Just like the American Eagle, the Dutch lion and so on , it's just cheap symbolism, closely related to flag waving.
Nationalism was originally meant as a unifier in a world where racaus nobles would go to war over spurious land claims or maligned honor, and ethnic or religious divisions regularly lead to war.
Nationalism is not evil. It is a necceasary baby step away from tribalism and towards a humanist ideal, by getting one to acknowledge that people hundreds of miles away share common ground with you.
> As if people from other countries are not equally strong and powerful
This argument is like saying loving your wife (or husband) is bad because it's as if other women (or men) are not equally beautiful and smart and attractive. I think this is just fishing for offense.
>> [Fearless Girl is] an example of how commercialization can take something important and meaningful ... and shit all over it by turning it into a commodity.
But it's doing that to a statue celebrating capitalism. The irony goes so deep.
It's art. It wouldn't matter that much if it were paid for by a saudi monarch in order to promote violence against women, because absolutely nobody, except the special kind of people who write blog posts like this, would read it that way.
A lot of great art was originally sponsored/commissioned by wealthy corporate benefactors (for example the Catholic Church and nobility in 15th century Italy).
I think it's important that the beholder/public in general is aware of the providence of a piece of art, yet I doubt banning corporate sponsorship of art would be a net positive for society.
I always thought the bull was a commissioned piece of art as for example Franfkurt stock exchange has similar bear and bull sculptures infront of their building. In the financial world the bull symbolizes market gains and the bear symbolizes market losses.
230 comments
[ 5.1 ms ] story [ 230 ms ] threadI actually thought it was a reproduction of photos of the running of the bulls. Specifically, that moment in time where the fool in front and the bull both go round a corner. The bull tries to turn on the cobble stones of pamplona, but as a result, its hoofs begin to slide out from underneath it, and you tend to get photos like this one:
http://theday.co.uk/images/stories/2012/2012-07/2012-07-10_b...
Which is to say, the bull (market) has gotten out of control, and that statue represents the classical view you see of a bull that gotten out of control in the split second before everyone gets really hurt.
Honestly, i like my interpretation better :P
Just because Picasso (or some living author if you prefer for the example) doesn't own one of his paintings anymore, it's not artistically acceptable (arguably even culturally acceptable) for the owner of the painting to go there and just paint something over it that totally changes the meaning of the original painting.
Just because you are legally entitled to do something, it doesn't mean you should do something. As a recent example, just look at the United Airlines example for instance.
To me it represents a symbol in the war against men.
But what authority determines what is artistically acceptable, or which work's meaning is not allowed to be reinterpreted, commented upon or even ridiculed by another artist? What art permits in the service of social commentary and criticism is often at odds with what culture permits.
That depends on what you regard as equivalent to the canvas in the context of a public sculpture.
The actual physical form of the statue is probably the equivalent to its canvas - or I suppose it would also be the sidewalk underneath it, since that "contains" the artwork.
But to me it makes little sense to claim any arbitrary space around a statue as being equivalent to the artwork itself.
So the difference in the end would be just who has to turn:
- The statue that is there for decades.
- The statue that is there for less than one year.
If people where not doing this about (what they think in their heads is) some politically correct argument but about art (which is the point of the author of the article) than the answer would be obvious.
The creator of the bull, the person who doesn't like this situation, can only affect his statue. Therefore, all he can do is turn the bull.
Imagine that they do that and then the girl changes position to be in front of the bull again. And then again and again. What a coward bull!
I'm not convinced that this sort of dishonest communication is what's required to give women a more even playing field in business. If that was the commissioners' intent, of which I am also not convinced.
The three pieces would become a single work warning about Wall Street threatening our future.
[1] https://www.frankfurt-tourismus.de/en/Media/Attractions/Bull...
https://creamskyeyes.wordpress.com/2013/10/21/bear-hunting-i...
and cows:
http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/dott-return-cows-kuhunst
And Prague has babies:
https://www.tonyeveling.com/blog/baby-sculptures-in-prague/
Not to mention giant anuses you can stick your head in, and public urinating sculptures writing text messages with their penises:
http://www.boredpanda.com/bizzare-sculptures-by-david-cerny/
You can climb a ladder and stick your head in the sculpture’s arse to see a video of two Czech politicians feeding each other slop to a soundtrack of "We are the Champions"
[...]
The idea is disarmingly simple. Two bronze sculptures pee into their oddly-shaped enclosure (Update: actually it’s the shape of the Czech Republic – thanks Cirrat).
While they are peeing, the two figures move realistically. An electric mechanism driven by a couple of microprocessors swivels the upper part of the body, while the penis goes up and down. The stream of water writes quotes from famous Prague residents.
Visitor can interrupt them by sending SMS message from mobile phone to a number, displayed next to the sculptures. The living statue then "writes" the text of the message, before carrying on as before.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/disturbing-statue-nude-d...
Then place the coiled sculpture of Quetzacoatl behind the charging bull.
http://www.sanjose.com/underbelly/unbelly/Sanjose/Quetzy/que...
I don't think it matters what the artists intent was. The public's interpretation changes, and if he'd really like, he can ask for a plaque describing his original intent.
> It could have been an elk, an explorer, or something abstract.
So we can hang billboards from the statue of liberty, then?
I'd have been offended if they did shitty art, but in this case, they took care and did an actual piece.
But it turns out the girl is the result of a marketing campaign by a global advertising corporation for a giant investment fund. That changes everything.
Companies should not be let to use individual artists' work for their own corporate agenda. That's not right, whatever the message.
Di Modica, who still owns the bull, should put it somewhere else -- maybe in a different city.
Doing that could be an even bigger act of subversion than placing the girl there. What would become the meaning of the girl then?
Example: works sponsored by the House of Medici
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseus_with_the_Head_of_Medus...
It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the artist's agenda. Should an artist be expected to turn down funding for their work just because they don't like the way the funder interprets their work?
Don't be so melodramatic. No one cares that much about a bull statue, except perhaps Arturo Di Modica.
Wikipedia has had this link about the Wall Street bull being a celebration of the strength and power of the American people, since 2008.
Link to 1989 NY Times Article:
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/16/nyregion/soho-gift-to-wall...
Link to old wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charging_Bull&old...
The guy really hasn't made a secret about his artistic intent, he handed out fliers about it and probably likes mentioning it in every interview.
In financial jargon:
Bulls are peoples betting in growth saying buy, and betting on more dividends given to share holders vs work costs.
Bears are the one selling. (Bad news too to be honest, but more for share holders than workers)
A long trend in bullish behaviour is related to the richs getting richers.
Since it is in the financial district and they were pissed, it looks indeed the girl can be seen as a counter guerilla meaning finance is a symbol of countering the excess of finance.
Which, if it were the meaning would be kind of a strong alteration of one of the meaning of the oeuvre.
Knowing that among the undeniable moral right of the author there is right to prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation, the guy do not have a point, he is in his lawfull right! Denying his point is just undermining the very few protection of authors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights#In_the_United_Sta...
As a coder whose work is protected by Author's rights I strictly see as dangerous to fight against hardly claimed rights that makes our value.
I do free software and I do not give up on my moral rights and I think as a worker protected by these rights we should be educated in author's right and whether or not we like his point of view, we should stand for his claim because that is a fair right.
Imagine you make a software or an essay saying HN is full of interesting bright mind, and someone defaces it adding contents to mean HN is full of pedantic idiots. Would you like this?
Pretty much the whole concept and the intended message of the artwork is 'falling back on power alone is not good enough', or indeed 'justice matters'. In that context, it doesn't matter if the fund underperforms its peers or a simple index fund, it matters whether people can be persuaded to support it on other grounds.
The girl is sold as representing the strength of women, but in fact it's a secret ad campaign that was put in front of the symbol representing American strength by a global fund. And people (unknowingly) support the ad campaign and react very aggressively to people questioning the ad and call anyone who questions the ad a woman hater.
And people who want to remove the ad don't care about the symbolism, they think things are fine or they don't like uppity women.
Seems like the perfect representation of 2016.
No, that's just what Di Modica told people, presumably to better garner public support. It comes up in the original NYT reporting:
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/16/nyregion/soho-gift-to-wall...
You don't plop a massive bull in the middle of the Manhattan Financial District soon after a market crash to generally represent the "strength and power of the American people." It represents exactly what everyone who sees it thinks it represents.
It's a big jump to that from "Fearless girl".
the bull without the girl retains its strength
The bull in deep space Queens becomes, I dunno, a pair of brass balls attached to a bull? The whole thing is pretty silly no matter how Di Modica feels about it.
In that case, the secondary statue would not have become so symbolic for some (as referenced by current NYC mayor).
>The bull in deep space Queens becomes, I dunno, a pair of brass balls attached to a bull?
I don't think so. It may become detached from the wall street aspect, but it's still a bull ready to charge. It's like saying Michelangelo's "David" loses its meaning if it were moved to a commercial square in Shenzen.
And you may say David is more like the girl in that they're both defiant. However, I think not due to the symbolism behind the David as well as the bull.
I.e. it would become something completely different. There is no parallel to David, David's context is not as closely tied to its location - in fact, the statue is not displayed at its originally intended location.
It wouldn't have represented anything other than a bull, had he not put it there, is what I'm getting at.
Stuff like this really makes me wonder what is going on with gender politics these days. It's a borderline witch hunt, where people are being singled out as "witches" to short circuit public opinion against them.
Edit: https://www.ssga.com/global/en/about-us/who-we-are/team.html - at least there are some women on their team I guess. That makes it less pinkwashy.
But mostly in staff, not investment, roles. So don't give up your bucket of pink just yet.
Di Modica can't really remove the bull statue then since that would signify defeat. Likewise with facing it in another direction. As other commenters have said, doing either could potentially start a positioning war anyways.
As far as symbology is concerned, I think the most forward-looking solution is to have the girl statue positioned slightly beside the bull, facing the same direction—signifying that America has her back and that everyone's on the same team.
Obviously the United States has a history of repressing women, so I could see the intentional choice to face her in opposition—if it were a legit piece of guerrilla art, and not an advertisement.
Commissioned corporate art hijacking classic guerilla art by twisting its meaning is, well... bullshit.
A corporate advertising campaign co-opts social media and a vacuous fawning politician into demanding its advert must stay and be worshipped, and the symbol of America's indomitable spirit and dynamism is packed into a shipping container and sent to Shanghai...
I think it'd be hard to say Di Modica had been "defeated" as an artist if that all unfolded... and he'd probably have quite a few million from the sale to take solace in (plus being able to charge the city copyright royalties when it commissions a replica replacement).
Defeat in context of the principles the statue represents, not Di Modica personally as an artist. Sorry, I should have been more clear.
That said, I suppose the beauty of art is that it's open to interpretation, and even the scenario you outline could be construed as congruent with the principles the statue represents. Removal may not constitute defeat after all.
The bull should be challenging a bear in the Wall St. iconography. I think a bear statue would compliment the bull nicely in this case. And additionally, if you've made it a pedestrian bear then, I am sure, the ad agency would have moved the girl statue away promptly.
In this case, the sooner its removed the better. However, I do hope that this inspires someone with good intentions to one-up the piece for the greater good and not a corporation's bottom line.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/14/fearle...
Arguable though.
The corporation and the marketing firm didn't make Fearless Girl, Kristen Visbal did.
The same goes for the bull. If he had a plaque on it with his name, an artist statement, and some information to contact him, the piece wouldn't have had such an impact.
Such nationalistic bull-shit always irritates me.
As if people from other countries are not equally strong and powerful and as if a statue of an animal could symbolize that in some way.
On some level though it makes sense, American actions the world over often recall the bull-in-a-china-shop image.
Art does not exist in a vacuum, it exists in the world around it and if you place a work of art in a public space you have to assume that that context can and will change over time. Deliberately or by accident. After all, the artist took a risk by placing the statue in a public space without permission, he can't now turn around and claim that others should not take similar rights.
In this case it seems that 'the guy' has under-estimated the amount of empty space he would like to see around his art but he can solve that by simply taking his bull home and putting it in his garden. Fearless girl won't be able to follow and the bull will be safe from any further artistic intrusions.
This is unfair; while chauvinists obviously extol their country, one can celebrate it without declaring its superiority. As a non-American myself, I understand the antipathy against American Exceptionalism, but let's not put everything in the same bucket.
Maybe it's my jealousy coming from a small country with puny and weak people. But I suspect that if some immigrant artist would put up the statue of a lion on Dam Square here to commemorate the strength and power of the Dutch he or she would likely be laughed out of town, statue included.
American people have several reasons to be proud of themselves. Even when you add up all the missteps the balance is undoubtedly a net positive effect on the world.
Priceless. Thank you.
> American people have several reasons to be proud of themselves.
I'm sure they do.
> Even when you add up all the missteps the balance is undoubtedly a net positive effect on the world.
Call me in 20 years. Anyway, there is a vast difference between 'the American people' and 'America the country'.
>As if people from other countries are not equally strong and powerful
The tendency on HN to interpret any positive statement about the US or American culture as an implied insult to the rest of the world baffles me.
Nationalism is not evil. It is a necceasary baby step away from tribalism and towards a humanist ideal, by getting one to acknowledge that people hundreds of miles away share common ground with you.
This argument is like saying loving your wife (or husband) is bad because it's as if other women (or men) are not equally beautiful and smart and attractive. I think this is just fishing for offense.
But it's doing that to a statue celebrating capitalism. The irony goes so deep.
I think it's important that the beholder/public in general is aware of the providence of a piece of art, yet I doubt banning corporate sponsorship of art would be a net positive for society.
Additonally, I would say that the bull statue has well and truly earned its place. It is now an established piece of art: it has been subverted.
[1] http://www.frankfurt-tourismus.de/en/Media/Attractions/Bull-...
A sustained move in one direction over weeks is a "bull market" or "bear market".