Author Topic: Fearless Girl  (Read 1780 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Johnny Slick

  • "Goddammit, Slick."
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11877
  • Fake Ass Skeptic
Fearless Girl
« on: April 14, 2017, 01:17:44 PM »
If only the sculpture was called "Clever Girl", we could all be making stupid Jurassic Park jokes and be done with it. Anyway...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2017/04/12/the_charging_bull_sculptor_is_right_fearless_girl_should_go.html

Quote
Wall Street’s Fearless Girl statue has weathered more than her fair share of mischief since she was erected the night before International Women’s Day. Just two days after her arrival in the Big Apple, she got humped by a man in a suit miming child rape. A few weeks later, supporters of our dear President Donald Trump nonconsensually draped her in MAGA gear and anti-immigrant placards.

Now, the sculptor of the decades-old Charging Bull statue the girl “fearless”-ly faces down is claiming she doesn’t belong there in the first place. Artist Arturo Di Modica, who installed his bull sculpture under the cover of night after the 1987 stock-market crash, called on Wednesday for New York City authorities to remove the girl statue, saying it violates his rights as an artist.
So... I agree with the general idea that art, public or private, shouldn't be defaced, but does putting a statue of a girl outside of the bull's general area but in its line of sight *really* constitute defacement? Sure, it turns the whole scene into confrontation rather than optimism, but I don't know, even at that it seems like you can just ignore the girl (LIKE WE HAVE IGNORED GIRLS THROUGHOUT HISTORY AMIRITE??) and still understand the original intent of the bull.

Also, original intent really doesn't matter all that much when art is made public. If Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa as a way of pointing out the brutality of capitalism, that message is and really should be lost to us now, as there's not a lot of sign of that in the painting (I mean, in the cases where an artist can make a case for his work meaning thing X, by all means he should make a case for it, but I don't think that his interpretation is necessarily any more valid than anyone else's once the art is made public).
Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.

- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Offline Jeremy's Sea

  • Kintsukuroi, baby.
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3160
  • 667 - Neighbor of the beast.
    • jeremyad [sic]
Re: Fearless Girl
« Reply #1 on: April 14, 2017, 01:21:37 PM »
lol his rights as an artist...

I hear the author of the Old Testament was going to sue Joseph Heller for "God Knows."
Knowledge is power. France is bacon.

Offline D4M10N

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 326
Re: Fearless Girl
« Reply #2 on: April 14, 2017, 01:22:18 PM »
The first statue does not lose its original meaning because of the second one. If there is a risk of that happening, add a better explanatory plaque.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Online Harry Black

  • International Man of Mystery
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9694
Re: Fearless Girl
« Reply #3 on: April 14, 2017, 01:24:25 PM »
He was kind of making the same point that the scene is now making.
I find the image of the girl a bit laughable though because as much as it represents what I want to see, it isnt happening and yet people are looking at it and going 'right on!' as if it is.

Eventually Wall Street will just appropriate this too and it willcome to represent them holding back economic chaos or something.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2017, 01:36:20 PM by Harry Black »

Offline nameofthewave

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 287
Re: Fearless Girl
« Reply #4 on: April 14, 2017, 01:33:21 PM »
The new scene is kind of fitting I think. The bull is likely scared of the girl and is in a defensive pose, probably not there by choice. Meanwhile the girl has been allowed to venture near a dangerous animal by her irresponsible parents. It is clearly a representation of the dangers of deregulation.

Online Johnny Slick

  • "Goddammit, Slick."
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11877
  • Fake Ass Skeptic
Re: Fearless Girl
« Reply #5 on: April 14, 2017, 01:35:43 PM »
The new scene is kind of fitting I think. The bull is likely scared of the girl and is in a defensive pose, probably not there by choice. Meanwhile the girl has been allowed to venture near a dangerous animal by her irresponsible parents. It is clearly a representation of the dangers of deregulation.
THAT'S NOT THE INTENT YOU CAN'T INTERPET IT THAT WAY
Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.

- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Offline daniel1948

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4248
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Fearless Girl
« Reply #6 on: April 14, 2017, 01:43:39 PM »
This is the first I've heard of it. IMO, art and free speech are related. If you stand on the sidewalk with a placard, and I disagree with what it says, I can stand a short ways down the street with a competing placard. The first artist made a statement with the bull. The second artist made a competing statement with the girl. The first artist has no right to deny the second artist the right to display another work. If the bull is still the property of the first artist, he can remove it if he likes. (But not if the city owns it.) Or he could turn it around.

Me, I like the girl. You go girl! Tell it like it is!
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline Jeremy's Sea

  • Kintsukuroi, baby.
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3160
  • 667 - Neighbor of the beast.
    • jeremyad [sic]
Re: Fearless Girl
« Reply #7 on: April 14, 2017, 01:44:31 PM »
The bull is a metaphor for delicious beets and the little girl will be powerless to stop delicious beets from becoming and integral part of every meal.
Knowledge is power. France is bacon.

Online Johnny Slick

  • "Goddammit, Slick."
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11877
  • Fake Ass Skeptic
Re: Fearless Girl
« Reply #8 on: April 14, 2017, 01:53:54 PM »
The bull is a metaphor for delicious beets and the little girl will be powerless to stop delicious beets from becoming and integral part of every meal.
I disliked this so much I had to click the "Like" button just so I could dislike it twice. >:(
Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.

- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Online 2397

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 719
Re: Fearless Girl
« Reply #9 on: April 14, 2017, 02:01:35 PM »
Unless the bull has been systematically tortured to teach it not to charge, then I don't think that being fearless means anything in this context. Put a child in front of a bull that has a reason to charge, and you're responsible for that child's death.

Online Andrew Clunn

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 14980
  • Aspiring Super Villain
Re: Fearless Girl
« Reply #10 on: April 14, 2017, 02:11:48 PM »
His expressive art has been co-opted by others to change its meaning and wrest away control of the art from its creator.  This is clear appropriation.
I agree with Clunn, which makes me feel all weird inside.

Offline Redamare

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3034
Re: Fearless Girl
« Reply #11 on: April 14, 2017, 02:15:56 PM »
I don't think it violates his "rights as an artist". Lol, indeed.

But I can see why he wouldn't like it, and it's kind of a "dick move" to co-opt someone else's art that way.
"redamare has kicked this thread's ass" -champagnej

Certainty is the enemy of wisdom.

--RED-uh-MAR-ay--

Offline D4M10N

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 326
Fearless Girl
« Reply #12 on: April 14, 2017, 03:17:42 PM »
His expressive art has been co-opted by others to change its meaning and wrest away control of the art from its creator.  This is clear appropriation.

Yeah but he's Italian, so . . . I'm not sure how to do the oppression calculus here. They ruled Europe for a fair bit, put up statues all over the place.


Sent from my M808V Main Battle Tank using Tapatalk Pro

Offline nameofthewave

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 287
Re: Fearless Girl
« Reply #13 on: April 14, 2017, 03:19:31 PM »
The new scene is kind of fitting I think. The bull is likely scared of the girl and is in a defensive pose, probably not there by choice. Meanwhile the girl has been allowed to venture near a dangerous animal by her irresponsible parents. It is clearly a representation of the dangers of deregulation.
THAT'S NOT THE INTENT YOU CAN'T INTERPET IT THAT WAY

You're right, I've had a think about it. I think the scene basically is advocating vegetarianism, with a paen to the essential paradox at the heart of capitalism: does it serve us, or the other way around? The girl is being taken to a local branch of McDonalds by her parents who are both Wall St bankers. The bull is contemplating its existence, basically surmising that it would not exist if it were not for the meat eating habits of humans.

Online The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *****
  • Posts: 9076
Re: Fearless Girl
« Reply #14 on: April 14, 2017, 03:25:45 PM »
The guy installed his bull surreptitiously and without asking permission.  He made his political statement, and others have as much right to place unauthorized sculptures there to make counter statements as he did to make his original one (which is come to think of it, not any right, really).  In my opinion, if he wanted to be able to control the context of his sculpture, he should have kept it in a gallery.
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell