Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 14:56:55 GMT -5
[ I added this poll after the thread was well underway. Do me a favor and read the whole thread before voting in the poll, if you're gonna. There are articles and arguments worth weighing, IMO. ] I am probably about to piss people off. (tee hee...I said "piss"! but really, I am likely to annoy a few of you with this post.) As you may have heard, an asset management company put a statue of a defiant little girl in front of the iconic wall street Charging Bull. She was supposed to be temporary, but now the mayor says she's staying. The creator of the charging bull, who still owns the bull sculpture and the copyright (he spent 2 years and 350k creating the bull), objects, claiming the little girl changes the message of his sculpture. Well, another sculptor made a statement... money.cnn.com/2017/05/30/news/fearless-girl-urinating-dog/index.html?sr=twCNN053017fearless-girl-urinating-dog0730PMVODtopPhoto&linkId=38171828A confession: I am entertained by Peeing Pug, not only because it makes me think of haggis , but also because... *gulp* ...Fearless Girl irritates the hell out of me and I am sympathetic to the sculptor of the Charging Bull, who claims the girl changes the meaning of his bull. I think he's right. I also think that taken on a literal level, she represents utter stupidity (since standing in front of a rampaging bull is not bravery so much as idiocy and likely death). Taken on a symbolic level, she represents...what? Standing in the way of an upward trending stock market? Bravely standing up to optimistic investors? The only way in which she makes symbolic sense at all is if the bull's meaning is changed to represent sexism. And I can't blame the original artist for being upset about that. Finally, as a work of sculpture, I think she's pretty lame. At least the pissing pug makes me laugh. As a poet, I like my metaphors to work. This one really isn't working for me at all, and it can only work by destroying another metaphor. Boo. I am not inspired by her as a woman, as a poet, or as a lover of art. Move Fearless Girl if you like and create another, more appropriate, statue for her to defy, perhaps a mustache-twirling sexist villain. Team "fine, take down Pissing Pug if you must, but get rid of Fearless Girl too." Despise me if you must.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 15:36:36 GMT -5
I should add... I shrugged when Fearless Girl was put up as a temporary thing for the Women's March. I object, however, to her being a permanent fixture, which is what many of her fans are trying to achieve.
If you want to use sculpture to make a permanent statement, you shouldn't use someone else's work with a very different intent in order to do so. Especially as it isn't just a copy of someone's work you're borrowing -- it is the original work itself.
There are much better ways to make a feminist statement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 15:52:08 GMT -5
More context, for those who are interested: money.cnn.com/2017/04/12/news/charging-bull-fearless-girl/?iid=ELAs a lawyer and a creator, I agree. And I'm sick and tired of hearing everyone who sticks up for the Di Modica's point condemned as "sexist" and "misogynistic." Finally, I really loathe De Blasio. Hate him. Always did. Smarmy freaking blowhard with ass-backward priorities. Get off my damn lawn. I'm sure I have some other opinions relating to this. Will go pound down a double espresso and a Red Bull and see what I can come up with.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on May 30, 2017 16:07:44 GMT -5
Very interesting. The first linked article says that the Peeing Pug artist claimed his purpose was to draw attention to the fact that the Fearless Girl was funded by State Street, as opposed to a private artist. Not quite getting why that point needed to be made. Is this about competing investment firms or something? As far as the original sculpture by Di Modica being re-framed to mean something else (without his approval), I guess I can understand that complaint. But it's still a beautiful sculpture, and now it's part of a pretty kickass (imo) statement with the addition of the girl. I'd personally be okay with that as an artist. It doesn't make the original sculpture "the bad guy." It makes it part of living, changing art. Of course, to take that position, I gotta give the pug credit for the same.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on May 30, 2017 16:18:27 GMT -5
I also think that taken on a literal level, she represents utter stupidity (since standing in front of a rampaging bull is not bravery so much as idiocy and likely death). Yes. That's exactly my take on the pairing. And I'm pretty sure no one would be okay with an artist placing sculptures of dead babies all around the Vietnam War Memorial (to indicate all of the soldiers were baby killers). Imo, an artist gets to make a statement ALONE with their art. If some people interpret that statement differently, fair enough, but some other artist shouldn't get to rob the first artist of intent by using their art without the first artist's permission. This is true for music as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 16:28:57 GMT -5
I suppose it is the poet in me -- it isn't just the prettiness of art that matters -- meaning and intent is central. The look of the bull itself remains, but the meaning is now entirely different.
I think that's being muddied here because of the alleged feminist message allegedly conveyed by the girl. A lot of people who like that message are saying "fuck the original artist and his message -- who cares"
But, well -- how about if Trump takes Springsteen's Born in the USA and uses is it as a campaign song and slogan to refect that he, unlike Kenyan-born Muslim presidents, was born here.
Bruce intended the song an ironic reflection on the bad treatment Vietnam Vets received on their return. Trump playing it at every rally would not change the words or tune. But a lot of people might just listen to the one line of the refrain, start associating it with Trump, and accept Trump's new meaning for it.
Most of the people championing Fearless Girl would deeply sympathize with Bruce's outrage.
And yes, if you say "oh, art is living and evolving" -- then yes, gotta give pug credit, too.
ETA:
Typed this as Rob was typing! obviously, I agree.
ETA:
And we both brought Vietnam into it! Jinx!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 17:01:57 GMT -5
This is actually worse than my campaign song comparison. At least the song would continue to exist and be played on its own, and music lovers could appreciate it as its own work.
Here, the sculpture no longer exists in its original context, but only in context of the little girl defying it. The artist's meaning has been preempted entirely.
I may actually start (or join, if one exists) an extremely unpopular campaign to get Fearless Girl moved.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on May 30, 2017 17:27:57 GMT -5
I don't think the Springsteen example is the same, because no one changed the song, only the venue. It's not possible to change the artist's meaning by doing that. You'd have to delete or add lyrics to change the meaning. Unfortunately, the artist can't make people hear his meaning, either. I think rob's example is better, but as it involves a war memorial, that's a little more... tricky. I don't grok the literal interpretation of "girl stands in front of raging bull: she's an idiot who's about to die." Metaphors aren't literal. The bull isn't literally a bull. Anyhoo, I can see how some artists would not want their art to be expanded upon. Original intent and all that. But isn't this a public place? Not sure copyright is applicable? If it is, he should go that route. If it isn't, cest la vie. Despise me if you must.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 17:47:37 GMT -5
I think copyright is applicable, and I think he will go that route. He'll just have to put up with a lot of screeching.
This isn't just that someone put up an unrelated work of art nearby, and he doesn't like it. It's not just that the neighborhood changed and suddenly the business behind the bull is a porn theater, creating an irony the artist did not intend.
The new work is actually incorporating his work -- indeed, Fearless Girl, really contains no metaphor or meaning without using the bull. She just looks like a kid defying her parents at bedtime if you take out the bull. And in using his work, it is erasing the original meaning of his work -- you can't see his work outside the context of the little girl defying it.
You missed my point entirely. Correct -- the literal interpretation makes no sense at all. You must move to metaphor. And when you do that, the bull becomes a completely different metaphor than it did standing alone. The artist intended the bull to stand for something positive. Now it stands for something very negative that must be defied.
I used the Springsteen example, the imperfection of which I acknowledged, to demonstrate that things smell a little bit different when they don't incorporate a cause we like.
Actually, this is actually much worse, since the bull no longer exists absent the context of the little girl.
And yes, it's true that Springsteen can't control how listeners hear his songs, I can't control the meaning readers attach to my poems, and this guy can't control how people see his statue.
But I think that's quite different from having someone actually USE your work to create their own work, and in doing so, erase the meaning of yours. Also, if you'll note, the corporation that put up the Fearless Girl used the bull in its publicity shots, thus profiting from it.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on May 30, 2017 17:53:32 GMT -5
I also think that taken on a literal level, she represents utter stupidity (since standing in front of a rampaging bull is not bravery so much as idiocy and likely death). Yes. That's exactly my take on the pairing. Just to be clear as to what I don't grok.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 17:55:18 GMT -5
How about a statue of a toddler lying face down on a beach, to depict the plight of refugee children? Someone puts up a sculpture of a bucket and pail, a sand castle, and a beach ball nearby, like he's just taking a little nap.
How about a statue of a woman flexing her muscle as a feminist symbol. Someone puts up a sculpture of a Soloflex gym machine and a weight rack behind her and a full length mirror in front of her, making it look like she just finished a good workout and is admiring her biceps?
In both cases, the original statue would remain. But they are now part of a new artwork (one that has no real context or meaning without the original), and the original meaning is lost.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on May 30, 2017 18:00:08 GMT -5
The new work is actually incorporating his work -- indeed, Fearless Girl, really contains no metaphor or meaning without using the bull. She just looks like a kid defying her parents at bedtime if you take out the bull. And in using his work, it is erasing the original meaning of his work -- you can't see his work outside the context of the little girl defying it. I think it's entirely possible to understand what the original work means, and also what the additional work means. Or maybe they could put up a plaque or something.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 18:04:56 GMT -5
The new work is actually incorporating his work -- indeed, Fearless Girl, really contains no metaphor or meaning without using the bull. She just looks like a kid defying her parents at bedtime if you take out the bull. And in using his work, it is erasing the original meaning of his work -- you can't see his work outside the context of the little girl defying it. I think it's entirely possible to understand what the original work means, and also what the additional work means. Or maybe they could put up a plaque or something. I disagree. Also, see the post I put up just before yours. Would the same apply to the statues of dead refugee toddler and feminist flexing her muscle? Also, your point, if valid, should apply to Pissing Pug. They could always put up a plaque.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on May 30, 2017 18:10:28 GMT -5
Which I said.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 18:18:24 GMT -5
I'm still not OK with it, since I think the (still living) artist should have a say in the sole copy of his artwork being subsumed in another artwork and having its meaning changed.
But if you're good with Pissing Pug staying, at least your position is consistent.
The hordes of people screaming bloody murder about Pissing Pug but throwing rocks at the original Charging Bull artist for objecting to Fearless Girl? They are not being consistent, and fie upon them.
|
|