|
Post by robeiae on May 30, 2017 18:20:24 GMT -5
Yes. That's exactly my take on the pairing. Just to be clear as to what I don't grok. When I partake of art, the first thing I note is the literal aspects of what I am partaking, be it it a painting, a sculpture, a song, a poem, and so on. Sometimes that's all there is (usually not great art, but not necessarily bad art). Usually, however, there's some amount of symbolism or deeper meaning (or musical work) that goes beyond the literal. In the case of this installation--because that't the best term to use now; it's not one statue or two statues, it a second statue installed in a specific place as a part of the "art"--the literal is a little girl standing in front of a huge, charging bull. What is there to grok? Minus symbolism, the little girl is in a precarious position and is acting foolishly. You can't stare down a charging bull. Of course, there is symbolism beyond the literal here. But as Cass has so carefully explained, the bull statue's symbolic meaning--the one intended by the artist--is gone. Forever (as long as the little girl remains). No one viewing the installation has any reason to see the bull as anything other than a negative, as anything other than a secondary figure to the primary one of the brave little girl. It's total bullshit, imo. The people championing the brave little girl are exactly what they don't imagine themselves to be: unenlightened enemies of artistic expression.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 18:23:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Christine on May 30, 2017 18:27:15 GMT -5
I don't actually see the original intent as gone. I see the original intent (optimistic investment; strong market; etc.) as being responded to with a big fat YEAH BUT (where are all the women on the BOD's? Is everyone benefitting from these opportunities on Wall Street?).
And of course, the pug is basically saying FUCK ALL YA'LL (Or, if you prefer, SEE HOW IT FEELS?) Either way: ART. Unless it's infringement, of course. In which case the courts will sort it out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 18:34:51 GMT -5
Just to be clear as to what I don't grok. When I partake of art, the first thing I note is the literal aspects of what I am partaking, be it it a painting, a sculpture, a song, a poem, and so on. Sometimes that's all there is (usually not great art, but not necessarily bad art). Usually, however, there's some amount of symbolism or deeper meaning (or musical work) that goes beyond the literal. In the case of this installation--because that't the best term to use now; it's not one statue or two statues, it a second statue installed in a specific place as a part of the "art"--the literal is a little girl standing in front of a huge, charging bull. What is there to grok? Minus symbolism, the little girl is in a precarious position and is acting foolishly. You can't stare down a charging bull. Of course, there is symbolism beyond the literal here. But as Cass has so carefully explained, the bull statue's symbolic meaning--the one intended by the artist--is gone. Forever (as long as the little girl remains). No one viewing the installation has any reason to see the bull as anything other than a negative, as anything other than a secondary figure to the primary one of the brave little girl. It's total bullshit, imo. The people championing the brave little girl are exactly what they don't imagine themselves to be: unenlightened enemies of artistic expression. The fact that it's turning the bull from a positive symbol to a negative one -- sexism and male domination -- is really the icing on the cake.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on May 30, 2017 18:38:17 GMT -5
Yeah, all that sort of thing ran through my mind while reading about the statues. Girl instead of woman. State Street marketing. What are they actually doing to promote equality. This is Wall Street, UGH. Etc. It's still art. Sometimes I just like to appreciate the feelz.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 18:38:51 GMT -5
I don't actually see the original intent as gone. I see the original intent (optimistic investment; strong market; etc.) as being responded to with a big fat YEAH BUT (where are all the women on the BOD's? Is everyone benefitting from these opportunities on Wall Street?). And of course, the pug is basically saying FUCK ALL YA'LL (Or, if you prefer, SEE HOW IT FEELS?) Either way: ART. Unless it's infringement, of course. In which case the courts will sort it out. I think he'd win in court. I just hope he sticks out all the inevitable outrage and files suit. I am now decided -- I'm going to protest Fearless Girl. Charging Bull artist needs women on his side so they can't paint it as "only misogynists and sexists" think Fearless Girl should be moved. ETA: I also think Fearless Girl is not a particularly good statue. To me, looks like it belongs in a playground. Your mileage may vary. And the corporate story behind it makes me retch.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on May 30, 2017 18:43:30 GMT -5
I found the bull rather cartoonish as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 18:44:07 GMT -5
I actually love the bull. Always have.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 18:49:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Christine on May 30, 2017 18:51:31 GMT -5
I actually love the bull. Always have. *headdesk* Clearly I will never be a comedian. Not even in my next life.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on May 30, 2017 18:54:33 GMT -5
I'm with Cass here. It's not like sampling a piece of a song and creating an entire new piece of art that takes nothing away from the original. The girl statue changes the meaning of the bull, and it also depends completely on the bull for context, which changes what the original work meant to the art.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 18:59:12 GMT -5
What I really want here is haggis's assessment of Pissing Pug as an artistic work. He can give us the small yappy dog perspective, which is sorely lacking in this thread thus far.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on May 30, 2017 19:00:52 GMT -5
Looks like he's familiar with the rigors of suing, so no worries on that front.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 19:07:34 GMT -5
Absolutely.
But he's 150% in the right. He owns the statue and the copyright.
And if I spent $350,000 and two years of my life creating an inspiring statue for the city of New York to display, I'd care very much about it being used for someone else's corporate purposes, or having its meaning erased (and changed to something negative) by incorporating it in another work.
I do not see this as an example of our overly-sue-happy culture. I'd sue, too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 19:20:20 GMT -5
If someone wants to do a feminist sculpture for the area, how about a woman in a suit with a briefcase, facing the New York Stock exchange, lifting her chin and throwing back her shoulders proudly?
|
|