|
Post by Christine on May 30, 2017 19:28:59 GMT -5
In 1989, he installed the bull under cover of night, without permission, as a way of inspiring people after the recent crash. That's really cool. The city removed it but ended up putting it back, largely because of people protesting.
To a certain extent, that's what's happening again, almost 30 years later. And if they remove the girl, people will protest again.
He doesn't see it that way, you don't see it that way, but a lot of people do see it that way.
I mean, if there were no copyright issues, would you really resist any sort of expansion or reinterpretation of any original art? I'd like to think that if, 30 years after I'd created an inspiring work of art, someone else came along and riffed off it to make something else that inspired people and was relevant currently, that I would not actually freak out and sue them.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on May 30, 2017 19:31:43 GMT -5
Yeah, like one in partnership with the bull. Doesn't it sort of mean that the Bull and the girl are enemies? Why does that have to be the case?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 19:34:34 GMT -5
I added a poll! ETA: And yes -- I would object to an artist using another work of art in his own piece over the objections of the original artist, especially when it changed the meaning. And especially when it's something like sculpture, where the original work no longer exists outside that context. So would a lot of people, when it's their own work. And that's one reason we have copyrights. Fearless Girl can be moved. Put something else in front of her to scare her. Put her facing the stock exchange, daring it to defeat her. I really don't give a fuck about protesters unless they're right. They're not right here.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on May 30, 2017 19:35:35 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. But anyone viewing the installation for the first time, as it exists right now, has no way to know there was a different original intent of the bull statue. People who are aware of the original situation, where there is only the bull, know the original intent, but--if they're being honest--they also know that this intent has been wholly compromised. And again, that's bullshit (pardon the pun) imo. That's not right, not fair to the artist at all. I don't care how the courts rule; not every "wrong" can be corrected by the courts. Beyond that, I'm not sure where this idea of "living, changing art" is coming from. I have a replica of David's Oath of the Horatii in my living room. I've seen the original in the Louvre. It is what it is; neither it nor my copy of it is living or changing. Ditto for the Sistine Chapel, for The Pieta, for thousands of other great works of art. And I'm pretty sure that if I tried to put a new statue of one thing or another next to Michelangelo's David in order to change it's meaning, no one would put up with it. Why is this guy's (the one who made the bull) art subject to having it's meaning changed by some other artist? Simply because people like the symbolism. Bleck. Might as well create a National Art Commission to go around and "adjust" all public art so that it all sends the "right" message...
|
|
|
Post by Christine on May 30, 2017 19:38:47 GMT -5
Yeah, like one in partnership with the bull. Doesn't it sort of mean that the Bull and the girl are enemies? Why does that have to be the case? It doesn't, imo. But I'm weird. In my story, the bull and the girl become BFFs forevs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 19:42:32 GMT -5
And I'm pretty sure that if I tried to put a new statue of one thing or another next to Michelangelo's David in order to change it's meaning, no one would put up with it. How about putting another statue of someone goosing that fine ass of his, to show a sex-positive message... Or put the Mona Lisa next to him, so that she's admiring his ass. And perhaps affix a cartoon bubble over her frame with a commentary on said ass. All to demonstrate that women, like men, have sexual appetites. Or, alternatively, as an ironic commentary on objectification of women by reversing stereotypical roles. With the originals, mind you. Permanently. ETA: And let's assume Michaelangelo and Leonardo Da Vinci are alive and object to the use of their works in this way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 20:04:46 GMT -5
In 1989, he installed the bull under cover of night, without permission, as a way of inspiring people after the recent crash. That's really cool. The city removed it but ended up putting it back, largely because of people protesting. To a certain extent, that's what's happening again, almost 30 years later. And if they remove the girl, people will protest again. He doesn't see it that way, you don't see it that way, but a lot of people do see it that way. I mean, if there were no copyright issues, would you really resist any sort of expansion or reinterpretation of any original art? I'd like to think that if, 30 years after I'd created an inspiring work of art, someone else came along and riffed off it to make something else that inspired people and was relevant currently, that I would not actually freak out and sue them. One crucial difference? When he put the bull statue there, there wasn't anything else there. It was a stand-alone work of art. It did not depend on and change another work of art. and there was no other artist protesting because of it.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on May 30, 2017 20:27:41 GMT -5
It's still in a public place. He put it there without permission. The city removed it, but then put it back because the people liked it. So it was all good. Now, according to the artist, it's not good. He's dictating what happens now, even though his art is there because people wanted it there. His recourse is apparently to remove his art, and that's fine, he has every right to take it back because he owns it, though that would be sad. And kind of ironic - girl would be standing there alone, having actually stared down the bull.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 20:32:25 GMT -5
If it were my sculpture?
I'd move it rather than have it stand opposite to the girl and have its meaning changed. Really, I would. Mostly because I'd hate to have the meaning of the statue -- the whole reason I spent two years of labor and $350K -- changed. And partly because I frankly think the little girl is a crap piece of art.
And plenty of places would be happy to have it. New York's loss, of course.
But as it happens, he has another recourse: to bring it to court.
ETA:
The little girl standing alone would not at all convey the grand feminist idea you imply. Alone, it conveys a little girl defying mom and dad over bedtime. People coming and viewing it would not say "my, what a powerful feminist symbol!" Even if they knew the story about the bull, I think the reaction of people seeing the girl standing alone would likely not be "wow, what a powerful little girl," but rather "what a pity a fine work of art was moved because of a piece of mediocre corporate crap."
She's just not powerful minus the bull.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on May 30, 2017 20:44:49 GMT -5
I said it would be ironic. I wasn't implying any "grand feminist idea."
It's likely she wouldn't stay if the bull were removed. Or they'd need a really big plaque to explain her.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2017 20:45:46 GMT -5
a yuuuuuge plaque. a very big plaque, believe me.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on May 31, 2017 8:47:33 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2017 9:00:09 GMT -5
Fuckety fuck, what a piece of claptrap. And yes, you pretty much summarized why.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on May 31, 2017 12:02:49 GMT -5
Rolling Stone has 0 credibility.
|
|
|
Post by haggis on Jun 1, 2017 15:01:32 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. Look. It was a short gig. In and out. Plus I needed the money. Don't judge me.
|
|