|
Post by Christine on Jun 18, 2017 17:19:11 GMT -5
You are wounding me Don. Of all the things, I'd think you'd be for, or at least sympathetic to, this thing. After further consideration, I wish the peeing pup would not only have not been removed, but would have been made of bronze (not half-assed paper mache) and immortalized, just like the girl. This is a public space. There shouldn't be rules about what people can or cannot say. People were offended by peeing pup. Fuck them. People were offended by fearless girl. Fuck them. This is a public place. Let the artists have at it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2017 18:30:50 GMT -5
I want a copy of peeing pug. I wouldn't mind the bull, either, but it wouldn't fit in my apartment.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 18, 2017 18:55:50 GMT -5
It's a public space, but Fearless Girl was commissioned and placed by a brokerage firm and then used to promote that firm. If it's free for all, I guess it would be okay for Coca-Cola to slap their logo on every thing there, spectators included?
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jun 18, 2017 20:02:59 GMT -5
Sponsored art isn't quite the same as slapping an ad on a park bench.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 18, 2017 20:32:13 GMT -5
Where's the line, then? Well, Fearless Girl was used by State Street to promote a specific fund. It was--is--essentially an ad. The plaque under it names that fund, in fact. What's the difference?
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jun 18, 2017 21:06:14 GMT -5
Where's the line, then? Well, Fearless Girl was used by State Street to promote a specific fund. It was--is--essentially an ad. The plaque under it names that fund, in fact. What's the difference? They removed that plaque, from what I've read. I'm not sure why you need a "line." There's art, and there are logos/ads. Sure, sponsoring art is a sort of advertisement, but doing so doesn't make the sponsored art not art. Nor does it mean all advertisements must be art.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 19, 2017 9:41:47 GMT -5
They removed that plaque, from what I've read. It doesn't really matter. The point is, Fearless Girl was put there as an advertisement, first and foremost. You're banking a lot on the idea that this was a public space. In fact, you seem to be suggesting that this means anything goes (that's really not the case, though), that it's a free-for-all smackdown between "artists." Well the last two statements are true, imo. But there's subjectivity involved in that regard. And I don't know how you question the need for a line when you just drew one, yourself: you're differentiating "art" from advertisements. And who is going to make that call? An interesting--imo--tale that is something of a tangent, but it loops right back: I'm a big fan of the band Chicago. I was very pleased that the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame finally inducted them. But prior to it happening, there were a lot of arguments about the band, whether or not they deserved this honor. Most of those opposed seemed to view Chicago as something of a soft rock or pop group, a band that lacked the depth of other bands in the Hall. And this was a widespread opinion; most music critics and the industry media in general were never too keen on Chicago. Anyway, following their induction, there has been something of a renaissance for the band, among both critics and the public in general. CNN even ran a special on the band, which was most excellent and revealed some things many did not know, from some of Chicago's edgier stuff to Jimi Hendrix once remarking that Chicago's guitarist was better than he was. More recently, Sirius XM did a "townhall" with the current band members that featured a Q&A with questions from host Rob Thomas, from the audience, and from listeners. I listened to it and it was excellent. And I learned stuff I didn't know. Like the story of their album names and covers. If Chicago has always been viewed as creative to some degree, no one ever said this about the names of their albums, which have these fascinating names: Chicago, Chicago II, Chicago III, on up to Chicago XXVI (seriously). At first glance, the album covers weren't much different. Look them up. They're all basically just the band's logo, though in different colors/materials and backgrounds. The band members weren't even pictured on an album until like the sixth one, I think. And here's the reason why for all of these things: the band's manager--and the band, to some degree--wanted Chicago to be not just a band but also a brand and did not want to single out members (which has enabled the band to continue, on and on and on). Now, that may not seem like a big deal today, but in the early seventies--with a rock band that was very experimental--that was a pretty bold move, to say the least. Anyway, the logo itself--which is instantly recognizable, I think--was specifically intended to evoke both the Ford logo (the cursive one) and the Coca-Cola logo. But its still art, as are the logos of Ford and Coke. I don't think there's a legitimate argument to make that they're not. So again, why shouldn't Coca-Cola send people out in the dead of night and paint their logo all over everything, from the bull to the girl, if it's wide open simply because it's a public space?
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jun 19, 2017 15:57:10 GMT -5
They removed that plaque, from what I've read. It doesn't really matter. The point is, Fearless Girl was put there as an advertisement, first and foremost. You're banking a lot on the idea that this was a public space. In fact, you seem to be suggesting that this means anything goes (that's really not the case, though), that it's a free-for-all smackdown between "artists." Well, yeah, in my heart of hearts, I'd like to see a smackdown. Really I just want to be entertained. But I know that not anything goes. The pup didn't go over well for most. The girl didn't go over well for some. (ignoring the separate bull's artist's issue here, obvs.) I think it's more like what I said a while back, that it's all based on public approval. Democracy rules when it comes to the public square. *shrug* But you seem to be differentiating art vs. advertising based on intent. I don't see that as the line, if we are looking for a line. As to the rest of your post, the Chicago story was cool, thanks for sharing it. As to the question, why slapping a Coca-Cola logo on everything isn't "art".... it's just... not. It's my opinion of course, but it just seems really obvious. There's nothing original, it's not in any way, shape, or form interesting or aesthetically pleasing or thought-provoking or inspiring... like art is. I think Fearless Girl is art, but it's totally fair to say it's bad art, and that it wouldn't have the impact it does without the bull there, and of course, that it's not fair to the artist of the bull. But to say it's advertising, like putting a corporate logo on a park bench? There's no way, imo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2017 17:02:18 GMT -5
I'd rather keep the pug and ditch the girl.
I seriously dislike Fearless Girl. Everything about Fearless Girl. As a poet, as a woman, as an art critic, as a New Yorker, from the depths of my blackened soul, I reject Fearless Girl.
ETA:
I would move pug next to the nearest fire hydrant, where he'd be completely adorable.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Oct 6, 2017 21:23:01 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2017 21:39:02 GMT -5
One problem a lot of us Fearless Girl haterz had with it was that she was basically a hypocritical advertising campaign from a not-so-enlightened corporation.
Team Urinating Pug! Only it should urinate directly on the company.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2017 10:30:22 GMT -5
|
|