[derrickdirge]

The thing is, once you put a piece of art out there, you give up control over what that piece 'means'.

Di Modica's bull meant one thing to him when he made it. Now it means millions of different things to the people who consider it every day. If he wanted to maintain full control over the meaning of his work, he should have kept it in his private studio and not let anyone look at it without him standing by to explain the piece and answer any questions.

Similarly, Fearless Girl meant something specific to the asset management company that commissioned it, and something else to the artist who sculpted it. But now it takes on new meaning to everyone who encounters it. What it means to any given individual may or may not incorporate any of the intended meaning, and that doesn't make it any more or less valid.

If digging into the origins of the statues helps give them meaning to you, that's great. But most people who encounter them necessarily appreciate them at face value, and that's great too, because deriving meaning from art is intensely personal.

And beyond taking on different meaning to each individual, as time progresses and the world continues to evolve, so too will the symbolic value of any work of art placed into the world. God knows the Charging Bull has taken on a lot of additional meaning to a lot of people since '08. How did Di Modica feel about how that event 'changed the meaning' of his work?

If you don't like a work of art, that's fine. But no one has the authority to tell someone else what it should mean to them.

[emn13]

I think you're glossing over a major issue here: this is not merely Di Modica's attempt at imposing his vision of his work; it's also about SHE's attempt to import their vision of his work. That strikes me as being at least as objectionable.

Furthermore, works of art - like any communication - depend, in some form, on context. This is an intrinsically fuzzy area, but while it's clearly absurd to let anyone entirely dictate the context, I also feel it's questionable - misleading even - to retrospectively impose context upon them, particularly if that new context serves to misrepresent the original message, and even more so when the new message is so blatantly self-serving without being upfront about it.

Regardless of the personal meaning of art; allowing such deception encourages it, and that undermines our ability to interpret the world around us. It's hard enough without institutionalized deception.

So - fine for the statue to exist; dubious for its advertising nature to be hidden; and definitely unreasonable for it to be allowed to reinterpret others' messages so deceptively.

[nagvx]

>so blatantly self-serving without being upfront about it

Is advertising actually self-serving if it isn't upfront about what it being advertised?

This statue is not like a traditional billboard emblazoned with a brand name - the only mention of SHE appears to be on the placard at the foot of the statue. Even then, the mention is ambiguous, as how many people will recognize 'SHE' as a stock tracker rather than just a word with emphasis?

I broadly agree with your sentiment, and I understand there is something discomforting about its origin. However I believe the statue would come across as far more tasteless if SHE were upfront with their branding.

[ntsplnkv3]

> Is advertising actually self-serving if it isn't upfront about what it being advertised?

Yes, subliminal advertising is a real thing, and other techniques desperately try to hide the fact that it's an ad. Not sure about this case, it's definitely an interesting one.

[pandaman]

>Even then, the mention is ambiguous, as how many people will recognize 'SHE' as a stock tracker rather than just a word with emphasis?

All people in this advert's target audience will. If not from the inscription then from the media buzz it has been generating.

[TheOtherHobbes]

That's sometimes called having a public conversation.

Entity A makes a public statement. Entity B makes a public reply.

Public comments are reframed, misrepresented, misunderstood, and recontextualised with varying degrees of honesty and good/bad faith all the time.

I don't think anyone is going to get very far arguing that's not acceptable, because it seems like a straightforward free speech issue.

No one is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre here, or calling for people of a certain race to be rounded up into concentration camps.

It's a political statement about a political statement, and in a free speech context, that's absolutely fine.

[emn13]

Nothing about free speech is straightforward. At least, that's my take: I don't believe free speech by itself has a lot of value. It's just noise, until you can interpret it; it's the message that matters. And in lots of ways, this isn't controversial: when you prevent plagiarism, protect trademarks, punish libel, enforce honesty in advertising, or root out academic fraud you're doing so because free speech alone isn't enough.

Similarly here; just because some people may have a message they should be allowed to proclaim does not mean they should be allowed to (effectively) silence others, nor that they should be able to misrepresent the origins of their message.

I don't think their message is particularly objectionable, but I don't think it's reasonable for it to change the bull's message so severely. Separately I don't think it's healthy for something so context sensitive to be pushed so publicly without proper attribution. Then again, I don't think advertising is good for us, either, so on that front I realize that there's definitely some disagreement.

[matco11]

I wonder how people would feel if somebody made a huge painting with some modern brightly colorful composition and a cutout rectangle in it and the Louvre Museum put the Mona Lisa in the cutout rectangle to symbolize the abandon of old canons for the new.

...First the Mona Lisa's beauty would be diluted then its meaning - the art in it - would be destroyed (not irreparably, you could always take the Mona Lisa out again and put it where it deserves to be - on its own, in the context it deserves).

I love the fearless girl. But the Charging Bull shows the energy of progress, of the economy, of ambition, of growth. Not something I would want anyone to stop.

The advance of the bull's charge means we are all better off, means our children will be better off than we are. It means progress.

...If anything the girl should be riding the bull, pointing her finger forward! Yes a little girl can ride and drive the progress, can lead the charge of progress!

...but she should not be there to stop it. They could have bought an old nazi tank and put her in front of it, and the Fearless Girl would have had exactly the same meaning.

Let the Fearless Girl tell her message. Let the Charging Bull tell its message

[Applejinx]

"The advance of the bull's charge means we are all better off, means our children will be better off than we are. It means progress."

Yes, and if that's a lie, the Girl takes on more significance. The moral argument for not diluting the Bull message rests on whether its location and attitude represents its known intentions. If this is instead a mistake or a lie, that message is best disrupted. And that's absolutely a political argument, not an artistic argument, but all the same it IS a significant public argument that's increasingly mainstream.

If we're not better off and our children will be poorer and more desperate than we are, then this Bull is not progress and some form of counter-argument needs to be made. And you can defend the Bull's right to be its own statement (not actually challenged by the Girl) but this doesn't extend to legislating that the Bull's statement must go unchallenged. Even by index funds, selling something ;)

[jacobolus]

In practice, that “modern brightly colorful composition” already exists, in the form of a gaggle of tourists taking selfies in front of the Mona Lisa at all times.

[RockyMcNuts]

All 100% true… that being said, it's also a little like "Your liberty to swing your fist ends just where my nose begins".

Which is not completely true from all points of view, if I follow you around swinging my fist a millimeter from your nose, it's still an act of violence.

If I paint a tag on the statue, it's vandalism. If I put up a giant dude swinging a croquet mallet next to the Arc de Triomphe, people who appreciated the monument will be upset. (Or Trump next to Mount Rushmore…or a man exposing himself to the girl between her and the bull)

Sometimes art that is motivated by response to another piece of art is itself timeless, and transcends the original. Sometimes it's just crap.

Recontextualizing is an occupational hazard, if you're a statue, or an artist.

We can debate whether the girl elevates the bull, or disrespects and diminishes it. If it's fine art or crap. And if it falls into that grey area of recontextualizing or vandalism.

[acjohnson55]

Di Modica seems perfectly within his rights to feel mad. It would be another thing if he were actually trying to prevent the Fearless Girl from being there. I don't understand that to be the case, though. I, for one, am happy to know this extra context. Understanding all the layers makes the whole installation even more intriguing and effective as an act of art.

[smsm42]

I must say I found it a bit tacky to attach one's own sculpture to an existing public work of art. Not that one should never do it, but to me it's a bit like drawing a mustache on Mona Lisa - one could do it for fun, sure, but it's infinitely lower level of art than the original creation.

However, now that I know that this fearlessness symbol is actually part of corporate marketing campaign pushing some obscure (at least for the general public, and I don't care how many billions they manage) investment fund, this acquires so many deeper meanings that I actually start liking it a lot. The symbolism of it so rich, it's even better than selling Che T-shirts with slogans "Fight Capitalism" for $39.99. And much more prominent.

Ah, and yes, I completely agree that the meaning is in the eyes of beholder.

[Applejinx]

The Bull isn't a public work of art. It was guerrilla art: a very rich man needed to make a big symbol of power and stick it near the Stock Exchange because he thought people should not be intimidated by the latest stock market crash.

That's a pretty specific statement to make, even a political one in its own right, and it wasn't 'public', it was one guy with a lot of money and time on his hands. I've seen art critics be pretty scathing about the Bull on the grounds that it's tacky bad art. It's popular as hell: unsurprising and not really the point.

It was never public art. It's exactly the same context as the Girl, and represents its time about as well as the Girl represents 2017, with all her contradictions and sketchy motivations. The symbolism of the Bull is just as deep as the Girl, it's just that the message is wildly different.

[smsm42]

> The Bull isn't a public work of art.

By now it pretty much is, whatever the roots of it were. It has been accepted in the culture.

> I've seen art critics be pretty scathing about the Bull

I've seen art critics being scathing about everything. Literally. That's what they do. Name a work of art, and there are dozens of art critics being scathing about it. Too old, too new, too smart, too dump, to tacky, too conservative, too much meaning, too little meaning... take your pick.

> It's exactly the same context as the Girl

Well, now that we know the Girl is an ad for an (underperforming) index fund, I think the context is slightly different. But I agree that it's both deep and meaningful and reflects the zeitgeist.

[daveguy]

No. It is like hanging a painting of a mustache next to the Mona Lisa. This does not damage or physically modify the original art.

You don't even know the name of the investment fund that paid for this statement. Neither do I. The main point obviously wasn't to push the fund, or there would have been a separate statement taking credit.

[smsm42]

> This does not damage or physically modify the original art.

Surely, but we're not talking about tort lawsuit here. We're talking about art. From art point of view, it doesn't really matter if you drew it on original or on a reproduction. Well, if you are into performance art it kinda does, but that's not relevant here.

> You don't even know the name of the investment fund that paid for this statement.

Ah, but now I do. That's the point.

> The main point obviously wasn't to push the fund

Or was it? And why would I care what the intent was - it's the result that is interesting. When Homer performed his rendering of Iliad, he probably didn't intend to create timeless classic to be studies thousands of years since. He probably was just trying to earn his evening meal. Who cares? The point is not what they wanted to do, the point is what they did. At least to me.

[daveguy]

With your analogy of drawing on the mona lisa you imply that they literally attached one sculpture to another. It's just a poor analogy. If they had welded the noses of the bull and the girl together then it would be an accurate analogy.

I also had never heard of Di Modica. I'm sure recognition/advertising had nothing to do with his original work or current speaking out.