[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.