[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.