Charging Bulls, Fearless Girls, Dead Authors, and Art

[pendell]

So I saw This article (http://hotair.com/archives/2017/04/13/wall-street-bull-artist-thinks-fearless-girl-ruins-art-hes-right/) and thought on the recent discussion -- in the SF Melee thread -- how Paul Verhoeven took a different message from Heinlein's work than Heinlein intended and created a new , derivative work with his license to rebut everything he said.

Seems that happens in more than one venue.

In the link above ,this all starts with the Charging Bull statue (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charging_Bull) on wall street.

Just look at it for a second. What does it make you think of?

Well, according to the sculptor, Arturo Di Modica, it's supposed to represent “freedom in the world, peace, strength, power and love” . As someone else put it, "an encouraging representation of a booming economy".


...

I don't know about the rest of you, but that's not what I take from it. When I think of bulls , This is what I think of (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7ocF0mRHBE) (:36-1:06). And of course there's "Golden Calf", which also comes to mind. Not a positive image at all.

Evidently other people -- specifically, Kristen Visbal, and the advertising company which funded her work -- didn't take it that way either. So they put Fearless Girl (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fearless_Girl) directly in the path of Charging Bull.



Fearless Girl, which measures approximately 50 inches (130 cm) tall and weighs about 250 pounds (110 kg),[1] faces Charging Bull, a much larger and heavier bronze statue that is 11 feet (3.4 m) tall and weighs 7,100 pounds (3,200 kg).[4].

Both are located in Manhattan's Bowling Green, at the intersection of Broadway and Whitehall Street.[5]

Fearless Girl is meant to "send a message" about workplace gender diversity and encourage companies to recruit women to their boards.[6]



As Kristen said here (http://nypost.com/2017/03/28/fearless-girl-artist-has-sympathy-for-charging-bull-sculptor/) ,

“The bull is beautiful, it’s a stunning piece of art, but the world changes and we are now running with this bull.”


As the original link at top states, Arturo is just a wee bit upset that this sculpture was added right in front of his piece, taking a standalone piece meant to represent something positive and turning it into a massive, intimidating monster out to smash little girls. He wants the statue removed.

Ny Times Covers it (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/12/nyregion/charging-bull-sculpture-wall-street-fearless-girl.html). As does the Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/14/fearless-girl-statue-women-new-york-bull), the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/12/charging-bull-sculptor-says-fearless-girl-distorts-his-art-hes-fighting-back/?utm_term=.55d48916df30), and others.

All of this seems to stem from the fact that not everyone, when they see a charging 7100 pound bull in the middle of a city , automatically thinks of "strength and freedom".

And even if they did .. well, sometimes one person's freedom comes from trampling on someone else.

So here are my questions:

1) Does the fact that the interpretation Kristen took away is different from the one Arturo intended make her interpretation wrong? Or does art, to some extent, escape the control of the author, because the audience takes its own preconceptions and ideas to the work? The same sculpture, in different contexts, can mean different things. A charging bull on an empty grassy plain means something entirely different from a bull charging directly at a small girl. And each viewer has their own internal context, which means each viewer is going to take away a slightly different message. As a person who's not on wall street, I don't find a 7,600 pound metal bull even a slightly positive sign, especially in a crowded city. The phrase "bull in a china shop" comes to mind.

2) To what extent is an author responsible for the audience's interpretation of the work? If they are, how can they make something that really will speak universally without making it something so watered down as to be practically meaningless?


3) Was it wrong of Kristen to modify Arturo's work in this way? While the Charging Bull itself has not been changed, the addition of a new statue converts a standalone work into a tableau, and the overall interaction of the two pieces sends a message not conveyed by the original statue. So the meaning and intent of the art has been changed. Is this a wrong thing? If it isn't, could someone add , say, a statue of a war orphan or a childless beggar to the Iwo Jima Memorial (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Corps_War_Memorial) as a rebuke to the idea of war?

4) The "Fearless Girl" isn't going anywhere. Originally given a one week permit, it's been extended to first thirty days and then to a year, with a large push to make it permanent. What do you think?
Stay or go? If "stay", what do we say to Arturo, whose work has just been modified, made into part of another, larger work?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Scarlet Knight]

1) Does the fact that the interpretation Kristen took away is different from the one Arturo intended make her interpretation wrong? Or does art, to some extent, escape the control of the author, because the audience takes its own preconceptions and ideas to the work? The same sculpture, in different contexts, can mean different things. A charging bull on an empty grassy plain means something entirely different from a bull charging directly at a small girl. And each viewer has their own internal context, which means each viewer is going to take away a slightly different message. As a person who's not on wall street, I don't find a 7,600 pound metal bull even a slightly positive sign, especially in a crowded city. The phrase "bull in a china shop" comes to mind.

Artists cannot control their audience, but they should try to get the audience to see what they envisioned. An artist may be celebrating the female form, but I buy it 'cause the model's hot!
This bull is not on just any street, it was placed on Wall Street for a reason. Thus, it represents the strength and power of a Bull Market...with all the good or ill it contains.

2) To what extent is an author responsible for the audience's interpretation of the work? If they are, how can they make something that really will speak universally without making it something so watered down as to be practically meaningless?

Sadly, artists cannot control viewers. This can be good when times change and a work becomes popular as people find new connections to a work the artist never intended. Sometimes the artist's lack of skill in conveying his message turns out to help as viewers pick a better message.

3) Was it wrong of Kristen to modify Arturo's work in this way? While the Charging Bull itself has not been changed, the addition of a new statue converts a standalone work into a tableau, and the overall interaction of the two pieces sends a message not conveyed by the original statue. So the meaning and intent of the art has been changed. Is this a wrong thing? If it isn't, could someone add , say, a statue of a war orphan or a childless beggar to the Iwo Jima Memorial as a rebuke to the idea of war?

Yes, it is wrong. What stops another artist from placing a bear statue behind the girl changing "Fearless Girl" into "Clueles Girl"?

4) The "Fearless Girl" isn't going anywhere. Originally given a one week permit, it's been extended to first thirty days and then to a year, with a large push to make it permanent. What do you think?
Stay or go? If "stay", what do we say to Arturo, whose work has just been modified, made into part of another, larger work?

I think it should go for several reasons. It's a poor symbol of feminine empowerment and if it cannot stand on it's own, there's no reason to have it. But sadly, once Arturo was paid, the statue is no longer his. The owner can tie-dye it if they wish.

[Frozen_Feet]

:
1) Does the fact that the interpretation Kristen took away is different from the one Arturo intended make her interpretation wrong?

No, but it doesn't make her right either. Everytime you ask about "interpreting art", you are asking about communication. At least following things ought to considered: what the intended message is, what the actual form of the message is, why did the author of the message choose this form, who the intended receiver of the message is, what the intended receiver's ability to decipher the form of the message is, who the unintended receivers are, and what is their ability to decipher it.

If we presume Kristen was the intended receiver, and her ability to decipher the form of the message is flawless, then we must conclude the form of the message did not convey the intended meaning, and it is the author of the message who screwed up interpreting their own work.

If Kristen was not the intended receiver, then her ability to flawlessly decipher the form of the message is suspect, and we would want a second opinion from someone who was the intended receiver. Then, if the intended receiver got the message and she didn't, we can conclude that as an outsider, she could not interprete the message and was, indeed, wrong.

The only time no wrong interpretations exist is when a form is devoid of message. It's also possible for the messager to be intentionally vague, hence leaving space for multiple correct interpretations, but having more than one correct interpretation is not the same as all interpretations being correct.


Or does art, to some extent, escape the control of the author, because the audience takes its own preconceptions and ideas to the work?

Of course it does, this is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of demonstrable reality. But it is not synonumous with giving validity to audience interpretations, because the audience's ideas and preconceptions can be mindless.


2) To what extent is an author responsible for the audience's interpretation of the work?

To the same extent as any other communicator is responsible for people interpreting their messages.

To give a non-exhaustive list:

I am not responsible for any of your interpretations if I intended to send no message and it can be shown I intended no message.

I am not responsible for any interpretation caused by faulty deciphering of the form of my message, when your deciphering the message can be demonstrated to be faulty.

I am responsible if I intended to send a message, I put the message in the form you should undertand, and you demonstrably interprered the message in the way I wanted to.

So on and so forth.


If they are, how can they make something that really will speak universally without making it something so watered down as to be practically meaningless?

Hold on a sec. Where does this presumption come from that an universal message is "so watered down to be practically meaningless"?

This follow-up seems entirely disjointed from the earlier question. The extent to which an author is reponsible for their message is a moral question; the question of how to craft an universal message is a logistical question. The author being responsible for whatever they message has no bearing on how they can make the message.


3) Was it wrong of Kristen to modify Arturo's work in this way?

Does it make it difficult for people to view Arturo's original message? If yes, it is wrong in the exact same way as speaking over someone is, or me editing your posts to make their message different would be.


4) The "Fearless Girl" isn't going anywhere. Originally given a one week permit, it's been extended to first thirty days and then to a year, with a large push to make it permanent. What do you think?
Stay or go? If "stay", what do we say to Arturo, whose work has just been modified, made into part of another, larger work?

Honest opinion, move the Fearless Girl elsewhere and make a replica of the Bull to complement it. Criticism of.a message is fine, but it should be done so that the original message is easy to see as well.

[JCarter426]

1) Does the fact that the interpretation Kristen took away is different from the one Arturo intended make her interpretation wrong?
No, it doesn't. The sculpture is an expression of idea, and people have differing views on ideas.

I wouldn't call an interpretation wrong unless it's based on some premise that's factually incorrect (in which case it's not strictly an interpretation) or if the interpreter is willfully ignoring some part of the work. And even then they're free to think whatever they think, and not all of us have to care what they think.

I'll give an example. I'm not fond of The Little Mermaid. In the story - spoiler alert - the mermaid takes human form so she may marry a human and earn a human soul through their love or whatever. The plan fails and she dissolves into foam, but because she's the protagonist she is awarded a second chance. I don't care for the message but that's all - I'm not going around promoting a different interpretation of the story. I am not going to claim, for example, that The Little Mermaid is an offensive work of racism. Such a claim would be based on the idea that mermaids are no different from humans, and so a story that suggests they are inherently inferior - soulless monsters, in fact - and only a very few can ever measure up to a real human, through marriage or three centuries of slavery, is therefore rather racist, and promotes racism in the real world. However, such an interpretation is as inherently flawed as the soulless monster of the story because a) mermaids do not exist, and, more importantly, b) in the context of the story, mermaids literally have no souls. I would have to willfully ignore that second point if I were to cry racism. If I accept that it's a story about a being without a soul earning one through love or goodwill, then I have to defer to Andersen's original intended message. I'm still free to have some issues with that intent, and I do, but that's another matter.

I suppose you could attribute the soulless claim to some unreliable narrator. Maybe it's a metafictional device intended to make you question what you've been told. But if you can pick and choose any part of the story to ignore, then you've done the fictional equivalent of proving 1 = 0. So I have to favor author intent over death of the author in that case or else I'll go mad.


2) To what extent is an author responsible for the audience's interpretation of the work?

Depends on what you mean by "responsible". If you mean as in held responsible, that's a murky legal issue but my knowledge of Law & Order tells me that it's only when one incites action. If you mean responsible as in having agency, then even Law & Order can't help me answer.

If the audience has a different interpretation than the author intended, that can be a failure on the author's part... or it might speak to the depth of the work, that it can be viewed so differently, even in ways that the author did not specifically intend. And of course some authors prefer to leave some things up to interpretation. It adds mystery.

But if you want some guideline for how to relate a clear message without it being taken the wrong way, you'll have to wait until we resolve every argument that ever occurred on the internet. We've already figured out the all the in-person ones, right?

I don't know. There are a few obvious ways like making characters' motives clear, and to take conservation of information in consideration. But it's probably inevitable that your story will be seen in a different light in a society with completely different mores. Context changes the message. You can only write for the time and place you're in. Or how you imagine that time and place could be, if you're an optimist.

And I just realized I phrased that in writing terms... because it can be even harder to relate a complex message with a strictly visual medium. I'm not sure what the equivalent sculpting terms would even be.


3) Was it wrong of Kristen to modify Arturo's work in this way?
I really want to avoid using the word "wrong" again. I would, however, argue that it has many things in common with many things that are considered "wrong" - like vandalism and censorship.

Yes, the original sculpture itself was not harmed or changed in any way. You might argue that the girl is a commentary or parody of the bull. I would argue against that, however. Those do not detract from the original work. They are something to be considered in addition to the original work, in its original form.

Spaceballs, for example, does not alter Star Wars. You may view one differently after seeing the other - you might enjoy one less, or you might enjoy both, but in any case they are separate films; the existence of Spaceballs does not prevent one from seeing Star Wars in its original form. George Lucas, however, has made that rather difficult... but I digress.

Similarly, one could go rant on Tumblr about how a particular television show's writer is sexist, and that might sway the opinions of those on Tumblr, but it does not change the presentation of the show itself.

The difference here is that, due to the juxtaposition of "Fearless Girl", one can no longer view "Charging Bull" in its original form. Maybe you could if you walked there blindfolded and stood at the right angle, but you'd really have to go out of your way. Else you must see one along with the other. Preventing a work from being seen in its original context is a serious alteration - and a negative one, according to the creator.

Whether that makes it wrong, I can't say. But I do say that it alters the original work, and that's the same reason people are against censorship and vandalism and the special editions. I'd also say the matter of whether it's right or wrong is entirely separate from the matter of what's polite, here.


4) Stay or go?
I wouldn't want to make the decision. On the one hand, allowing it to remain would set precedence. Some hypothetical future artist might be stirred to do the same to something else, and then we're on a slippery slope and it's only a matter of time someone does do "wrong" with it, just imagine something offensive. On the other hand, regardless of how it came to be, it exists - to remove it would do more than alter it, and would amount to censorship. Setting precedence for that sort of thing is also bad. One might also hypothesize some scenario in which the juxtaposition is justified... but it's a messy business, regardless.

[Aedilred]

Honest opinion, move the Fearless Girl elsewhere and make a replica of the Bull to complement it. Criticism of.a message is fine, but it should be done so that the original message is easy to see as well.

I think this is actually the most sensible suggestion I have seen on the subject.

I can see why people like "Fearless Girl". I think it's a little trite, personally, but sometimes you need to be unsubtle. But it's not a standalone piece of art: it relies on "Charging Bull" to give it context.* "Charging Bull", on the other hand, is a standalone piece, and putting Fearless Girl in front of it alters it, robbing it of its own expressive intent.

Both pieces have a right to exist, but the placement of Fearless Girl eclipses the piece without which it can't meaningfully exist at all. Allow both pieces to stand separately and thus demonstrate the full value of both: move her somewhere else and give her a new bull to stand in front of.

As has been suggested before, if someone were to put another statue next to Fearless Girl - a bear looming behind her, a photographer taking a pantyshot, etc. - I have no doubt that Kristen Visbal, her sponsors, and the people currently defending the statue, would be outraged, for the same reasons that Arturo di Modica and his supporters are annoyed about Fearless Girl. Fearless Girl represents an attitude which is sufficiently controversial to get publicity and excite support yet sufficiently mainstream that it's in no danger. This allows the discussion to be recast as a political one about the agendas of those trying to get the statue removed, rather than an artistic one about the appropriation of someone else's creation. There's something a little cynical about that, too, and I think it gets in the way of an honest discussion about the message that's actually being portrayed and the piece's value as art. Much of the support for Fearless Girl doesn't seem to have much of an ideological basis beyond the positive message of the title, with any discussion of the sculpture itself being ignored almost entirely. It's being turned by its supporters into a totem pole for feminism such that it can't be criticised for whatever reason without suggesting misogynistic views on the part of the critic.


*With that said, it's a strange context. Standing in front of a charging bull is brave, but also stupid: Fearless Girl's going to be trampled. Alternatively, she's standing up to the bull market, and thus representing economic stalling. Neither is a very positive message.

[Ranxerox]

4) The "Fearless Girl" isn't going anywhere. Originally given a one week permit, it's been extended to first thirty days and then to a year, with a large push to make it permanent. What do you think?
Stay or go? If "stay", what do we say to Arturo, whose work has just been modified, made into part of another, larger work?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

I suspect that your are wrong about this. Charging Bull is a copyrighted piece of art which nobody but the copyright holders are allowed to profit off of; and State Street Global Advisors, the commissioners of Fearless Girl, are profiting off it. So, I suspect that the courts will rule in Di Mortica's favor on this.

Charging Bull is standing on city property under a temporary lease that could be revoked. This gives Mayor De Blasio a little bit of leverage he can use against Di Mortica, but not much. Everybody knows that the City of New York does not want Arturo's statue to go anywhere. Still, De Blasio could potentially use the threat of making permit renewal more difficult to buy Fearless Girl a bit more time in her current location before any lawsuits are made.

Looking beyond legality and copyright laws, should it go? Personally, I feel that it is a perfectly valid artistic counter statement to Charging Bull and it is good that it was made. Art is about expression and expression invites counter expression. However, that counter expression has been made, and I don't feel that Kristin Visbal and SSgA have a right to permanently hijack the original work. So, Fearless Girl should move, if not immediately then soon.

[theNater]

Just popping in to touch on one part of this: Charging Bull is not a standalone work. It deliberately uses its placement on Wall Street to invoke the idea of a bull market; an identical statue in a sterile museum or on the streets of Pamplona would have an entirely different meaning.

[BeerMug Paladin]

It's an amusing piece of art. That was my initial reaction to the new sculpture being placed near an existing sculpture.

1) Artists seeking to control the interpretation of their artwork after it has left their hands is a bit silly. Original artists can try to provide some context, but upon release the ideas are in the wild.

2) There can be consideration as for how an audience will interpret art, but how much foresight an artist can be expected to have varies depending on the artwork in question. The basis for intelligent art critique is central to a critic's understanding of the choices an artist could have made. To provide as clear an example as I have in mind at the moment, I will briefly speak about Megamind.

Megamind himself should have had dark, beady eyes and other differences to his appearance. A more classical, typically villainous appearance, instead of the clean and sympathetic design he had. I understand why they went the way they did, but his design really undermines his backstory and the overall theme of the movie.

3) Whether or not Kristen's action in placement there is wrong doesn't make sense to me. Like I said before, the bull statue has been released into the wilderness. How an audience interprets it or reacts to it is not really something an artist can control. Otherwise, questions of wrongness are entirely a question of legality.

It might not be as easy to change the interpretation of other sculptures, but it's no concern of mine. Symbols have meaning and value, sure, but the ideals undercutting those symbols can't be destroyed. A severe audience reaction would imply to me that people are more concerned about upholding the symbol of the idea rather than the idea itself. And that, is a sad thing.

4) I'm fairly neutral on the ultimate outcome either way. Though as an abstract observation, art is ultimately about expression. New generations create and view new art because they desire to express ideas and ideals of their own. Sometimes an idea needs modernization in order to fit into an audience's understanding. If a society values individualism, it wouldn't be averse to modifying a previous generation's artwork.

[pendell]

Reading through this thread, I think the most sensible suggestion is to move Fearless Girl and create a second bull to charge her. It wouldn't be exactly identical to Charging Bull, because that would probably be copyright, but it could at least be close enough to make people think of Charging Bull.

If they don't do that, it's a bit unfair to the maker of Charging Bull, because Fearless Girl relies on her proximity to Charging Bull to complete the work --- Girl needs Bull, but Bull doesn't need girl.

And if your art in some way relies on another artists work -- if it doesn't work at all without the presence of the Bull , depends on it -- then shouldn't you have the Bull sculptor's consent?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[tantric]

andy warhol really meant his soup can painting to be high art. the marxist interpretation, that since the art we find from other cultures, especially lost ones, is mostly bowls and pots and such things that are actually in use, therefore real american art is the soup can, not the painting. high art is garbage, a product of elitism poisoned by greed - the art of our culture, like any other culture, is found, basically, on the shelves of the supermarket.

poor andy HATED this idea, that he murdered high art. too damn bad. art isn't an object - it's what the object means to us. it would have amused me to no end if campells' had sued him for slander or copyright infringement or whatever, but no luck. to really understand this, watch 'exit through the gift shop' featuring banksy, street artist.

http://www.stencilrevolution.com/photopost/2013/04/Wall-Street-Rat-Let-Them-Eat-Crack-by-Banksy.jpg

[Donnadogsoth]

andy warhol really meant his soup can painting to be high art. the marxist interpretation, that since the art we find from other cultures, especially lost ones, is mostly bowls and pots and such things that are actually in use, therefore real american art is the soup can, not the painting. high art is garbage, a product of elitism poisoned by greed - the art of our culture, like any other culture, is found, basically, on the shelves of the supermarket.

poor andy HATED this idea, that he murdered high art. too damn bad. art isn't an object - it's what the object means to us.

For some reason this brings to mind a prophecy that future Westerners will hang pictures of puke, porn, and landfill garbage on their walls.

[Scarlet Knight]

For some reason this brings to mind a prophecy that future Westerners will hang pictures of puke, porn, and landfill garbage on their walls.

"Over here we have a masterpiece from the 20th century. It shows Man trying to find his place in the World."
"Wait! That's Johnny Holmes... and is that Candy Samples?"
"Yes, the photographer uses her to represent Society and the Man is trying to find a place where he fits in..." :smalleek:

[Frozen_Feet]

One of those is not like the others. Plenty of cultures have been fine with hanging porn on their walls for ages. :smalltongue:

[jayem]

One of those is not like the others. Plenty of cultures have been fine with hanging porn on their walls for ages. :smalltongue:

No they're highly cultural renditions of Greek Myths (I'm not sure I understand how that makes them any better for the (medieval) Papal apartments).

[No brains]

I think the message of Fearless Girl would have been enhanced if she were facing the bull in a way that's likely to succeed. Standing on open ground with a bull and staring at it isn't an optimal strat. Humans defeat bulls with intelligence, not in a face to face smackdown.

If the girl were sitting on a wall while watching the bull and eating a cheeseburger, that would be a clever way to undermine the bull's strength. If you still wanted the girl to be 'powerful', maybe she could have been a Scythian on a chariot with a lasso. If you want the girl to express power over the bull without her cruelly debasing it, have the girl be Temple Grandin. The way the statue looks and the place where it is now seems more like a caution against hubris to me. It's going to take more than just hands akimbo for that commoner to beat that CR2 bull.

I choose to see statues as an opportunity to make fowl jokes. I am a human pigeon.

[An Enemy Spy]

One of those is not like the others. Plenty of cultures have been fine with hanging porn on their walls for ages. :smalltongue:

Yeah, but they had the good sense to do it a long time ago so everyone would praise it as high art. If you want to get away with making porn, you gotta do it in ancient times.

[tantric]

The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dream_of_the_Fisherman%27s_Wife) <---hentai porn?

The Great Wave off Kanagawa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Wave_off_Kanagawa) <----great art

both by hokusai, both sold as mass-media prints

otoh, i tried to watch art porn. L.A. Zombie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.A._Zombie) by bruce labruce. even though i think the main actor is really hot, it was unholy ****. bruce labruce should be dragged out and beaten with a hose for crimes against good taste.

[warty goblin]

Maybe I'm being relentlessly literal and rural here, but I don't see what's supposed to be inspirational about the new statue. It's young girl about to get turned into raw hamburger, because apparently she's operating on the principle that the giant pissed off bull cares about her attitude. This is not how bulls work. Her parents should clearly be investigated for reckless endangerment, and somebody needs to have a serious conversation with her about how bulls don't care about your personal empowerment narrative and fearless attitude if she's going to be spending time around farm animals.

[Dorath]

Regardless of what the bull meant when it was installed, it's become a symbol of American greed and corruption. Stock brokers have literally prayed to it.

[Ranxerox]

"Over here we have a masterpiece from the 20th century. It shows Man trying to find his place in the World."
"Wait! That's Johnny Holmes... and is that Candy Samples?"
"Yes, the photographer uses her to represent Society and the Man is trying to find a place where he fits in..." :smalleek:

Hmmph! A truer representation of Man would be Ron Jeremy.

[pendell]

If the girl were sitting on a wall while watching the bull and eating a cheeseburger, that would be a clever way to undermine the bull's strength. If you still wanted the girl to be 'powerful', maybe she could have been a Scythian on a chariot with a lasso. If you want the girl to express power over the bull without her cruelly debasing it, have the girl be Temple Grandin. The way the statue looks and the place where it is now seems more like a caution against hubris to me. It's going to take more than just hands akimbo for that commoner to beat that CR2 bull.


Add a housecat with Fearless girl. That claw/claw/bite combo should give anything pause. :smallamused: Then give Fearless Girl a level of rogue so she can flank/sneak attack that bull. Though her bare hands only allow her to do .. .what? 1d2? Sneak attack still adds on an additional +1d6.

I can't find the SRD stats on ordinary cattle. This wouldn't work on a bison (5d8) but it might be enough against a lesser animal. Probably means a dead cat, though.



Maybe I'm being relentlessly literal and rural here, but I don't see what's supposed to be inspirational about the new statue. It's young girl about to get turned into raw hamburger, because apparently she's operating on the principle that the giant pissed off bull cares about her attitude. This is not how bulls work. Her parents should clearly be investigated for reckless endangerment, and somebody needs to have a serious conversation with her about how bulls don't care about your personal empowerment narrative and fearless attitude if she's going to be spending time around farm animals.


If the bull was an actual farm animal, yes. But a bull which is actually a symbol for thousands of human beings in a market can be affected by one small brave person. Remember the guy in Tiannanmen square standing in front of a tank?

Also, as regards actual farm animals, I'm not so sure that Fearless Girl can't dominate the bull by sheer force of personality. When I was in California, I was once driving on a side road and found myself face to face with a bull. It was on the wrong side of the fence next to an open gate. Just then, the farmer drove up in his own car, got out and started running at it going "Yah! YAH!"

Farmer total weight: < 200 pounds.
Bull total weight: Easily 1000 pounds.

But that bull scampered right back in to the pasture without hesitation , and the farmer closed the gate. Problem solved.

Size isn't everything. Maybe it's because bulls are programmed to be afraid of much smaller things with teeth. Or maybe , as here (http://www.milessmithfarm.com/how-control-bull.html), they're raised from calves to be gentle and respect human beings. But whatever the case, it might be possible for a young girl to take control of the bull. If it comes to a fight, of course she'll lose. But if the bull's been carefully trained and raised to follow the orders of a human, she's got a chance.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Leewei]

1) Does the fact that the interpretation Kristen took away is different from the one Arturo intended make her interpretation wrong? Or does art, to some extent, escape the control of the author, because the audience takes its own preconceptions and ideas to the work? The same sculpture, in different contexts, can mean different things. A charging bull on an empty grassy plain means something entirely different from a bull charging directly at a small girl. And each viewer has their own internal context, which means each viewer is going to take away a slightly different message. As a person who's not on wall street, I don't find a 7,600 pound metal bull even a slightly positive sign, especially in a crowded city. The phrase "bull in a china shop" comes to mind.
"Wrong" in the sense that Arturo intended for his statue, certainly. Otherwise, no. Charging Bull represents the power of capitalism, and is also certainly symbolic of male power. Even if the inherent sexism of Wall Street wasn't Arturo's intended symbolism for his marvelous statue, it's still right there as subtext.

2) To what extent is an author responsible for the audience's interpretation of the work? If they are, how can they make something that really will speak universally without making it something so watered down as to be practically meaningless?
That certainly is a challenge for all artists, isn't it? I'd suggest that an author is at least halfway responsible for the interpretation, but that times may also change, making a work very ironic.


3) Was it wrong of Kristen to modify Arturo's work in this way? While the Charging Bull itself has not been changed, the addition of a new statue converts a standalone work into a tableau, and the overall interaction of the two pieces sends a message not conveyed by the original statue. So the meaning and intent of the art has been changed. Is this a wrong thing? If it isn't, could someone add , say, a statue of a war orphan or a childless beggar to the Iwo Jima Memorial (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Corps_War_Memorial) as a rebuke to the idea of war?
Kristen did not touch Arturo's art. She modified the public's impression of it by drawing attention to the male dominance already featured in that art. This is wrong only to Arturo.


4) The "Fearless Girl" isn't going anywhere. Originally given a one week permit, it's been extended to first thirty days and then to a year, with a large push to make it permanent. What do you think?
I'd love to go see it!


Stay or go? If "stay", what do we say to Arturo, whose work has just been modified, made into part of another, larger work?I'm for Stay. I feel for Arturo, but the markets symbolized by that bull are not merely described by strength, freedom, or power. (I don't feel "love" from Charging Bull, magnificent though it is.) Our First Amendment being what it is, another work mocking or subverting his statue is acceptable. Not considerate, nor nice, nor perhaps tasteful, but acceptable. He does not own the landscape surrounding his statue.

[Callos_DeTerran]

Kristen did not touch Arturo's art. She modified the public's impression of it by drawing attention to the male dominance already featured in that art. This is wrong only to Arturo.

Kristen might not have touched it but she has most certainly changed it. As many people have said here, Fearless Girl can and does modify how people are going to look at Charging Bull. And to anyone who isn't familiar with Charging Bull, Girl makes it so you can't view Charging Bull on its own anymore (as it is meant to be viewed). Again, this is something others have pointed out, but Fearless Girl requires Bull in order to function but, in the process, corrupts Bull while Bull does not require Girl to work as a work of art.


I'm for Stay. I feel for Arturo, but the markets symbolized by that bull are not merely described by strength, freedom, or power. (I don't feel "love" from Charging Bull, magnificent though it is.) Our First Amendment being what it is, another work mocking or subverting his statue is acceptable. Not considerate, nor nice, nor perhaps tasteful, but acceptable. He does not own the landscape surrounding his statue.

You are technically right...another work mocking or subverting his statue is acceptable, but what about another work destroying his own? If Fearless Girl stays there, the Bull becomes something to be feared cause its charging down a little girl. Charging Bull ceases to be Charging Bull cause its no longer a standalone piece when it is meant to be.

I'm with others...there's nothing wrong with Fearless Girl (aside from the fact I don't view her as Fearless...or even what the intention is) but she's messing up Charging Bull with the way the situation is now. She needs her own Bull so that people can see both statues as they are meant to be viewed.

...assuming you want to see Fearless Girl, can't speak to the actual artistry in her construction (haven't seen it nor do I know anything about metal working) cause she very much does not scream gender diversity or 'hire women to your boards' to me. She says 'idiotic overconfidence', 'market stalling', or 'the danger of bulls'. Kristen has very much failed to convey her message, at least to me.

[warty goblin]

If the bull was an actual farm animal, yes. But a bull which is actually a symbol for thousands of human beings in a market can be affected by one small brave person. Remember the guy in Tiannanmen square standing in front of a tank?

Also, as regards actual farm animals, I'm not so sure that Fearless Girl can't dominate the bull by sheer force of personality. When I was in California, I was once driving on a side road and found myself face to face with a bull. It was on the wrong side of the fence next to an open gate. Just then, the farmer drove up in his own car, got out and started running at it going "Yah! YAH!"

Farmer total weight: < 200 pounds.
Bull total weight: Easily 1000 pounds.

But that bull scampered right back in to the pasture without hesitation , and the farmer closed the gate. Problem solved.

Size isn't everything. Maybe it's because bulls are programmed to be afraid of much smaller things with teeth. Or maybe , as here (http://www.milessmithfarm.com/how-control-bull.html), they're raised from calves to be gentle and respect human beings. But whatever the case, it might be possible for a young girl to take control of the bull. If it comes to a fight, of course she'll lose. But if the bull's been carefully trained and raised to follow the orders of a human, she's got a chance.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

A person can mentally dominate an animal in some circumstances, yes. I once managed to herd a group of sheep out of a fairly large field entirely solo. This is substantially less likely to work with an animal that is feeling territorial, angry, and wants to attack you. Which the body language of that bull screams. Animals aren't props on one's personal empowerment quest, they're independent things with their own things going. Treating them otherwise is stupid, dangerous and disrespectful.

[Chen]

The Fearless Girl statue was placed as basically an ad campaign for some gender diverse mutual fund. They are directly profiting off the other artists existing piece without his permission. That alone paints them more in the wrong than Arturo in my opinion. If the statue is allowed to stay, the company that commissioned it should likely owe some sort of royalties to Arturo for using his piece in their advertising.

Alternatively Arturo could just take his statue and go home. It's not like the city owns it or anything. He could also donate it to the city, at which point they could decide to either keep it there as part of the new combined art piece, or move it somewhere else. I don't think there's any reasonable way for him to have the girl statue removed though. He may just be owed compensation should it (and the bull) remain.

[BeerMug Paladin]

For those thinking that moving the girl statue to another location with another bull is the best solution: wouldn't that diminish the girl statue itself? In my mind, the reason it was placed there to begin with was because it's that particular bull. If there is some meaning behind it, replacing the other statue with a facsimile and moving the whole thing would be a statement, itself. Because it wouldn't be that bull, in that place. It would be meaningless bull. She would be allowed to be fearless, as long as that fearlessness meant nothing.

It seems to me that for those invested in either piece of artwork, someone is going to lose out. It's impossible to avoid.

In terms of wrongness, I am still neutral and consider the ultimate resolution to be a legal matter. I just wanted to clarify why someone might be in support of the statue not being moved, even if moving it does seem reasonable.

[Aedilred]

The Fearless Girl statue was placed as basically an ad campaign for some gender diverse mutual fund. They are directly profiting off the other artists existing piece without his permission. That alone paints them more in the wrong than Arturo in my opinion. If the statue is allowed to stay, the company that commissioned it should likely owe some sort of royalties to Arturo for using his piece in their advertising.

Alternatively Arturo could just take his statue and go home. It's not like the city owns it or anything. He could also donate it to the city, at which point they could decide to either keep it there as part of the new combined art piece, or move it somewhere else. I don't think there's any reasonable way for him to have the girl statue removed though. He may just be owed compensation should it (and the bull) remain.

This is the amusing irony of the whole thing, really. In artistic terms, Charging Bull is the subversive one, a piece of independent guerrilla art that resisted official attempts to move it. Fearless Girl is a corporate prop backed by massive multinationals and the full weight of the NYC establishment, bravely "standing up to" Charging Bull.

Hence my suggestion earlier that the whole business is rather cynical. There's nothing really all that subversive or challenging about Fearless Girl. It's as safe as safe can be. What does Fearless Girl have to fear, given her backers? No wonder Charging Bull looks cowed: it's one artist's vision up agaisnt the full might of corporate America. But Fearless Girl is a useful virtue-signalling bannerpole/lightning-rod and because the portrayed character is female, any criticism of it can be hit with accusations of misogyny.

[Leewei]

As many people have said here, Fearless Girl can and does modify how people are going to look at Charging Bull. <snip>
Acknowledged; much as other satire modifies how people look at art. The proximity seems of relevance, but Charging Bull cannot legally give its owner authority over the surrounding landscape.


... corrupts Bull ...
I see.


You are technically right...another work mocking or subverting his statue is acceptable, but what about another work destroying his own?
Please define the difference between mocking / subversion and destruction. It seems to me that they are, in fact, identical things in this case.


... She says 'idiotic overconfidence', 'market stalling', or 'the danger of bulls'. Kristen has very much failed to convey her message, at least to me.
Simple, willful misinterpretation.

[veti]

1) Does the fact that the interpretation Kristen took away is different from the one Arturo intended make her interpretation wrong?

I don't think I can come up with a definition of "wrong" that makes sense in this context. Contrary to the artist's intention? Certainly, but in that case the question answers itself. How do you assess an interpretation of an artwork as "right" or "wrong"?


2) To what extent is an author responsible for the audience's interpretation of the work? If they are, how can they make something that really will speak universally without making it something so watered down as to be practically meaningless?

More definitional problems. "Responsible" - in the sense that they caused it, okay. But "morally or legally culpable"? No.

If my parents, when I was about two years old, had taken me on a ramble through a muddy field, in the course of which they'd been charged down and gored to death by a mad bull while I watched terrified and helpless - then it seems quite plausible this statue would trigger a very bad response in me. But that's my problem. Is the artist obligated to foresee every possible response to their work and make sure it cannot possibly be offensive? That would reduce the realm of "art" to a very poor thing indeed.


3) Was it wrong of Kristen to modify Arturo's work in this way?

Again, this problematic word "wrong".

This time we have some legal help. There's a concept in copyright law called "moral rights", which belong to the artist (and cannot be signed away by contract or sale). These include the right to have his name attached to the work (or removed from it, if he prefers); and the right to "the integrity of the work". Arturo is arguing that Fearless Girl breaks the "integrity" of Charging Bull.

The legal territory is a bit tricky, because the USA has never been happy with the idea of "moral rights". However, the Visual Artists Rights Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Artists_Rights_Act) gives Arturo the right to make his complaint, if he thinks that the modification "would prejudice his honor or reputation". What that means... well, crack open the popcorn, because I reckon the lawyers are going to have a great time with that language. If the whole thing were happening in Europe the law would be a lot clearer, because moral rights are much more strongly recognised there.


4) The "Fearless Girl" isn't going anywhere. Originally given a one week permit, it's been extended to first thirty days and then to a year, with a large push to make it permanent. What do you think?

Personally I hate the Soulless Girl. I agree with the description "trite", and I'll raise it a "stupid". Standing like that in front of a charging bull is one of two things: suicidal, or theatrical. (The latter if you're sure the bull is only playing with you anyway - yeah, they do that, I've actually been charged by a bull but it didn't mean it.) Either way, it makes me think that the artist was commissioned solely to appease feminists, rather than allowed to express their own honest feeling. It's about as "artistic" as a Pepsi commercial.

[Callos_DeTerran]

Please define the difference between mocking / subversion and destruction. It seems to me that they are, in fact, identical things in this case.

Here's the thing, there's nothing wrong with satire, parody, or mockery. On their own, each have their own merits.

But Fearless Girl would be like someone making a parody of the Mona Lisa, or more suitable in this case someone trying to make a point about what the Mona Lisa represents..but they have to paint over parts of the actual Mona Lisa in order to do it. Does the parody have merit? Maybe (depends on the parody) but it also destroyed the original piece in order to do so which makes the parody wrong.

That's my view point on it at least.



Simple, willful misinterpretation.

None of that. When I look at a young girl standing in front of a charging bull, I see suicidal courage as the best interpenetration and...well...stupidity in the worse. Maybe the girl is willing to die for what she's standing in front of the bull for, but that doesn't make it any less suicidal.

In this specific example of Fearless Girl and Charging Bull, I see..well..someone standing in the way of a healthy economy. I personally don't associate Charging Bull with Wall Street or sexist hiring practices or the patriarchies typically at the head of large businesses. I associate it with a strong and vibrant economy which..the girl is standing in the way of. I guess that's market stalling? That's not a positive thing at all so Kristen has failed in her intended message, for me at least. What Fearless Girl doesn't make me feel is Gender Diversity in the workplace or hiring women onto boards of directors and what not which is apparently the intended message!

I mean, I guess on my most introspective days I could see women standing up against unbridled masculinity which I could get behind...but in that case the artist chose to represent women in a young and essentially powerless form and that I very much don't agree with that fore entirely different reasons.

But my personal dislike for Fearless Girl isn't a big deal..no one likes or dislikes all art, nor should they...I do think its wrong that Charging Bull can no longer be viewed in its original form and that feels wrong. Fearless Girl and Charging Bull should both be able to be viewed in their intended forms, the problem with Fearless Girl is that by her existence that can't be a thing.

[AmberVael]

I think if Arturo wants to object, he should just take his bull back. The Charging Bull is guerrilla art, an illegal installation made legitimate only due to public reaction. If another artist wants to make an artistic reaction to that, it seems hypocritical to say "well I can just put art in any context I want without asking permission, but you can't!" Yeah, the Fearless Girl changes perception of his own art. If he hates that, he should go steal his bull, not make some kind of legal fuss.

Or better yet, he should install more art there to change the scene again. A conflict that creates art sounds way better than most of the other conflicts we have going on these days.

[Emperor Ing]

The bull is pretty well-established as a symbol of freedom, progress, and the power of it. The Fearless Girl is clearly intended as a symbol of female empowerment and strength, yet the fact that it stands in the way of the bull suggests that female empowerment stands in the way of freedom and economic progress. That strikes me as the exact wrong message to send, that society faces a choice between liberty and empowering women.

[-D-]

My view: One is a piece of art, demonstrating power of corporations, and the other is a statue of a bull, that came to represent the power of money.

In essence, the Fearless Girl is triumph of ads, a viral piece of marketing (https://gregfallis.com/2017/04/14/seriously-the-guy-has-a-point/), that uses controversy to spread.

[Ramza00]

Just look at it for a second. What does it make you think of?

Enkidu is about to lay down some major ***censored*** onto the bull of heaven, while Gilgamesh watches his best friend and decides to pour himself a glass of wine from the Gate of Babylon.

[Aedilred]

The bull is pretty well-established as a symbol of freedom, progress, and the power of it. The Fearless Girl is clearly intended as a symbol of female empowerment and strength, yet the fact that it stands in the way of the bull suggests that female empowerment stands in the way of freedom and economic progress. That strikes me as the exact wrong message to send, that society faces a choice between liberty and empowering women.
The symbolism is problematic when you stop to think about it for ten seconds, yes. Whether on the level of "the bull is going to trample that girl" or "women are standing in the way of progress" the message is hard to interpret positively. Which is one of the reasons I'm not so fond of it: it's entirely shallow and superficial, relying on the knee-jerk "you go girl!" impulse to override any deeper considerations.

[Eldan]

None of that. When I look at a young girl standing in front of a charging bull, I see suicidal courage as the best interpenetration and...well...stupidity in the worse. Maybe the girl is willing to die for what she's standing in front of the bull for, but that doesn't make it any less suicidal.

We need a third guerilla statue, then, of the girl's mother running in to throw her out of the way.

[Legato Endless]

It seems a bit creepy in it's original context this was meant as an advertisement for adult women by using the age old iconography of rendering them young and simpleminded. As female "empowerment" symbols go this feels pretty mid 20th century.

The subtext before they altered the advertisement is something on the line of, Come on ladies, look at the cutesy 8 year old inspiring you to take up a job...on a corporate board. Watch as that same corporation deftly redefines their image after defrauding millions of people by redefining someone else's work. Come to us so we can benefit off your feminine labor. There's a minority of you here that renders us slightly more progressive than other big boy clubs. Cool right? Then go home, prop up your feet, and read something appropriate for someone your age like, The Girl on the Train.


The legal territory is a bit tricky, because the USA has never been happy with the idea of "moral rights". However, the Visual Artists Rights Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Artists_Rights_Act) gives Arturo the right to make his complaint, if he thinks that the modification "would prejudice his honor or reputation". What that means... well, crack open the popcorn, because I reckon the lawyers are going to have a great time with that language. If the whole thing were happening in Europe the law would be a lot clearer, because moral rights are much more strongly recognised there.

I thought VARA only applies to works crafted after it went into effect in 1990?


It seems to me that for those invested in either piece of artwork, someone is going to lose out. It's impossible to avoid.

Normally when something intrudes on something else, we don't grant equal weight to the interloper. That's the sort of the opposite of the direction we're heading as a society concerning consent.

[BeerMug Paladin]

Normally when something intrudes on something else, we don't grant equal weight to the interloper. That's the sort of the opposite of the direction we're heading as a society concerning consent.

This is a good point.

[Chen]

I think if Arturo wants to object, he should just take his bull back. The Charging Bull is guerrilla art, an illegal installation made legitimate only due to public reaction. If another artist wants to make an artistic reaction to that, it seems hypocritical to say "well I can just put art in any context I want without asking permission, but you can't!" Yeah, the Fearless Girl changes perception of his own art. If he hates that, he should go steal his bull, not make some kind of legal fuss.

I think the bigger issue Arturo is making is more than the other company is profiting off his artwork when they have no right to. If you look at the Wikipedia page it seems Arturo has sued people before for using that bull in advertising material. That's a fairly reasonable stance, you don't get to use someone else's art, for profit, without their permission.

[pendell]

Enkidu is about to lay down some major ***censored*** onto the bull of heaven, while Gilgamesh watches his best friend and decides to pour himself a glass of wine from the Gate of Babylon.

Thread is now won.

I wonder ... maybe the girl is actually a druid who wildshapes into a bear? :smallamused:

At any rate, I agree with the commenters who don't see an 8-year-old girl as being a really fitting image for a female executive. Maybe Lara Croft with two guns? Although my understanding a pistol isn't really what you want for a bull, either.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[warty goblin]

If they wanted an inspirational statue that actually made a lick of sense, I'd go with a Cretan bull jumper. Then you get a celebration both of the power of the bull and the strength and speed of the jumper coming together to create something new, rather than casting one as big dumb brute and the other as either hero or stupidly reckless.

[Leewei]

... Fearless Girl would be like someone making a parody of the Mona Lisa, or more suitable in this case someone trying to make a point about what the Mona Lisa represents..but they have to paint over parts of the actual Mona Lisa in order to do it.

No, it really wouldn't. As you acknowledged, Charging Bull wasn't touched or directly modified by the new work.

A better analogy would be placing the statue of David in front of the Mona Lisa, so it appeared that DaVinci's subject was smirking at the statue's groin.

[No brains]

Thread is now won.

I wonder ... maybe the girl is actually a druid who wildshapes into a bear? :smallamused:

At any rate, I agree with the commenters who don't see an 8-year-old girl as being a really fitting image for a female executive. Maybe Lara Croft with two guns? Although my understanding a pistol isn't really what you want for a bull, either.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

I'm tellin' ya man... chariots exude power!

Though that comparison you drew to Tank Man got me to think. This forum isn't the right place for me to get into what I thought, but it did get me to think as art and its discussion should. So that's a cromulent interpretation.

On a serious note, the legal tangles are pretty interesting. I actually didn't expect the issue to be as weird as it really is. So the bull is basically graffiti that everyone likes enough to keep around?

As for the inherent sexism of the bull, while a 'bull' is generally a term for a male of a few different species, I think being a cattle is more important to the spirit of the saying. I think both sexes of cattle will charge and both are worth heeding when they do. Since there isn't a good singular for cattle and English has used a 'generic he', it's possible that any 'bull' of a 'bull market' may be female. We need a professional rancher to clear this up.

Though that makes the verb use of 'cow' rather weird. Can a cow cow a bull? Is that bull? Do Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo? Is the literal meaning of that tongue-twister actually apt to the discussion?

[Sapphire Guard]

For those thinking that moving the girl statue to another location with another bull is the best solution: wouldn't that diminish the girl statue itself? In my mind, the reason it was placed there to begin with was because it's that particular bull. If there is some meaning behind it, replacing the other statue with a facsimile and moving the whole thing would be a statement, itself. Because it wouldn't be that bull, in that place. It would be meaningless bull. She would be allowed to be fearless, as long as that fearlessness meant nothing.

It seems to me that for those invested in either piece of artwork, someone is going to lose out. It's impossible to avoid.

In terms of wrongness, I am still neutral and consider the ultimate resolution to be a legal matter. I just wanted to clarify why someone might be in support of the statue not being moved, even if moving it does seem reasonable.

I think the 'Fearless Girl' moved somewhere else on Wall Street might better reflect the intended point, because she's staring down Wall Street itself. It loses some of its edginess, but also loses the 'that fearless girl is about to be flattened' subtext.

[BRC]

So, let's talk about Death of the Author in this case.


So, the Charging Bull is supposed to represent “freedom in the world, peace, strength, power and love”, and maybe if it was in a museum with a little plaque next to it, one could argue that.

But, it's not. It's a Bull on Wall Street. Strength and Power sure (Bulls are strong and powerful), but I can't think of any immediate connotations between a charging bull and Freedom, Peace, or Love. Bulls are not known for being Free (They're livestock), Peaceful, or Loving.

The fact that it's on Wall Street, evoking the term "Bull Market", certainly builds it as a symbol of the power of the Market, or perhaps the power of the financial industry. Putting a Sculpture out on the street means that the location is part of the Art.

"Fearless Girl" didn't Modify Charging Bull, Fearless Girl works as an inspirational piece only because people already saw Charging Bull as a somewhat oppressive symbol. It was already a symbol of the power of finance and the markets.

There are now, theoretically, two sculptures

Charging Bull" The power of Wall Street.
Fearless Girl standing in front of Charging Bull: defiant strength in the face of Wall Street's Power.

Placing Fearless Girl there didn't "Make" Charging Bull a symbol of Wall Street's power. What it did was remind everybody that this statue exists. If you didn't already see Charging Bull as an oppressive symbol, then Fearless Girl doesn't really symbolize anything.

[pendell]

But, it's not. It's a Bull on Wall Street. Strength and Power sure (Bulls are strong and powerful), but I can't think of any immediate connotations between a charging bull and Freedom, Peace, or Love. Bulls are not known for being Free (They're livestock), Peaceful, or Loving.


That's an association I'm having trouble with as well. I can see "freedom" (the bull is not chained or fenced in, and exults in its power) but I just don't see "peace" or "love". If anything, bulls are noted for trampling down anything in their way, so if there is peace, it's the "peace" of oppressed slaves under the whip of an oppressor who can't be reasoned with.

Same with "love". The only kind of love I associate with a bull is the procreative kind; they aren't noted for their romantic dinners. Well, unless they're the main course, naturally :smallamused:

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Chen]

Yeah I'm not sure where the peace and love and freedom part came from. The Strength and Power of the American people was what was originally mentioned when the bull was initially placed. Seems he added that whole peace, love, freedom bit in a more recent interview at least so far as I can gather.

[SaintRidley]

The way to freedom I see is America's strange insistence that unregulated markets = freedom, and thus an unstoppable bull market leads to more freedom (incidentally, America romanticizes the market enough that I can see where some might think that leads to peace and love even if the reality is not so).

Charging Bull by itself seems obviously to me to reflect the power of Wall Street. Its wild, untamed appearance hints at the destruction it can bring, too - offering a subtle critique of Wall Street at the same time. But perhaps too subtle to be of use.

Fearless Girl on the surface seems willing to stand up to this destructive force, unafraid. But she's corporate art, an advertisement for stock, as SHE (note the capital letters, denoting a particular company's stock) stands unafraid of capital's destructive power. SHE is fearless because she is the market. SHE is fearless because she thinks when the bull charges toward her she can jump up and ride it to success. SHE's unafraid because she thinks she can master it with the kind of corporate, lean-in feminism that doesn't do anything to raise up most women and simply puts a few more women in charge of the levers of economic oppression.

If anything, Fearless Girl strengthens my impression of Charging Bull, despite bringing a message I find detestable with it.

I'm not particularly thrilled by either.

[BRC]

Yeah I'm not sure where the peace and love and freedom part came from. The Strength and Power of the American people was what was originally mentioned when the bull was initially placed. Seems he added that whole peace, love, freedom bit in a more recent interview at least so far as I can gather.

I mean, I get why Arturo is upset.

So, up above I said that Fearless Girl only worked if you already saw the bull as an oppressive symbol, but thinking about it, that's not true.

The Bull stands for the strength and power of wall street. But, by itself, it's not an oppressive symbol, it just says "Wall Street is Powerful", you can make the leap from there to "The power of Wall street is oppressive", but you have to do that on your own.

But, Fearless Girl only makes sense if you assume the bull is an oppressive symbol, so adding her makes the connection for you. It worked on me anyway (hence my previous post).

[Dienekes]

Eh, my opinion on it.

Whether or not putting up the little girl was illegal or not is pretty mute. It's not. Putting in legal action will probably be shot down. Trying to control how the public sees your work is also a bit ridiculous.

However, any way you look at it. If someone takes your art. And then creates something else that forces everyone who sees it to take the exact opposite message from it without really any chance of the original interpretation to happen. Well, that's what I would call a **** move. You'd think that the other artist would get that. Unless someone else comes up and creates a third statue that implies the little girl is committing genocide on Native Americans or something equally revolting.

[BRC]

Eh, my opinion on it.

Whether or not putting up the little girl was illegal or not is pretty mute. It's not. Putting in legal action will probably be shot down. Trying to control how the public sees your work is also a bit ridiculous.

However, any way you look at it. If someone takes your art. And then creates something else that forces everyone who sees it to take the exact opposite message from it without really any chance of the original interpretation to happen. Well, that's what I would call a **** move. You'd think that the other artist would get that. Unless someone else comes up and creates a third statue that implies the little girl is committing genocide on Native Americans or something equally revolting.

I wouldn't say it creates the "Exact Opposite Message"

Message of The Bull: Wall Street is Powerful.
Message of the Girl staring down the Bull: Wall Street is Powerful (And that is a bad thing), but we can stand up to it (And that is a good thing).

The Bull alone depends on how you feel about wall street. The Girl+Bull gives you a narrative about Wall Street.

[eggynack]

I don't really get why people are talking about death of the author here. It seems wholly irrelevant. The issue isn't whether people are interpreting the bull in accordance with the artist's wishes. I doubt the artist would give a crap if people were like, "Y'know, I always think of that bull charging down some fearless girl," and then that interpretation caught on. Or maybe he would give a crap, but that would be a death of the author issue, rather than this thing. The issue here is that another artist is not just claiming an interpretation, but imposing it on all viewers. You can't really interpret the statue in accordance with what the artist wanted anymore. Not without just ignoring the girl that's clearly a part of the piece in its current form. The fearless girl artist(s), or their funders, probably never actually interpreted the bull as charging a girl. Cause why would they? They generated that interpretation, as what the art currently means. These people didn't change the interpretation. Interpretation is free to all. They changed the art.

[Chen]

Eh, my opinion on it.

Whether or not putting up the little girl was illegal or not is pretty mute. It's not. Putting in legal action will probably be shot down. Trying to control how the public sees your work is also a bit ridiculous.


It's moot not mute, pet peeve and all. I agree in that trying to control how the public sees your work is pointless. That said, using someone else's work without their permission to make your point, is unacceptable. The fact they're using it as advertising and thus basically monetarily profiting off the work without permission is even worse. That aspect of any lawsuit seems pretty rock solid.

[pendell]

The weakness of any lawsuit is that the city gave them a permit to put Fearless Girl there -- something Charging Bull didn't get for years -- so whattaya gonna sue them on? That they put their statue exactly where the city gave them permission to put it? The fact that it completely changes the meaning of the original statue is on the city that gave the permit, isn't it?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[eggynack]

The weakness of any lawsuit is that the city gave them a permit to put Fearless Girl there -- something Charging Bull didn't get for years -- so whattaya gonna sue them on? That they put their statue exactly where the city gave them permission to put it? The fact that it completely changes the meaning of the original statue is on the city that gave the permit, isn't it?

Respectfully,

Brian P.
I'd assume that his benefit from the lawsuit would be moving Fearless Girl somewhere else. Seems like that can happen either way. Also, the city can always be held liable if it comes to that.

[Ranxerox]

No, that the city gave them a permit has no bearing on the IP issue. The people who hand out these permits aren't experts on intellectual property law. It merely means that they didn't break any city ordinances.

Really, the city or more specifically Bill De Blasio, is the problem here. Had they stuck to the original one week permit, that SSgA applied for and got, I doubt there would be any problem here. Fearless Girl would have been gone before Di Modica had a chance to bring a lawsuit against it, much less felt obligated to do so.

Selling usage right to the image of Charging Bull is a revenue stream for Di Modica. Now, while the public at large may be split on whether Wall Street, and therefore Charging Bull, is a force for good or evil, the people who pay money to use Charging Bulls image are strongly in the pro camp. However, the longer Fearless Girl stays where she is the more the two statues will become linked in the popular conscious. This linking will inevitably cast shade on the role of the bull and weaken its value as positive symbol, which will in turn hit Di Modica in the pocket book.

[Legato Endless]

Maybe this is old fashioned, but it seems problematic that any freestanding work can be turned into a permanent tableau by someone else. Especially when it was originally corporate propaganda. Granted, with the removal of the plaque, the piece now has some ambiguity of meaning.

Duchamp's infamously mustachioed Mona Lisa certainly altered the popular perception of our idolization of art in France, but you are still free to to examine da Vinci's work on its own. That is rather a different affair than say, crafting a giant hungry insect menacing the Spoonbridge and Cherry.

[Dienekes]

It's moot not mute, pet peeve and all. I agree in that trying to control how the public sees your work is pointless. That said, using someone else's work without their permission to make your point, is unacceptable. The fact they're using it as advertising and thus basically monetarily profiting off the work without permission is even worse. That aspect of any lawsuit seems pretty rock solid.

Ah my bad. Would you believe me if I blame autocorrect? Well you shouldn't I'm just stupid.


I wouldn't say it creates the "Exact Opposite Message"

Message of The Bull: Wall Street is Powerful.
Message of the Girl staring down the Bull: Wall Street is Powerful (And that is a bad thing), but we can stand up to it (And that is a good thing).

The Bull alone depends on how you feel about wall street. The Girl+Bull gives you a narrative about Wall Street.

If the original artist is saying it was meant to show "the market is powerful, majestic, and glorious" and the new visuals instead make you think "dear God the market is going to trample that brave little girl!" I would call that close enough to being opposite. At least close enough to file it under the "**** move" category.

[pendell]

Maybe this is old fashioned, but it seems problematic that any freestanding work can be turned into a permanent tableau by someone else. Especially when it was originally corporate propaganda. Granted, with the removal of the plaque, the piece now has some ambiguity of meaning.

Duchamp's infamously mustachioed Mona Lisa certainly altered the popular perception of our idolization of art in France, but you are still free to to examine da Vinci's work on its own. That is rather a different affair than say, crafting a giant hungry insect menacing the Spoonbridge and Cherry.

For my part, I can't think of many Renaissance works of art that couldn't be improved by adding in a rampaging zombie horde :smallamused:

Tongue-in-cheek ,

Brian P.

[Closet_Skeleton]

For my part, I can't think of many Renaissance works of art that couldn't be improved by adding in a rampaging zombie horde :smallamused:

Tongue-in-cheek ,

Brian P.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Triumph_of_Death

[Chen]

The weakness of any lawsuit is that the city gave them a permit to put Fearless Girl there -- something Charging Bull didn't get for years -- so whattaya gonna sue them on? That they put their statue exactly where the city gave them permission to put it? The fact that it completely changes the meaning of the original statue is on the city that gave the permit, isn't it?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

You sue them for using your copyrighted and trademarked property as part of their advertising campaign. That has zero to do with whether or not the city gave them a permit to put a statue up.

[BannedInSchool]

You sue them for using your copyrighted and trademarked property as part of their advertising campaign. That has zero to do with whether or not the city gave them a permit to put a statue up.

Although if you claim your art was proclaiming the glory of pursuing profit, then suing them for pursuing profit is a tad ironic.

[Leewei]

So, what is the minimum, safe, lawsuit-proof distance at which someone can place another sculpture?

By allowing any lawsuit to proceed, a court is implicitly granting Charging Bull's copyright holder creative control over the surrounding landscape.

[Legato Endless]

So, what is the minimum, safe, lawsuit-proof distance at which someone can place another sculpture?

By allowing any lawsuit to proceed, a court is implicitly granting Charging Bull's copyright holder creative control over the surrounding landscape.

No no it would not. While moral rights of artists are more nebulous in the US than Europe or Canada it wouldn't translate to something that reductionist. You could easily put up a tinsel tree 5 feet to the right of the bull and argue attribution and distortion aren't occurring as they are with the girl.

[eggynack]

So, what is the minimum, safe, lawsuit-proof distance at which someone can place another sculpture?

By allowing any lawsuit to proceed, a court is implicitly granting Charging Bull's copyright holder creative control over the surrounding landscape.
I think there's a surprisingly straightforward standard here. Can I move your statue? Like, can I move it ten feet to the right, or over behind the other statue, or into another room, and everyone is totally cool with that because it's a different statue? If so, then your statue is fine where it is. Or fine somewhere else. It could be moved a bit, or not moved at all, and it's all good because we have two discrete pieces of art. If I can't move the statue, then clearly it is part of the work of art in question, because a work of art cannot be linked at the hip to another and still be a totally distinct work of art.

Is it a perfect standard? No, we could easily imagine scenarios where a work modifies another by simple proximity. For example, we could put a big bear statue anywhere within 50-100 feet of the bull, and it would cement the bear/bull market interpretation even more than it's already cemented (not that that would change much of anything to anyone), regardless of specific positioning and orientation. But still, it's definitely a different work of art. I can move it next to the bull, or opposed to the bull, or back to back with the bull, or on the opposing sidewalk from the bull, or in really any position, and the bear artist would presumably be fine with it. I think any artist would have to be fine with that, legally speaking. At that point, we're not talking about appropriation, or changing art, but about simple curation. An exhibit called, "Statues that are also economic metaphors," in a museum would have the same impact.

I like the standard for at least one major reason. In particular, it's easier to apply than a lot of the less quantitative legal standards. This is nowhere near as bad as some of the crazy multi-pronged and generally subjective tests the legal system has to work through. Because you can ask. You can straight up say, "Hey, can we move your statue a little?" Or even, "Hey, I'm going to move my statue a little. Can you not move your statue also?" Because, of course, there could be other reasons a person doesn't want to move their statue.

Maybe it's not trivial to apply. But it's trivial here. I mean, just imagine someone rotating Charging Bull 90 degrees. No need for a third statue to modify Fearless Girl, the bull can stay where it is, and everyone's fine with it. And, if someone's not fine with it, particularly people in support of Fearless Girl, then we have our answer right there. If they move the girl to a new position in front of the bull, then the answer becomes incredibly clear cut.

[Chen]

No no it would not. While moral rights of artists are more nebulous in the US than Europe or Canada it wouldn't translate to something that reductionist. You could easily put up a tinsel tree 5 feet to the right of the bull and argue attribution and distortion aren't occurring as they are with the girl.

Exactly. The fearless girl statue does not work without standing up to the bull. If she was just put on another corner somewhere the message would be completely different (and far less effective advertising).

[Leewei]

I think there's a surprisingly straightforward standard here. Can I move your statue? Like, can I move it ten feet to the right, or over behind the other statue, or into another room, and everyone is totally cool with that because it's a different statue? If so, then your statue is fine where it is. Or fine somewhere else. It could be moved a bit, or not moved at all, and it's all good because we have two discrete pieces of art. If I can't move the statue, then clearly it is part of the work of art in question, because a work of art cannot be linked at the hip to another and still be a totally distinct work of art.
Good thinking!

[Scarlet Knight]

The shame is that the Fearless Girl statue and all it's fuss is not needed, since female empowerment is a foregone conclusion.

The majority of households have women as the primary breadwinner ( thanks to the Great Recession), and since more women graduate college than men now and today women under thirty out earn their male colleagues, this trend will likely grow unchecked in time. How long until we have a third statue of a woman executive putting a nose ring in the Bull?

[Leewei]

The shame is that the Fearless Girl statue and all it's fuss is not needed, since female empowerment is a foregone conclusion.

The majority of households have women as the primary breadwinner ( thanks to the Great Recession), and since more women graduate college than men now and today women under thirty out earn their male colleagues, this trend will likely grow unchecked in time. How long until we have a third statue of a woman executive putting a nose ring in the Bull?
The wage gap is still around, isn't it? Also, I'd like to see some relatively current links to support your points.

[solidork]

There are other places Fearless Girl could work, like in front of and facing the NYSE. That probably isn't the message the people who commissioned her want to send though...

[pendell]

The wage gap is still around, isn't it? Also, I'd like to see some relatively current links to support your points.

I can't speak to all his points, but I was curious so I looked and found This article (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/business/economy/women-as-family-breadwinner-on-the-rise-study-says.html) in the New York Times.



Women are not only more likely to be the primary caregivers in a family. Increasingly, they are primary breadwinners, too.

Four in 10 American households with children under age 18 now include a mother who is either the sole or primary earner for her family, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of Census and polling data released Wednesday. This share, the highest on record, has quadrupled since 1960.

...

The recession may have played a role in pushing women into primary earning roles, as men are disproportionately employed in industries like construction and manufacturing that bore the brunt of the layoffs during the downturn. Women, though, have benefited from a smaller share of the job gains during the recovery; the public sector, which employs a large number of women, is still laying off workers.


So it doesn't look like the majority of homes have the woman as the primary breadwinner. However, *in this one study*, 40% of the homes with children under 18 are indeed in that situation. 40% is not the majority, but it's a significant number even so.

And the Great Recession is one theory as to why this is so, since it was male-dominated industries that took the brunt of the layoffs.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Chen]

The majority of households have women as the primary breadwinner ( thanks to the Great Recession), and since more women graduate college than men now and today women under thirty out earn their male colleagues, this trend will likely grow unchecked in time. How long until we have a third statue of a woman executive putting a nose ring in the Bull?

I'd like to see a source about the breadwinner bit. Quick googling still had men as the primary breadwinner for most families, though women's share was definitely increasing. More women graduating college has been the norm since the mid-70s though it is continuing to increase as an average, though there is still dramatic skewing (one way or another) depending on what type of degree you're looking at. I'm not sure you can draw a good conclusion from the women under 30 earning more than men point though since that trend dramatically reverses itself over 30. Considering career lengths, that above 30 part has far more weight than the under 30 part.

[Leewei]

I also wonder to what degree the women who are the breadwinners are single parents.

[Chen]

I also wonder to what degree the women who are the breadwinners are single parents.

Most studies where you're talking breadwinners and making comparisons are only looking at married couples. It's not terribly relevant to compare single people since by definition they are the ones paying for themselves (barring some exceptions of course).

[Leewei]

Most studies where you're talking breadwinners and making comparisons are only looking at married couples. It's not terribly relevant to compare single people since by definition they are the ones paying for themselves (barring some exceptions of course).

Most studies that exclude a portion of the population will have that exclusion indicated.


Four in 10 American households with children under age 18 now include a mother who is either the sole or primary earner for her family, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of Census and polling data released Wednesday. This share, the highest on record, has quadrupled since 1960.

I see no indication that these households are strictly two parent families. The entirety of "American households with children under 18" certainly will include a significant percentage of single mother families. Where is your evidence that these households were excluded?


The majority of America's 73.7 million children under age 18 live in families with two parents (69 percent), according to new statistics released today from the U.S. Census Bureau. ... The second most common family arrangement is children living with a single mother, at 23 percent.

That's nearly 1 in 4 households with single mothers, all of which would fit the description of a household with a woman as the primary earner. It'd account for over half of the 40% of households in which a woman is the principle breadwinner. Households with same-sex women parents would probably account for a bit more on top of this.

In short, that 40% breadwinner statistic looks very shaky as evidence of gender pay equality.

[Ruslan]

3) Was it wrong of Kristen to modify Arturo's work in this way? While the Charging Bull itself has not been changed, the addition of a new statue converts a standalone work into a tableau, and the overall interaction of the two pieces sends a message not conveyed by the original statue. So the meaning and intent of the art has been changed. Is this a wrong thing? If it isn't, could someone add , say, a statue of a war orphan or a childless beggar to the Iwo Jima Memorial as a rebuke to the idea of war?
Times change, and interpretation of art changes. Let me give you an example, and I will deliberately make it ... probably more provocative then it should be.

Let's say you have a film like Triumph of the Will. You know, a Nazi propaganda movie. In 1930's Germany, when such movie is shown in a theater, it is preceded by a revering explanation from the management, about how we're going to watch a movie about superiority of the Aryan race, etc.

In modern days, when a professor plays this movie to his students, he will most likely explain that the film is an artistic achievement, but it also shows how deluded and degenerate the Nazis were. There is no mention of the "superiority of the Aryan race". It's now no longer a movie about how 1930's Germany is superior, it's a movie about how 1930's Germany is deluded.

So, a change in this pre-film narration completely changes the context of the film. It is now not at all what the author intended. Was the modern-day professor wrong in appending his own narration to the film? Was he wrong in subverting the original author intent?

[Chen]

Most studies that exclude a portion of the population will have that exclusion indicated.

I hadn't actually seen that article posted between mine and the one I was responding to. When I googled "women breadwinner compared to men" the most recent articles were looking at married couples specifically. The posted article's source poll actually shows that as you said single mothers account for most of the women breadwinners when everyone is taken into account (63% single mothers).

[pendell]

So, a change in this pre-film narration completely changes the context of the film. It is now not at all what the author intended. Was the modern-day professor wrong in appending his own narration to the film? Was he wrong in subverting the original author intent?

I would say the professor is right to do what he was doing provided he links back to the original meaning and intent . Think of it as "chain of custody". The prof should be able to tell 1) What the original meaning and intent were (without endorsing it) 2) Adding his own interpretation afterwards, making it clear this is not that of the original author.

The reason I say this is that it's important that we not lose sight of what that movie actually meant, both to its author and to its audience. As much as we would like to flush that movie and everything associated with it down the memory hole forever, we can't afford to forget the mistakes we made and why we made them. Hopefully, we can avoid making them again.

It's similar to reviewing ancient works of history or mythology; while we may attach Marxist or other meanings and interpretations to them today, we should still make a point of retaining, to the best of our ability, the knowledge and interpretation originally given to the work. We are not infallible, after all. I would want to distinguish between the original work and our interpretation so that succeeding generations can examine both critically. And, if necessary, discard our interpretation in light of new evidence, re-view the work from ground zero, and come up with a fresh one.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Ruslan]

Women are not only more likely to be the primary caregivers in a family. Increasingly, they are primary breadwinners, too.

Four in 10 American households with children under age 18 now include a mother who is either the sole or primary earner for her family, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of Census and polling data released Wednesday. This share, the highest on record, has quadrupled since 1960.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics. :smallwink:

There is indeed a rise in women-as-primary-breadwinners, but that's mostly because there's a rise in women-as-only-breadwinners! The percentage of single-mother household has grown significantly (https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/time-series/demo/families-and-households/ch-1.pdf), and that account for most of the increase. Actual step toward pay equality? I'm unconvinced.

[Scarlet Knight]

Here's one that lists it as 53%

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/12/more-than-half-american-women-breadwinners_n_1668140.html


+ or - a few points either way , with the higher graduation rate, it won't be long before women will be the top execs and the wage difference will cease. The only question is speed.

[Elder Tsofu]

I felt that the statue was okay as a temporary thing, a month or two doesn't really hurt anyone. It gets your point across while maximizing ad revenue on the investment while also "promoting" the original piece.
Artistically it feels bland since it is a very "safe" statue to put down to annoy people while letting yourself ecstatically ride the moral high horse whipping anyone who dares to disagree. It is almost like it was designed by committee.

As a side note, I disagree with both artists original interpretations of their work. The Bull I give the benefit of the doubt though since I became aware of it long after it was originally placed, in an other era of time.


I think there's a surprisingly straightforward standard here. Can I move your statue? Like, can I move it ten feet to the right, or over behind the other statue, or into another room, and everyone is totally cool with that because it's a different statue? If so, then your statue is fine where it is. Or fine somewhere else. It could be moved a bit, or not moved at all, and it's all good because we have two discrete pieces of art. If I can't move the statue, then clearly it is part of the work of art in question, because a work of art cannot be linked at the hip to another and still be a totally distinct work of art.

A very sensible and level-headed standard indeed.

[Ruslan]

Here's one that lists it as 53%

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/12/more-than-half-american-women-breadwinners_n_1668140.html


Here's the actual quote:


Of the more than 1,400 women surveyed — 40 percent of whom were single or divorced — 53 percent were the breadwinners in their households. Nearly a quarter of married women surveyed said they earned more money than their husbands.
Sure, women are primary breadwinners in a household ... without a man! Breaking down the numbers, we get:

40% single or divorced: all of them are primary breadwinners in their household (duh!)
The remaining 13% (53-40) come from the other 60% of women. 13%/60% = 21.7%

So, to put it differently: only 21.7% of women who are in a household with a man earn more than the man. Make of that information what you will.


it won't be long before women will be the top execs and the wage difference will cease. The only question is speedOh, I think we are getting there. There are definitely some steps made. I just don't agree with those claiming we're already there and should stop looking at this problem :smallamused:

[eggynack]

Times change, and interpretation of art changes. Let me give you an example, and I will deliberately make it ... probably more provocative then it should be.

Let's say you have a film like Triumph of the Will. You know, a Nazi propaganda movie. In 1930's Germany, when such movie is shown in a theater, it is preceded by a revering explanation from the management, about how we're going to watch a movie about superiority of the Aryan race, etc.

In modern days, when a professor plays this movie to his students, he will most likely explain that the film is an artistic achievement, but it also shows how deluded and degenerate the Nazis were. There is no mention of the "superiority of the Aryan race". It's now no longer a movie about how 1930's Germany is superior, it's a movie about how 1930's Germany is deluded.

So, a change in this pre-film narration completely changes the context of the film. It is now not at all what the author intended. Was the modern-day professor wrong in appending his own narration to the film? Was he wrong in subverting the original author intent?
That's not what's happening here though. The equivalent to that film example would be, like, some tour guide showing off the statue and saying, "This statue is about female empowerment," or something. It might get some guff for being an incredibly stupid interpretation of what is clearly not a statue about female empowerment (this is assumed to be before Fearless Girl), but I doubt anyone would consider it immoral, unethical, or illegal.

A superior analogy to what's happening here would be if I magically transformed every copy of Triumph of the Will in existence into a version where I give that lecture at the front. Without the permission of the, in this hypothetical very much alive, creator of the film, or that of the film's distribution company. Every Youtube clip, every original copy, now has my lecture, and, because we're making it as analogous to the bull situation as possible, the lecture needs to fundamentally change the meaning of the film, even to modern audiences, somehow.

I would consider that bad. It's bad for the public because they don't get to have the original meaning of the film, and it's bad for the creators, which matters given that the real scenario features a non-Nazi artist. As was noted way back, we care a ton about George Lucas altering Star Wars, and that's the original artist doing it in a way that creates far less of a fundamental change. Keep in mind here, female empowerment has nothing to do with either the original intended meaning of the statue, the forceful something or another of America, or the meaning often assumed for it, love for bull markets. It's straight up a completely different thing.

So, we gotta assume that our Triumph of the Will lecture is something like, say, "This movie is about different varieties of marching and the metaphorical value thereof." Actually, what would be really funny would be to show off clips of other cool marches nation by nation, and stick Triumph of the Will in the middle of that. That could maybe be sufficiently meaning warping context to get close to this situation. And, again, it is now physically impossible to watch a version of Triumph that isn't the, "Ain't marching cool?" version. Seems much much less ambiguously problematic than the situation you presented, and also much much closer to the true situation we're dealing with.

[Vinyadan]

Honestly, I'm kinda tired of Tienanmen spoofs in the West. What happened with the guy on the street is that he stopped a tank column for a little while. The point is that there were people in those tanks. The same people, a few hours later, murdered hundreds of unarmed civilians. And this has duly been forgotten in the places where it happened.

Imitations in democracies look very removed from reality to me. I'm totally on board on the "women need to take a stand" part of the argument. I am not on board when it comes to representing it like a war or a blood sacrifice, or extremely removed symbols like waiting for a bull to smash you. Reality is on the bull's side. And equality means changing the bull and become part of it, because, let's be fair, who can think to survive outside the system?

[Rogar Demonblud]

My complaint with Tienanmen spoofs is that they completely ignore the end of the incident. The man in question was dead before sundown and his family sent to a prison camp.

Which makes a stupid little girl standing in front of a charging bull fairly accurate--she's dead.