4 ms·

So if I read the article correctly, the bull originally represented the strength of the American people. The girl is sold as representing the strength of women

So if I read the article correctly, the bull originally represented the strength of the American people. The girl is sold as representing the strength of women, but in fact it's a secret ad campaign that was put in front of the symbol representing American strength by a global fund. And people (unknowingly) support the ad campaign and react very aggressively to people questioning the ad and call anyone who questions the ad a woman hater. And people who want to remove the ad don't care about the symbolism, they think things are fine or they don't like uppity women. Seems like the perfect representation of 2016.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
pvg 10y ago
the bull originally represented the strength of the American people No, that's just what Di Modica told people, presumably to better garner public support. It comes up in the original NYT reporting: http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/16/nyregion/soho-gift-to-wall-st-a-3-1-2-ton-bronze-bull.html http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/16/nyregion/soho-gift-to-wall... You don't plop a massive bull in the middle of the Manhattan Financial District soon after a market crash to generally represent the "strength and power of the American people." It represents exactly what everyone who sees it thinks it represents.
- derrickdirge 10y ago
  I wish this kind of stuff was being resurfaced more aggressively in the face of all of this absurd backlash about 'the meaning' of a piece of public art.
- mc32 10y ago
  True enough. But while that's the meaning he put into the bull. I would say the bull was the strength of the American people in the face of a market that said otherwise. The girl was put there by an advertising firm --and some people have interpreted it as a native form of women's strength in the face of male dominance (which requires the bull transform from representing America to only representing men and the girl not representing a marketing campaign but all women facing patriarchal oppression). As the article mentions, the bull without the girl retains its strength, the girl without the bull becomes "really confident girl".
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - pvg 10y ago
    in the face of male dominance It's a big jump to that from "Fearless girl". the bull without the girl retains its strength The bull in deep space Queens becomes, I dunno, a pair of brass balls attached to a bull? The whole thing is pretty silly no matter how Di Modica feels about it.
    - mc32 10y ago
      >>in the face of male dominance >It's a big jump to that from "Fearless girl". In that case, the secondary statue would not have become so symbolic for some (as referenced by current NYC mayor). >The bull in deep space Queens becomes, I dunno, a pair of brass balls attached to a bull? I don't think so. It may become detached from the wall street aspect, but it's still a bull ready to charge. It's like saying Michelangelo's "David" loses its meaning if it were moved to a commercial square in Shenzen. And you may say David is more like the girl in that they're both defiant. However, I think not due to the symbolism behind the David as well as the bull.
      - pvg 10y ago
        It may become detached from the wall street aspect I.e. it would become something completely different. There is no parallel to David, David's context is not as closely tied to its location - in fact, the statue is not displayed at its originally intended location.
        mc32 10y ago
        I think I was not clear. Moving the bull might disconnect it from wall street [but not from representing the American economy.] Like the David [sculpture] its meaning can follow it, despite physical shift in location.
        pvg 10y ago
digi_owl 10y ago
> And people (unknowingly) support the ad campaign and react very aggressively to people questioning the ad and call anyone who questions the ad a woman hater. Stuff like this really makes me wonder what is going on with gender politics these days. It's a borderline witch hunt, where people are being singled out as "witches" to short circuit public opinion against them.
- ams6110 10y ago
  Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

pvg 10y ago

the bull originally represented the strength of the American people No, that's just what Di Modica told people, presumably to better garner public support. It comes up in the original NYT reporting: http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/16/nyregion/soho-gift-to-wall-st-a-3-1-2-ton-bronze-bull.html http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/16/nyregion/soho-gift-to-wall... You don't plop a massive bull in the middle of the Manhattan Financial District soon after a market crash to generally represent the "strength and power of the American people." It represents exactly what everyone who sees it thinks it represents.

derrickdirge 10y ago
I wish this kind of stuff was being resurfaced more aggressively in the face of all of this absurd backlash about 'the meaning' of a piece of public art.
mc32 10y ago
True enough. But while that's the meaning he put into the bull. I would say the bull was the strength of the American people in the face of a market that said otherwise. The girl was put there by an advertising firm --and some people have interpreted it as a native form of women's strength in the face of male dominance (which requires the bull transform from representing America to only representing men and the girl not representing a marketing campaign but all women facing patriarchal oppression). As the article mentions, the bull without the girl retains its strength, the girl without the bull becomes "really confident girl".
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- pvg 10y ago
  in the face of male dominance It's a big jump to that from "Fearless girl". the bull without the girl retains its strength The bull in deep space Queens becomes, I dunno, a pair of brass balls attached to a bull? The whole thing is pretty silly no matter how Di Modica feels about it.
  - mc32 10y ago
    >>in the face of male dominance >It's a big jump to that from "Fearless girl". In that case, the secondary statue would not have become so symbolic for some (as referenced by current NYC mayor). >The bull in deep space Queens becomes, I dunno, a pair of brass balls attached to a bull? I don't think so. It may become detached from the wall street aspect, but it's still a bull ready to charge. It's like saying Michelangelo's "David" loses its meaning if it were moved to a commercial square in Shenzen. And you may say David is more like the girl in that they're both defiant. However, I think not due to the symbolism behind the David as well as the bull.
    - pvg 10y ago
      It may become detached from the wall street aspect I.e. it would become something completely different. There is no parallel to David, David's context is not as closely tied to its location - in fact, the statue is not displayed at its originally intended location.
      - mc32 10y ago
        I think I was not clear. Moving the bull might disconnect it from wall street [but not from representing the American economy.] Like the David [sculpture] its meaning can follow it, despite physical shift in location.
        pvg 10y ago

digi_owl 10y ago

> And people (unknowingly) support the ad campaign and react very aggressively to people questioning the ad and call anyone who questions the ad a woman hater. Stuff like this really makes me wonder what is going on with gender politics these days. It's a borderline witch hunt, where people are being singled out as "witches" to short circuit public opinion against them.

ams6110 10y ago
Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.