3 ms·

>He said he wanted the bull to represent “the strength and power of the American people”. Di Modica can't really remove the bull statue then since that would s

by rl3 10y ago

>He said he wanted the bull to represent “the strength and power of the American people”. Di Modica can't really remove the bull statue then since that would signify defeat. Likewise with facing it in another direction. As other commenters have said, doing either could potentially start a positioning war anyways. As far as symbology is concerned, I think the most forward-looking solution is to have the girl statue positioned slightly beside the bull, facing the same direction—signifying that America has her back and that everyone's on the same team. Obviously the United States has a history of repressing women, so I could see the intentional choice to face her in opposition—if it were a legit piece of guerrilla art, and not an advertisement. Commissioned corporate art hijacking classic guerilla art by twisting its meaning is, well... bullshit.

wbillingsley 10y ago
Of course he can remove the bull if he wants to. If he wants to send a particularly strong message, he can auction it and stipulation of the sale that the bull may not be positioned anywhere in New York City, and make the subsequent story his art. A corporate advertising campaign co-opts social media and a vacuous fawning politician into demanding its advert must stay and be worshipped, and the symbol of America's indomitable spirit and dynamism is packed into a shipping container and sent to Shanghai... I think it'd be hard to say Di Modica had been "defeated" as an artist if that all unfolded... and he'd probably have quite a few million from the sale to take solace in (plus being able to charge the city copyright royalties when it commissions a replica replacement).
- icebraining 10y ago
  On the other hand, it could be argued that the statue commissioned by SHE is an example of the very dynamism he was extolling, by using a bull in Wall Street as a symbol of the American people.
- rl3 10y ago
  >I think it'd be hard to say Di Modica had been "defeated" as an artist if that all unfolded ... Defeat in context of the principles the statue represents, not Di Modica personally as an artist. Sorry, I should have been more clear. That said, I suppose the beauty of art is that it's open to interpretation, and even the scenario you outline could be construed as congruent with the principles the statue represents. Removal may not constitute defeat after all.
- nicoles 10y ago
  Seeing as Shanghai already has paid Di Modica for an edition of the bull installed on the Bund, seems unlikely they'd be interested. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bund_Bull https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bund_Bull
btbuildem 10y ago
I'm not certain it would signal defeat -- the Defiant Girl would be equally defeated without something to oppose.
pandaman 10y ago
> Di Modica can't really remove the bull statue then since that would signify defeat. The bull should be challenging a bear in the Wall St. iconography. I think a bear statue would compliment the bull nicely in this case. And additionally, if you've made it a pedestrian bear then, I am sure, the ad agency would have moved the girl statue away promptly.

by rl3 10y ago

wbillingsley 10y ago

Of course he can remove the bull if he wants to. If he wants to send a particularly strong message, he can auction it and stipulation of the sale that the bull may not be positioned anywhere in New York City, and make the subsequent story his art. A corporate advertising campaign co-opts social media and a vacuous fawning politician into demanding its advert must stay and be worshipped, and the symbol of America's indomitable spirit and dynamism is packed into a shipping container and sent to Shanghai... I think it'd be hard to say Di Modica had been "defeated" as an artist if that all unfolded... and he'd probably have quite a few million from the sale to take solace in (plus being able to charge the city copyright royalties when it commissions a replica replacement).

icebraining 10y ago
On the other hand, it could be argued that the statue commissioned by SHE is an example of the very dynamism he was extolling, by using a bull in Wall Street as a symbol of the American people.
rl3 10y ago
>I think it'd be hard to say Di Modica had been "defeated" as an artist if that all unfolded ... Defeat in context of the principles the statue represents, not Di Modica personally as an artist. Sorry, I should have been more clear. That said, I suppose the beauty of art is that it's open to interpretation, and even the scenario you outline could be construed as congruent with the principles the statue represents. Removal may not constitute defeat after all.
nicoles 10y ago
Seeing as Shanghai already has paid Di Modica for an edition of the bull installed on the Bund, seems unlikely they'd be interested. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bund_Bull https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bund_Bull

btbuildem 10y ago

I'm not certain it would signal defeat -- the Defiant Girl would be equally defeated without something to oppose.

pandaman 10y ago

> Di Modica can't really remove the bull statue then since that would signify defeat. The bull should be challenging a bear in the Wall St. iconography. I think a bear statue would compliment the bull nicely in this case. And additionally, if you've made it a pedestrian bear then, I am sure, the ad agency would have moved the girl statue away promptly.