4 ms·
Imo: remove the plaque at least. No free advertising space. Maybe have a vote to keep the statue.
by Piphe 9y ago
Imo: remove the plaque at least. No free advertising space. Maybe have a vote to keep the statue.
- rl3 9y agoArt and history are inexorable. Removing the plaque would merely change the asthetic.
- akvadrako 9y agoAnd your point is?
- rl3 9y agoThat the statue was still created as a corporate advertisement, regardless of whether the plaque is present.
- louisswiss 9y agoA lot of great art was originally sponsored/commissioned by wealthy corporate benefactors (for example the Catholic Church and nobility in 15th century Italy). I think it's important that the beholder/public in general is aware of the providence of a piece of art, yet I doubt banning corporate sponsorship of art would be a net positive for society.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- rl3 9y agoIt certainly wouldn't be, though in this particular case it could be argued that corporate sponsorship renders the work tasteless.
- bostik 9y agoI like this way of thinking. Additonally, I would say that the bull statue has well and truly earned its place. It is now an established piece of art: it has been subverted.