3 ms·

Charging Bull is one of the great hustles in art history. Over the years, Di Modica has made an enormous profit off the sale of replica bulls to cities and wea

Charging Bull is one of the great hustles in art history. Over the years, Di Modica has made an enormous profit off the sale of replica bulls to cities and wealthy clients. Along the way, he's filed lawsuits and pulled stunts to keep the statue in the public eye, but the motive has always been profit. Is there anything wrong with profit? No, certainly not. I love the hustle and I love the hustle on top of the original hustle with the addition of Fearless Girl. It's fine art and a fine hustle. Just like all good art should be. Sit back and enjoy the show.

Clubber 10y ago
Spending $350K to build a statue to illegally place in front of a stock exchange is a horribly bad investment. He may have made profit, but it probably took a long time. It's unlikely that was his prime motivation. If it was, he got extremely lucky. Artists typically think in terms of making great art rather than making money. He should have taken that $350K and put it into stocks in 1987, he would be much better off. I suspect he had other motivations.
- hownottowrite 10y ago
  It's a bad investment if the goal is an artistic statement. But spending $360K (in 1989 dollars) to advertise your art to the richest people on the planet - not to mention the entire world? Seems like pretty cheap marketing - and that's assuming he really did spend that much. Side note: this was the third time Di Modica tried the tactic of dropping off gift sculptures. So, if he had that kind of money to burn on "artistic statements", I'd say he was doing a-ok without investing in the market.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >Seems like pretty cheap marketing In retrospect, yes. The art could have just been permanently removed by the city, and nothing would have come out of it (except some extra fines).
- TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
  I really doubt that before the bull arrived, a statue that challenged the mythology of Wall St instead of glorifying it would have been allowed to stay for more than a few minutes in that location. The bull is still there because it makes a statement that appeals to certain people. The amount of money Di Modica spent on it is tangential at best.
coldtea 10y ago
>Is there anything wrong with profit? No, certainly not. Citation needed. For some people's ethical values (which is the only way to judge "wrong" and "right"), there is. For one (again in some views) it dilutes the power of art as a statement in itself.
- hownottowrite 10y ago
  > For one (again in some views) it dilutes the power of art as a statement in itself. Aestheticism has been used for nearly two centuries now to hustle artists out of their just rewards. However, like any "moral" framework, it works both ways and plenty of artists have used it to hustle wealthy patrons with dulcet dreams sculpted from lofty ideals. It was all so much easier in the days of Michelangelo when artists expected to be paid like craftsmen. Reading his collected letters is a delight I can highly recommend.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >Aestheticism has been used for nearly two centuries now to hustle artists out of their just rewards. However, like any "moral" framework, it works both ways and plenty of artists have used it to hustle wealthy patrons with dulcet dreams sculpted from lofty ideals. It's also something several artists truly believed, not used it as a hustle, and never took money to water their art, even if they were offered the chance, and even if they had to live poor because of it. Including people starting with, and staying committed, either to arts like poetry, which don't come with any rewards and wealthy patrons in the first place, or with genres/attitude towards some otherwise potentially lucrative art that's decidedly non-commercial. And that's not because they were lured by e.g. some music executives to hustle them out of their just rewards -- they chose to sell less (or not at all) and make no rewards for anybody to steal in the first place. If anything those execs would love for those artists to compromise -- so the total opposite of them using aestheticism to steal their "just rewards".

Clubber 10y ago

Spending $350K to build a statue to illegally place in front of a stock exchange is a horribly bad investment. He may have made profit, but it probably took a long time. It's unlikely that was his prime motivation. If it was, he got extremely lucky. Artists typically think in terms of making great art rather than making money. He should have taken that $350K and put it into stocks in 1987, he would be much better off. I suspect he had other motivations.

hownottowrite 10y ago
It's a bad investment if the goal is an artistic statement. But spending $360K (in 1989 dollars) to advertise your art to the richest people on the planet - not to mention the entire world? Seems like pretty cheap marketing - and that's assuming he really did spend that much. Side note: this was the third time Di Modica tried the tactic of dropping off gift sculptures. So, if he had that kind of money to burn on "artistic statements", I'd say he was doing a-ok without investing in the market.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >Seems like pretty cheap marketing In retrospect, yes. The art could have just been permanently removed by the city, and nothing would have come out of it (except some extra fines).
TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
I really doubt that before the bull arrived, a statue that challenged the mythology of Wall St instead of glorifying it would have been allowed to stay for more than a few minutes in that location. The bull is still there because it makes a statement that appeals to certain people. The amount of money Di Modica spent on it is tangential at best.

coldtea 10y ago

>Is there anything wrong with profit? No, certainly not. Citation needed. For some people's ethical values (which is the only way to judge "wrong" and "right"), there is. For one (again in some views) it dilutes the power of art as a statement in itself.

hownottowrite 10y ago
> For one (again in some views) it dilutes the power of art as a statement in itself. Aestheticism has been used for nearly two centuries now to hustle artists out of their just rewards. However, like any "moral" framework, it works both ways and plenty of artists have used it to hustle wealthy patrons with dulcet dreams sculpted from lofty ideals. It was all so much easier in the days of Michelangelo when artists expected to be paid like craftsmen. Reading his collected letters is a delight I can highly recommend.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >Aestheticism has been used for nearly two centuries now to hustle artists out of their just rewards. However, like any "moral" framework, it works both ways and plenty of artists have used it to hustle wealthy patrons with dulcet dreams sculpted from lofty ideals. It's also something several artists truly believed, not used it as a hustle, and never took money to water their art, even if they were offered the chance, and even if they had to live poor because of it. Including people starting with, and staying committed, either to arts like poetry, which don't come with any rewards and wealthy patrons in the first place, or with genres/attitude towards some otherwise potentially lucrative art that's decidedly non-commercial. And that's not because they were lured by e.g. some music executives to hustle them out of their just rewards -- they chose to sell less (or not at all) and make no rewards for anybody to steal in the first place. If anything those execs would love for those artists to compromise -- so the total opposite of them using aestheticism to steal their "just rewards".