3 ms·
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 l
by 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 agoIt'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 agoI 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.