4 ms·

The Bull isn't a public work of art. It was guerrilla art: a very rich man needed to make a big symbol of power and stick it near the Stock Exchange because he

The Bull isn't a public work of art. It was guerrilla art: a very rich man needed to make a big symbol of power and stick it near the Stock Exchange because he thought people should not be intimidated by the latest stock market crash. That's a pretty specific statement to make, even a political one in its own right, and it wasn't 'public', it was one guy with a lot of money and time on his hands. I've seen art critics be pretty scathing about the Bull on the grounds that it's tacky bad art. It's popular as hell: unsurprising and not really the point. It was never public art. It's exactly the same context as the Girl, and represents its time about as well as the Girl represents 2017, with all her contradictions and sketchy motivations. The symbolism of the Bull is just as deep as the Girl, it's just that the message is wildly different.

smsm42 10y ago
> The Bull isn't a public work of art. By now it pretty much is, whatever the roots of it were. It has been accepted in the culture. > I've seen art critics be pretty scathing about the Bull I've seen art critics being scathing about everything. Literally. That's what they do. Name a work of art, and there are dozens of art critics being scathing about it. Too old, too new, too smart, too dump, to tacky, too conservative, too much meaning, too little meaning... take your pick. > It's exactly the same context as the Girl Well, now that we know the Girl is an ad for an (underperforming) index fund, I think the context is slightly different. But I agree that it's both deep and meaningful and reflects the zeitgeist.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]