Fearless Girl

..when i saw the pic in the above post this came to mind.

..both are political

Quote:

So Wall Street is a guerilla movement, and feminists have culturally appropriated their power. Have I got that right?

Yes, if you believe that State Street Global Advisors = feminists.

Before you make up your mind, though, it's sort of interesting to note that only 17% of their own leadership positions are held by women.  So whatever amount of money they paid to an ad agency for Fearless Girl, it was clearly all worth it if actual progressives think their advertisement for their index fund has something to do with feminism. 

It's not "greenwashing", and it's not exactly "pinkwashing"... let me coin the term "girlwashing".  If it's got a girl then it MUST be feminist and we should all line up behind it or something.

Quote:

I think that by Magoo's reasoning, it would be the artist, not Wall Street, who would be the victim here. He created the bull to symbolize one thing, and now it symbolizes another.

Thank you, VotD.  This isn't going to change the minds of anyone who thinks "now, more than ever, we NEED Fearless Girl!" or whatever, but it's nice to know I can still be lucid enough to be understood. 

And I'm not even suggesting that the sculptor of Charging Bull is a "victim" -- that's way too much word -- but I think that in the context of an artist's moral rights to their work, he DOES have a reasonable point.  Sadly, a reasonable point that just got turned into witches stealing boners.

I'll suggest again that this is NOT about "Wall Street", it's not about "feminism", it's not about a bull being afraid of a girl, it's not about Capitalism, and it's not about witches.

it's not about "feminism", it's not about a bull being afraid of a girl, it's not about Capitalism, and it's not about witches.

..it's about all of these things and more. it's about the perception of the art by the public. not just about the intent or who commissioned it. and these perceptions can't be managed.

Quote:

..it's about all of these things and more.

Yes, in a sense.  The public will decide what about this is important to them, or what they like or dislike, or what they support or don't support.

But the controversy at the nub of it -- a new sculpture fundamentally changing the artistic meaning of another sculpture -- is not about whether we like Fearless Girl, or whether we approve of Wall Street or whether the bull would defeat the girl or the girl defeat the bull.  And while I'm not suggesting that the public's interpretation of this art (or, these arts) is immaterial, popularity alone doesn't override an artist's moral rights.

Just curious, epaulo13, would the impact of Fearless Girl be diminished if that sculpture were placed in the middle of a public park, facing off against a tree?  The "perception" of Fearless Girl is, IMHO, entirely dependent on someone else's art, and more to the point, entirely dependent on casting that other art as a misgynist threat.  Or else why wouldn't a tree in a park work just as well as something for Fearless Girl to be fearless of?

I don't think that the Fearless Girl comes close to being a breach of the artists moral rights.  The only thing close in VARA is the right to prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation.  Another piece of art work that doesn't physically impact a work of art would not meet the legal definition. Of course in the Magoo lexicon it can be a terrible breach of moral rights because in your lexicon you get to define what a moral right is even if it is not recognized by anyone else. 

Quote:

Of course in the Magoo lexicon it can be a terrible breach of moral rights because in your lexicon you get to define what a moral right is even if it is not recognized by anyone else.

Actually, I thought it might infringe on the sculptor's moral rights specifically because it would be recognized by someone else.  But I've also acknowledged all along that I don't know how to interpret NYC's stance on moral rights.

But I think that it this point, laws governing moral rights or any similar have been overthrown by GIRL POWER!!!!  It's feminism vs. Wall Street, and State Street Global Advisors is winning.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

But I think that it this point, laws governing moral rights or any similar have been overthrown by GIRL POWER!!!!  It's feminism vs. Wall Street, and State Street Global Advisors is winning.

No the point is you know nothing about the law of moral rights, not even what is covered by the definition and you want to use your interpretation to take a sideswipe at feminism. Your trolling is getting sloppier.

Quote:

and you want to use your interpretation to take a sideswipe at feminism.

I'm not taking a swipe at "feminism".  I'm pointing out that Fearless Girl is an advertisement, and NOT "feminism".

We wouldn't confuse "10% less packaging" in big letters on some product with "environmentalism", would we?

Quote:

"Men who don't like women taking up space are exactly why we need the Fearless Girl."

Put Fearless Girl behind Charging Bull instead of in front.  If Di Modica still protests then maybe it would be safe to say that he just doesn't like women taking up space.

And if anyone else protests then maybe it isn't about feminism at all.  She'd still be a girl no matter where she's put, wouldn't she?

Anyway, to be honest, I don't even dislike Fearless Girl.  I think it's a great piece of art.  I just think it's fascinating that we cannot even acknowledge Di Modica's concerns without either cheerleading for Wall Street and masculinity, or hating women and girls, or both.  As I said upthread, what should be a simple enough legal matter is now an epic battle of Capitalism vs. Feminism.

I would expect the only final decision to rest with the courts.  The law is either on his side or it isn't.

Good comment, Pogo.

I'm an artist of sorts, so here is my take: Art evolves. Art that is seen in a public context evolves even more so.

Di Modica made a statement with his sculpture. He then placed it in the public square. This was not just a statement in isolation, no piece of art is. It was the beginning of a conversation.  Fearless Girls is simply an answer to the original statement. The initial art work was not altered in any way - it was merely put into juxtaposition and there was a resulting conversation.

Fact is, Di Modica, like many men, does not wish to be part of a conversation, and certainly not *that* conversation. He merely wishes to pontificate. Here is his statement about Wall Street - testosterone fuelled and robust. How dare anyone challenge it?

One of the hard things about making art is that you pour yourself into an expression while in the act of creating and then, when you put it out there for an audience to see, you must then step back and let the audience own it. They will see things in it that you never intended. They will interpret through a lens you didn't anticipate. The meaning of your work will morph and evolve with that. There is no escape from this. It's part of the nature of art.

My assessment of the artist who can't bear being part of an evolution or conversation is that they're a piss poor artist - although they may be a hell of an artisan. But that's the real difference – communication, and when it’s at its best, it’s not a one-way street. 

I hope the case is thrown out. It should be. Di Modena doesn’t own the street and can’t dictate what else is placed there any more than I can bitch that my film was shown at a festival alongside another film that questions my intended message.

This is what public art should be.  I don't even care that it was paid for by a big firm that hopes they'll look good - it's a bold statement and a good one. And given the reaction by the bull's sculptor, an especially effective one.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

An interesting analysis from an intellectual property lawyer.  Looks like Di Modica might have his work cut out for him.

"But more to the point, the statute protects only against “any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work” (and only if the distortion, mutilation or modification “would be prejudicial to [the artist’s] honor or reputation”), and it would seem impossible to argue that Visbal distorted or mutilated or modified the work in any way."

Like I said Magoo. A quick read about VARA on wikapedia would have led you to the same conclusion. 

Speaking of changing shape, I remember one article which mentioned that he sculpted the bull's pendulous balls. Did he make them retractable, I wonder, because this is a case where I think a demonstration of some shrinkage might be in order.

(you can see where this is going, of course. Even if he is found to have a case, and even if he happens to win it, this is a situation where he is going to lose so long as he continues in this direction)

And art. Maybe not quite so easy a target as feminism, but don't forget that. That is probably the biggest reason why I think he is being a bonehead here, because one would think that as a creator of guerilla public art he would know better.

Kind of like when Julian Assange was whining about people publishing his leaks without the permission he though was his to give, IMO.

Little guy art promoting the biggest money machine in America? Excuse me if I once again call that bullshit trope out for what it is.

Maybe he's one of those snobs who doesn't consider corporate advertising to be art.

Pity Andy Warhol isn't around to clear that up for him.

Quote:

Pity Andy Warhol isn't around to clear that up for him.

Did Warhol take commissions to create corporate advertisements?  Which of his works was an ad??

I know that Warhol certainly used corporate advertising IN his art -- he's most famous for his Campbell's soup cans, I think -- but did he make art for an ad so he could cash that cheque?

Seems to me that intent is actually pretty important to art.  Not at all important to whether the public likes it, but important to its authenticity, and that's why an animal splashing some paint on a canvas will never be the next Jackson Pollock, and why a computer algorithm that moves people's noses to the side of their face will never be the next Picasso.

I'm not suggesting that Fearless Girl is invalid, as an artistic work.  I'm not joking when I say I like the work, and I even like the prank.  But really, she's not worlds removed from a very, very skillfully carved sculpture of Ronald McDonald.  She wasn't sculpted for the public's benefit, she was sculpted because a corporation paid for her in order to sell something.