There was another example in NYC, which is a ceiling portrait in the Rockefeller center designed to present a trompe de l'oeil of American workers in the same kind of Nazi idealism that Reichskulturkammer sponsored. It was painted so the gigantic workers appear to shift their weight to a different pillar as you walk around. But I don't know if it's still there, the last time I was there was 20 years ago, and at the time the lobby was closed for redecorating, so they might have decided the resemblance to Nazi art was just too much to tolerate and destroyed it, I don't know. A lot of people didn't like that one either, it was very graphic.

Fascinating... The city chose to give it back to him basically. What a terrible decision...

When NY first woke up to the sudden appearance of a bronze bull abandoned in the middle of an intersection, they owned it. They could have cut it to pieces with torches and sold the bronze to pay for it's removal. Whoever floated the idea that the original artist still owns it even as it gets inducted as a permanent fixture of the city, needs to be smacked.

They've successfully given private control over a public exhibit to a private citizen who has no business dictating how the community is allowed to decorate itself. Since he still owns it, he is free to remove it at anytime, for any reason...

I do think the city could easily sue for ownership though. When the city decided to adopt it instead of removing or destroying it, the artist lost his right to make that decision. His abandoning of it and the community tolerating it was absolutely tantamount to a transfer of ownership.

As a public fixture, rather than merely a piece of privately owned art, it is the moral and artistic prerogative of the public, not the artist, to curate the aesthetics and meaning of it's features.

Wall street isn't his personal soap box.

When NY first woke up to the sudden appearance of a bronze bull abandoned in the middle of an intersection, they owned it. — VagabondSpectre

oh. So is the bear gone? If the bear isn't there it really wouldn't make sense.

The bear? Forgive me, I'm not following...

I'm sure you're referencing bull/bear market trends, but I'm not sure how :)

Booms and busts in economics are depicted by a bull locked in an eternal battle with a bear.

I'm in shock. There used to be a bear there. and it was one of three pairs. The pair on one had the bull winning, on the other side had the bear winning, and this one in front, which had them in standoff.

In this pair, there used to be a bear raised on hind legs. But I cant even find a picture of it like that on the web, maybe it was removed a long time ago. This picture is similar, I don't think its the same statue, but it shows how it used to be.

It's a great work of art. I happen to love Picasso. I saw the collection of his sculptures that was shown at MoMA, and it changed my life, I would say. But as political art, it seems that that piece is just historically associated with the Spanish Civil War, more than anything. But sure, it must have had some impact on people's awareness of the problem. You're also using probably the best example of a piece of political art. I can't think of another piece that actually had that sort of impact, but I could certainly be wrong. So sure, I grant that the piece made real, cultural waves, at least historically speaking. That's not a problem, especially because Picasso was such a great artist who made all sorts of pieces. Think about it: what makes it a great piece? Picasso. I agree with Steve Reich when he said something to the effect of "Shut up Picasso, no one cares! Just make good art." (this was clearly in an interview, sorry I don't have a link, I did a brief search). What I have a problem with is when art is just subjected to being political propaganda (and I don't see Guernica as propaganda per se). Living in NYC and working at a contempo-classical music venue that considers themselves "the future of music", I see so much ridiculous pomp and circumstance, and so much squelching of artistic voices because of the need to curate pieces that are cutting-edge political statements. And not to mention the questionable money that goes into art, and with that money, the power to influence which voices are heard. It's becoming this fundamentalist-progressive-left-religious phenomenon of creating high-art propaganda voodoo that has no real cultural hold. I always say...political music is as bad as Christian rock music. It's that Simpsons quote, "you're not making Christianity better, you're just making rock music worse". It applies to political propaganda in the form of art as well; it's the same principle.

It's gone!!

The bowling green bear which used to stand where the girl is has been totally eradicated from public memory.

I can't even find a picture or mention of it on the Internet.

I wonder what happened. I can remember when I actually saw it now, it was 1985.

So to be a little more clear here, the problem I have is with the distinction of what is primary in art. The idea, or the expression? We live in the post-Duchamp age, so for us, the idea is primary, whether we realize it or not. But I don't like this. When the idea (political or religious, or nihilistic or whatever) takes precedence, what happens is the artist forces the concept down the throat of the unassuming audience. Example, the bronze girl here. We live in an age where this is how art is done. Is it art? It is absolutely art. But is is creative, in the sense that human creativity is generative? No, it's abstract in the worst possible way. It's an idea, subjected to a weakened form of the human imagination. Imagination has to be primary in art; this is how unexpected new forms of art appear. Indeed, this is even how Duchamp came to the point that he came to. The creative act, for instance, in it's pure form is not primarily a process of reason; it's kinetic. I pick up an instrument and begin playing, I feel the pressure of the brush on the canvass, and suddenly, the ideas come. IF the result happens to be political, I have no problem. But an artist who begins from a political perspective is just making propaganda, not art.

The bull was only installed in 1989 as an act of guerilla art.

You must be confusing this piece of art with a different one! (or else are making a reference to economic shenaniganry that went above me head!)

Very nicely said.

I guess what happened was that the bull and bear I saw were on loan from somewhere, and removed a long time before the Internet started. If so, the new bull is very similar, but I haven't seen it, so I really don't have an opinion on the little girl, except what Noble Dust said generally, its exactly how I felt about the 'god idolatry' of Lincoln in DC, the mislabeling of the Helios sungod as a liberty icon of the opposite sex in NYC, and the 'workers building Rockefeller Center' ceiling painting also in NYC; and it's exactly what Hitler did to art too.

(Y)

Perhaps someone could ALSO replace the bull with a Picasso alternative



) good night

Love it. Fully endorse it.

If only our worshipful fine art overlords would stoop to such a move...

If he sees the juxtaposition of the additional sculpture as detracting from his art work, it is reasonable for him to be upset about that. — andrewk

Doesn't that defeat the purpose of what art is supposed to represent? Although I cannot go into detail as I am on my way to go grocery shopping and I'm on my phone, I am sure Banksy didn't get upset with (cannot remember name) when his artwork was completely sprayed over considering the nature of his art. Art is about challenging the boundaries and so it makes little sense if artists get upset about that.

I suppose where we differ is that whereas I see 'challenging the boundaries' as an important feature of many works of art, I don't regard it as essential to works of art. Beethoven was much more of a boundary-challenger than Mozart, yet Mozart is currently revered more than Beethoven (he said, wistfully thinking of the seventies, when it was the other way around).

Some of Mozart's most beautiful works are completely in conformity with the conventions of his day. Some artists astonish us by breaking boundaries. Others astonish us by showing just how expressive one can be without having to stray outside the boundaries.

I am sure Banksy didn't get upset with (cannot remember name) when his artwork was completely sprayed over considering the nature of his art. — TimeLine

The difference is Banksy is used to being sprayed over. He made an entire persona out of being a "guerrilla" artist, so to speak. I'm not sure it's the same for what's-his-name who did the bull.

Others astonish us by showing just how expressive one can be without having to stray outside the boundaries. — andrewk

I think I disagree here. I think art that "astonishes us" within the boundaries of what's an artistic norm tends to be dead, meaningless art that just assuages an artistic fetish; it never creates a new artistic possibility. For instance:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgvJg7D6Qck

Is the technical ability off the charts? Yes. Does it have any real cultural significance? No. It's fetishistic. The fetish is the shear ability of Bobby to use his voice to perform a piano part. Incredible, right? Significant in any way other than a dick measuring contest? No.

Is Mozart the example here? Because I would argue that he doesn't astonish us as such. — Noble Dust

I am not very knowledgeable about visual art, which is why I chose an example from music. Perhaps the reason Mozart does not astonish you is because you have the mirror image limitation wrt music. I am certainly astonished by him.

Salieri's fictional, bitter description of the opening of the Adagio from Mozart's 'Gran Partita':

Extraordinary! On the page it looked nothing! The beginning simple, almost comic. Just a pulse. Bassoons, basset horns - like a rusty squeezebox. And then, suddenly, high above it, an oboe. A single note, hanging there, unwavering. Until a clarinet took it over, sweetened it into a phrase of such delight! This was no composition by a performing monkey! This was a music I had never heard. Filled with such longing, such unfulfillable longing. It seemed to me that I was hearing the voice of God. — Salieri

Performance of the Adagio

There's a line I like from Woody Allen in the movie 'Paris Manhattan', when he's listing some of what he sees as the very few reasons to go on living. One of them is 'the slow movement of the Jupiter Symphony' (by Mozart).

"Let others bend the breathing bronze to forms more fair..." — Mongrel

Here's a 1907 version by E Fairfax Taylor: the fuller quote is even more apposite, but perhaps that's what you meant subtly to imply and I've only registered it by seeking it out :)

Others no doubt from breathing bronze shall draw
More softness, and a living face devise
From marble, plead their causes at the law
More deftly... — Virgil tr E Fairfax Taylor

I think the 'truth' of the Bull has been drastically changed by the additional of the "Fearless Girl", at least as long as she can hold her ground. Do you think the ontological of the Bull provides the power behind the "Fearless Girl". — Cavacava

I think the bull is superfluous, because it is just a metaphorical description of what is already present at Wall Street: a bunch of aggressively enterprising animals.

Also the girl refers to them, but unlike the bull she does not merely describe them but prescribes a protest against their intimidating aggression by exemplifying innocence and fearlessness. She would do that with or without the bull.

I suppose where we differ is that whereas I see 'challenging the boundaries' as an important feature of many works of art, I don't regard it as essential to works of art. Beethoven was much more of a boundary-challenger than Mozart, yet Mozart is currently revered more than Beethoven (he said, wistfully thinking of the seventies, when it was the other way around).

Some of Mozart's most beautiful works are completely in conformity with the conventions of his day. Some artists astonish us by breaking boundaries. Others astonish us by showing just how expressive one can be without having to stray outside the boundaries. — andrewk

Perhaps not, but artistic creativity is an aesthetic attitude and the boundaries itself is the limitations - such as conformity - that impact on the integrity of the art itself. Mozart may not have expressly broken the rules but his personal circumstances and social position compelled him to conform to what was wanted at the time, though one can distinguish these differences in his compositional attitude. The way that Mozart challenged the boundaries paradoxically within the boundaries is his liberal and emotional carelessness and he had a certain freedom in his melodic attitude; Don Giovanni, for instance, and the wonderful sturm und rang style that's just awesome. Stravinsky broke rules too but compares nothing to Beethoven, but I guess it is not about 'breaking' the rules but about understanding it and not letting it define you. No one could perform piano concertos or interlace musical themes until Mozart.

The difference is Banksy is used to being sprayed over. He made an entire persona out of being a "guerrilla" artist, so to speak. I'm not sure it's the same for what's-his-name who did the bull. — Noble Dust

There was quite a lot of outrage, though, when his art was sprayed over but he found that to be quite hilarious. It is this attitude - the reasoning behind the girl is apparently the lack of women in business and therefore a symbol of protest against the gender-bias - that challenges the Bull' symbol of power to one of the oppressor, which is why he wants it removed. But, that defeats the purpose of what art is supposed to be about and to use statutory regulations where he claims his moral rights to artistic integrity have been infringed seems baseless since there is no actual destruction of his art.

He is just an arrogant moron, really.

I think the bull is superfluous, because it is just a metaphorical description of what is already present at Wall Street: a bunch of aggressively enterprising animals.

I think "superfluous" is the wrong word. The culture in US fetishizes imagery and the "Charging Bull" reifies "Wall Street [as] a bunch of aggressively enterprising animals" as an economical image.

The "Fearless Girl" would not be "Fearless" unless facing something to be feared. It is an advertising/marketing ploy as previously indicated. The City of New York is known for its love of confrontation, and it loves the confrontation between the Bull and the Girl. (I am a native New Yorker).

But I think the Fearless Girl derives its power from the Bull, its meaning is dependent on it, as a work of art, otherwise what do you have...

The intrinsic beauty of all art is held in its ultimate irrelevance. Carry on.

It seems to me your objection is more to a type of activity that presents itself as art, that is recognized as art, but because of the intent behind it is more of a political product than actual political art. You mentioned the term propaganda, which I agree no more deserves to be called art than advertising. And the analogy is pretty clear - you sell an idea rather than a product but your aim is never more than instrumental. So, I agree art can’t be purely instrumental in its aims; it can’t merely be the case of selling an idea external to itself. That doesn’t mean, however, that the idea internal to the art, that which it expresses, as in the horror of war in Guernica, can’t be primary. Picasso is not selling an anti-war message, he's revealing one in a unique way - the idea is primary but it works in harmony with the form. So, I don’t think that the idea being primary is the issue here; the idea must in a sense always be primary, but it must work within the expression such that it reveals rather than merely commands. And what it reveals must be of value. Picasso does this, Banksy does this, Orwell does this, etc.

The creative act, for instance, in it's pure form is not primarily a process of reason; it's kinetic. I pick up an instrument and begin playing, I feel the pressure of the brush on the canvass, and suddenly, the ideas come. IF the result happens to be political, I have no problem. But an artist who begins from a political perspective is just making propaganda, not art. — Noble Dust

As I mentioned above, I agree that if the motivation is to sell an idea - instrumental reason - then you don’t get art - the artistic potential gets crushed under the jackboot of ideology. However, the impetus for art may be anything including the political. It doesn't have to be a case that it just happens. Guernica was painted in response to the bombing of the town of the same name. It wasn't entirely spontaneous. That the pressure that pushes the artist's fingers to the keyboard, or hand to the chisel, or paintbrush across the canvas is a wonder, fear, or disgust of a political nature no more negates the final product than any other impetus as long as the art speaks for itself, has its own voice, and is not merely an echo of some prevailing wind that its creator wishes to amplify.

Given the circumstances, I think its more likely the Statue of Liberty was intended to be a representation of the Roman goddess Libertas, whose temple was built on the Aventine Hill after the defeat of Hannibal

I agree, Guernica is a great work of art, which deserves its own thread. I think it transcends its political aspect, as a work that demonstrates man's inhumanity to man, in the abstract, which I think is quite amazing. I think it is far easier to horrify in realism, it is quite an accomplishment to be able to elicit this reaction to an abstract piece. But that just grazes the surface. The New York Times reported on Feb 3 2003 that the White House had Rockefeller's tapestry of the work covered up prior to Colin Powell's infamous speech about Iraq, which spurred on the anti-war protestors.

I saw the original at MOMA way back when, it's awesome.

that might be true, but the model for it was Helios, which as I say, is why the crown looks like sun rays. What happened is that America WANTED it to be Liberty, so the Wikipedia correctly says it is a 'homage to Libertas, but it isn't actually Libertas, its Helios, lol. That is also why the statue is holding up a torch, which is the sun. They did get it facing it in the right direction, but some people have objected, saying Libertas should be facing the other way.

However, the impetus for art may be anything including the political. — Baden

I think the distinction is whether the art was created first, or whether in the case you discuss, the commission was first. If the commission was first, then it is craft, not art, which means that it is decorative for a purpose, in this instance political propaganda.