as a work of art it must 1st be able to stand on its own as a work of art. — Cavacava

When we know the wherefore and wherefrom of an art work, we can't take it on its own merits without some mental gymnastics--which are, of course, well within our operational capabilities.

Had she been cast in Sofia, Bulgaria by an artist who had never heard of the State Street Global Advisors, McCann Advertising, or the Bull, we would be in a better position to say that the sculpture should be taken on its own merits. That isn't the case here, and it wasn't the case from the start.

The Bull, of course, isn't an art work that can be taken on its own merits either. Its wherefore and wherefrom preclude our naiveté. The bull-girl combo is mid-brow political messaging.

Not really. I just found your comment amusing. Carry on...

I very much agree that from the Bull's perspective the girl taps its power. She is supervenes over the Bull expanding on its representation of capitalist power, the power of the exchange of values, and yea she suggests social justice as a confrontational value to corporate values especially as regards to women, just in time for one of the largest protests in American history.

She represents more of that silly feminist, social justice, anti-capitalist nonsense that will do and change absolutely nothing — Thorongil

She could represent that for you, and I would agree that as far as social justice goes, the whole thing is rank nonsense.

In fact, the object of SSGA and McCann was to speak in favor of the benefits of having women (not little girls) on corporate boards, because executives at SSGA think that corporations with some women on the board do better financially than boards that are men-only. One would not guess that by looking at the juxtaposition of the sculptures.

So, the origin of the project was not anti-capitalist. The folks who put it there are all about capitalism. On the other hand... Getting wealthy women on Fortune 500 corporate boards has nothing to do with social justice, and I would hope that serious feminists would not think that getting hundreds of wealthy women into the boardrooms was the goal of their movement.

I don't think the girl, aside from the bull is much of a work of art, the girl confronting the bull, as a symbolic act installed the day prior to one of the largest protests by Women...come on that's something that disrupts, and it continues to disrupt, which is what art is supposed to do.

It's disruption without a cause. Would that make a good movie? Who should the male lead be? Does it need a planetarium as part of the set? Maybe in this flick, the angsty guy could hang around one of those soulless corporate plazas in New York.

So, the origin of the project was not anti-capitalist. The folks who put it there are all about capitalism. On the other hand — Bitter Crank

Maybe so, but this is what it has become; a rallying cry for the occupy potheads and the like.

Not sure I understand what you are saying here, are you suggesting that women are treated equitably in corporate America?

Doesn't this symbolic confrontation point to the shame of the social injustice inveighed against women in corporate America?

A rallying cry for the occupy potheads and the like.

You mean the millions of women who marched the following day were potheads...

sad.

Sure, why not.

Your face is sad. How bout that.

Punk

Here ya go:

Not sure I understand what you are saying here, are you suggesting that women are treated equitably in corporate America? — Cavacava

"Neither males nor females, neither Jews nor Gentiles, neither gay nor straight, neither young nor old, neither caucasians nor negroes nor asians nor aboriginals" are treated equitably in corporate America. There are super-elites, elites, and sub elites (that's maybe 5% - 15% of the population), then there's everybody else. Everyone below the sub-elites down to the proles are subjected to various and fairly vigorous forms of inequity. Above the elites there is inequity too, but I am not concerned with how males, females, Jews, gentiles, gays, straights, whites, blacks, and asians are distributed within the elites. If a white woman graduate of Wellesley who was born with a silver or gold spoon in her mouth and who wants to be in the 1%-5% isn't hired into top level management or BOD at Apple or Exxon, I just don't care.

Doesn't this symbolic confrontation point to the shame of the social injustice inveighed against women in corporate America? — Cavacava

Corporate America is shame itself. Remember what the statue placement is about. It's NOT about women who are struggling to earn a living wage. It's about getting women on boards of directors. Who is invited into the corporate board/power centers? Jane Iverson from Scranton, PA with her BA in accounting from Scranton State College who has a not-appealing job in NYC where she can hardly afford to live? No. It's Vanessa Bush of Chicago's Gold Coast (and the Hamptons) who was worth a few million from the night of her conception, and who knows her way around the elites because she has always been a member of the elite.

Its effect is not what you are describing:

Thinking a little more about these works and their relationship. I think the introduction of the girl created an encompassing work of conceptual art where the concepts of danger, domination, uncertainty are challenged by our ideas about defiance, weakness & innocence (not so sure how innocent, she seems to know exactly what she's up to) are juxtaposed. The strong relationship between the two works is established by their shared context. A context which goes beyond the dynamic of danger and uncertainty which their immediate proximity poses. I think these works in their same relative positions would suggest very different concepts out if it were installed where the deer and the buffalo roam. In NYC they are placed in close proximity to one of the largest centers of capitalism in the world.

Who the fuck doesn't like "women taking up space?" What an asinine, nonsensical thing to say.

A single border collie can herd a full grown bull.

Sometime you need to grab the bull by the tail and face the situation.

Notice how that little girl is already off balance... or maybe never attained it, I dunno. Her left outside heel isn't as grounded, and her right shoulder is higher than her left. She leans into her right hip more often than her left when she thinks and talks.

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. — Baden

I somehow missed your post here, sorry. The result of checking the forum on my phone, it seems. I almost agree; with the case of Guernica, the idea may have been primary (who knows?), but only in harmony with the form, as you say. So, for any piece of art that would dare to say something specific and plain, it better be in concert with the form itself, otherwise it's just embarrassing. I'm saying this from experience. It is possible, I just think it's rare, and therefore, the examples of it, especially within the political realm in our age, get distorted and set on pedestals. They get fetishized. See the bronze girl from the OP.

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. — Baden

Sure, to me these instances are almost accidental; how can it be otherwise without being propaganda, whether political or religious or whatever? I saw Pussy Riot Theatre here in NY recently, and it was amazing. Why? Because it was art that happened to be about politics. The political message of the music was the inmost impulse of the artists. The same could be said for Bach's Hallelujah Chorus. The inmost impulse of the music was deeply religious. I mean that quite literally. So, that's my point. Does that make any sense?

Yes, I don't think we disagree about much really. And don't worry about the late reply; actually, you've reminded me I need to respond too to an earlier post by @Cavacava, which I will as soon as I get a chance.

I should also come full disclosure and mention that my issue here is primarily a fundamental one. I think a lot about the role of art, or the purpose of art, or the purpose of creativity. I don't think man's primary purpose as a creative being is political. I think the political role is just a stand-in for the essential role, the spiritual role. I think the creative urge in man strives to transcend the political, the physical. This is where a lot of my criticism of political art stems from.

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. — andrewk

Well, I'm not that knowledgeable about visual art either; I'm a musician. So perhaps I need to revisit Mozart? But I never had a great impression of him. I'm certainly willing to revisit him. I have always loved The Four Seasons, but as I mentioned to Bitter Crank at some point, that's just a nostalgic childhood connection more than anything.

The artist's idea, the artist's conception for the work is outside of the work and all artworks are political. Works of art cannot not be politically derived from culture. The main tension in any work is between the form (which contains its social aspect) and the matter, but it does not end there: form + matter does not equal the work of art. The artist's idea, the narratives that any good work of art illuminates, and its observers all are intergral parts of any work of art . Art has a double character (Adorno), it is at once art and politics.

Why do you think Guernica was done in grisaille.

The Bull & the Girl seem almost curated, and maybe that is right for our age. Frederic Jameson holds that position, he believes that the Curator is the new artist of the 21th century and Curators are found all over the art-world, not just in museums.