Hacker News Reader

Comment by jbmorgado | Hacker News Reader

It's a question of principle.

Just because Picasso (or some living author if you prefer for the example) doesn't own one of his paintings anymore, it's not artistically acceptable (arguably even culturally acceptable) for the owner of the painting to go there and just paint something over it that totally changes the meaning of the original painting.

Just because you are legally entitled to do something, it doesn't mean you should do something. As a recent example, just look at the United Airlines example for instance.

View on HN

Except in this case, no one is "painting over" the Picasso, they're putting another painting beside it. The Picasso is still there, untouched, it just exists in another context.

But what authority determines what is artistically acceptable, or which work's meaning is not allowed to be reinterpreted, commented upon or even ridiculed by another artist? What art permits in the service of social commentary and criticism is often at odds with what culture permits.

> Except in this case, no one is "painting over" the Picasso, they're putting another painting beside it.

That depends on what you regard as equivalent to the canvas in the context of a public sculpture.

Does the canvas of a painting necessarily include the viewing space around it? Why would the equivalent be true for a statue?

The actual physical form of the statue is probably the equivalent to its canvas - or I suppose it would also be the sidewalk underneath it, since that "contains" the artwork.

But to me it makes little sense to claim any arbitrary space around a statue as being equivalent to the artwork itself.

Have you been to the site? Pointing the bull the other way wouldn't affect the artistic expression. Most people wouldn't even notice. On the other hand it might be tacit acknowledgement of the power of the other statue.

Pointing the bull the other way would make it look like it was running away from the girl. How is that not changing its artistic meaning?

It makes it look like the girl is taunting the bull. Which is exactly what is happening.

To me it represents a symbol in the war against men.

Which power is that, that corporations are good at advertising themselves by playing to our emotional biases? I believe that was established before this arrangement.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com