Hacker News Reader

Comment by hoorayimhelping | Hacker News Reader

So if I read the article correctly, the bull originally represented the strength of the American people.

The girl is sold as representing the strength of women, but in fact it's a secret ad campaign that was put in front of the symbol representing American strength by a global fund. And people (unknowingly) support the ad campaign and react very aggressively to people questioning the ad and call anyone who questions the ad a woman hater.

And people who want to remove the ad don't care about the symbolism, they think things are fine or they don't like uppity women.

Seems like the perfect representation of 2016.

View on HN

> And people (unknowingly) support the ad campaign and react very aggressively to people questioning the ad and call anyone who questions the ad a woman hater.

Stuff like this really makes me wonder what is going on with gender politics these days. It's a borderline witch hunt, where people are being singled out as "witches" to short circuit public opinion against them.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

the bull originally represented the strength of the American people

No, that's just what Di Modica told people, presumably to better garner public support. It comes up in the original NYT reporting:

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/16/nyregion/soho-gift-to-wall...

You don't plop a massive bull in the middle of the Manhattan Financial District soon after a market crash to generally represent the "strength and power of the American people." It represents exactly what everyone who sees it thinks it represents.

I wish this kind of stuff was being resurfaced more aggressively in the face of all of this absurd backlash about 'the meaning' of a piece of public art.

True enough. But while that's the meaning he put into the bull. I would say the bull was the strength of the American people in the face of a market that said otherwise. The girl was put there by an advertising firm --and some people have interpreted it as a native form of women's strength in the face of male dominance (which requires the bull transform from representing America to only representing men and the girl not representing a marketing campaign but all women facing patriarchal oppression). As the article mentions, the bull without the girl retains its strength, the girl without the bull becomes "really confident girl".

in the face of male dominance

It's a big jump to that from "Fearless girl".

the bull without the girl retains its strength

The bull in deep space Queens becomes, I dunno, a pair of brass balls attached to a bull? The whole thing is pretty silly no matter how Di Modica feels about it.

>>in the face of male dominance >It's a big jump to that from "Fearless girl".

In that case, the secondary statue would not have become so symbolic for some (as referenced by current NYC mayor).

>The bull in deep space Queens becomes, I dunno, a pair of brass balls attached to a bull?

I don't think so. It may become detached from the wall street aspect, but it's still a bull ready to charge. It's like saying Michelangelo's "David" loses its meaning if it were moved to a commercial square in Shenzen.

And you may say David is more like the girl in that they're both defiant. However, I think not due to the symbolism behind the David as well as the bull.

It may become detached from the wall street aspect

I.e. it would become something completely different. There is no parallel to David, David's context is not as closely tied to its location - in fact, the statue is not displayed at its originally intended location.

I think I was not clear. Moving the bull might disconnect it from wall street [but not from representing the American economy.] Like the David [sculpture] its meaning can follow it, despite physical shift in location.

but not from representing the American economy

It wouldn't have represented anything other than a bull, had he not put it there, is what I'm getting at.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com