Hacker News Reader

Comment by stevewillows | Hacker News Reader

I can appreciate the wishful statement of the 'Fearless Girl', but the fact that State Street Global Advisors ($2.4 trillion in assets under management) put it there dilutes the overall message. It's a brilliant ad campaign, but this was not intended for anything other than an opportunity to attract a lot of media attention for a specific investment group.

In this case, the sooner its removed the better. However, I do hope that this inspires someone with good intentions to one-up the piece for the greater good and not a corporation's bottom line.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/14/fearle...

View on HN

Could the Charging Bull itself be viewed as an advertising campaign for the sculptor? After all, he was hoping to sell it and a few to various cities: http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/rock-solid-article-...

The Fearless Girl would have been a completely different story if they didn't put the plaque in front of it. Had it been the statue alone, it would have left more room for interpretation.

The same goes for the bull. If he had a plaque on it with his name, an artist statement, and some information to contact him, the piece wouldn't have had such an impact.

Well, much of the point of making a statue for a sculptor is to gain recognition. Not every artist wants to be a heremit. I don't see the problem of having one of your works publicizing how good you are at doing that kind of work.

So art studios owned by one person are real art and art funded by corporations aren't real art? Is this like 'I only eat Italian food made by italians'?

Well, the goal of an art studio is to make art (and money by doing so, to be able to create more art). The goal of those dirty (/s) corporations is only marketing, or something else, but it isn't art.

What if artists exhibit in shows sponsored by corporations or organizations like the Dubai International Financial Centre (as di Modica did in 2011)? Is it still art? Or is it just filthy advertising for filthy corporate DIFC (/s)?

I think there is a difference between organizing and sponsoring a show, and comissioning an actual work of art with a specific goal.

Arguable though.

I think there's a difference but I don't think it matters. Do you like the work? Does it get people talking? Is it iconic? Does it elicit political change? I don't think the answers change if we follow the money (except, sure, drop the plaque).

Each of the bronze sculptors involved are talented artists, trying to make money and make more art.

The corporation and the marketing firm didn't make Fearless Girl, Kristen Visbal did.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com