seriously, the guy has a point


  • area_can

    https://gregfallis.com/2017/04/14/seriously-the-guy-has-a-point/#

    I'm sure some of you have heard about the new 'Fearless Girl' statue:

    0_1492433213316_upload-6a6f112e-c422-4db8-82bd-49dceb8a1b27

    Here's an interesting bit of history and backstory behind the bull and the new girl:

    Back in 1987 there was a global stock market crash. Doesn’t matter why (at least not for this discussion), but stock markets everywhere — everywhere — tanked. Arturo Di Modica, a Sicilian immigrant who became a naturalized citizen of the U.S., responded by creating Charging Bull — a bronze sculpture of a…well, a charging bull. It took him two years to make it. The thing weighs more than 7000 pounds, and cost Di Modica some US$350,000 of his own money. He said he wanted the bull to represent “the strength and power of the American people”. He had it trucked into the Financial District and set it up, completely without permission. It’s maybe the only significant work of guerrilla capitalist art in existence.

    People loved it. The assholes who ran the New York Stock Exchange, for some reason, didn’t. They called the police, and pretty soon the statue was removed and impounded. A fuss was raised, the city agreed to temporarily install it, and the public was pleased. It’s been almost thirty years, and Charging Bull is still owned by Di Modica, still on temporary loan to the city, still one of the most recognizable symbols of New York City.
    And that brings us to March 7th of this year, the day before International Women’s Day. Fearless Girl appeared, standing in front of Charging Bull. On the surface, it appears to be another work of guerrilla art — but it’s not. Unlike Di Modica’s work, Fearless Girl was commissioned. Commissioned not by an individual, but by an investment fund called State Street Global Advisors, which has assets in excess of US$2.4 trillion. That’s serious money. It was commissioned as part of an advertising campaign developed by McCann, a global advertising corporation. And it was commissioned to be presented on the first anniversary of State Street Global’s “Gender Diversity Index” fund, which has the following NASDAQ ticker symbol: SHE. And finally, along with Fearless Girl is a bronze plaque that reads:

    Know the power of women in leadership. SHE makes a difference.

    Note it’s not She makes a difference, it’s SHE makes a difference. It’s not referring to the girl; it’s referring to the NASDAQ symbol. It’s not a work of guerrilla art; it’s an extremely clever advertising scheme. This is what makes it clever: Fearless Girl derives its power almost entirely from Di Modica’s statue.

    Why is this being talked about? Because Di Modica, the artist behind the bronze bull, wants 'Fearless Girl' removed. I'm not arguing for either side, but I just thought how it was kind of funny how the bull, intended to represent the spirit of the people and paid for by the artist himself, has been turned into an icon representing greed and the 1% by the investment-fund-financed girl.



  • @bb36e Surely there should be a bear and a bull?



  • @bb36e he should take his bull back as a protest or something



  • @lucas1 said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    @bb36e Surely there should be a bear and a bull?

    Maybe the girl is actually Sarah Palin?


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @bb36e said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    It’s not a work of guerrilla art; it’s an extremely clever advertising scheme

    Is it though? Or is it something so obscure that it takes some article a month later to point out what it really means? I don't even remember what the SHE ticker symbol stands for and I literally just read this.



  • For centuries, art has been sponsored by the aristocracy - that doesn't normally detract from the merit of the work.

    I also don't see why an artist should have unfettered control over how their work is reinterpreted or parodied.


  • sockdevs

    @bb36e On one hand, it is his bull, on indefinite loan to the city. He totes can remove it if he wants to.

    on the other hand that would be kinda a dick move to do as it would destroy the meaning of the fearless girl statue.

    on the gripping hand they did kinda start it by appropriating his art to power theirs so.....

    he's got a point, sure, but then so does the man down on the corner shouting "Jesus was Jewish." He is right, technically. That dood was a rabbi, but that's also not a point relevant to how he's remembered. Likewise "Fearless girl" might be commissioned and paid for by SPDR Series Trust SPDR SSGA Gender Diversity Index ETF but no one's going to remember that in ten years, and they sure as hell don't notice it on the street today unless someone points it out to them..

    so........ He's got a point I guess about not wanting his statue to be shown in conjunction with the Fearless Girl statue, but..... I guess that's not the whole story.....

    i think i'm going to go with "Yeah, he's got a point. And...?"



  • @Jaloopa said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    Is it though? Or is it something so obscure that it takes some article a month later to point out what it really means? I don't even remember what the SHE ticker symbol stands for and I literally just read this.

    But you are not (I guess) a stock-broker or working in the banking industry. People who walk in front of that statue everyday are probably much more attuned to tickers than we are (heck, I'm not even sure what the ticker for my company is!).

    It would be interesting to see what passers by think of it. Have they noticed it's a form of advertising? If not, then you are probably right (and the fact that the ticker is mentioned is nothing more than the name of a sponsor). If they have, then the article has a point.



  • @accalia said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    on the other hand that would be kinda a dick move to do as it would destroy the meaning of the fearless girl statue.

    What is the meaning of it?



  • @boomzilla said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    @accalia said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    on the other hand that would be kinda a dick move to do as it would destroy the meaning of the fearless girl statue.

    What is the meaning of it?

    I think Fearless Girl is a pretty cool guy. Eh stands tehre and doesn't afraid of anything


  • sockdevs

    @boomzilla said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    @accalia said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    on the other hand that would be kinda a dick move to do as it would destroy the meaning of the fearless girl statue.

    What is the meaning of it?

    fuck if i know, something about the bravery of women in adversity?

    or maybe that bravery doesn't mean you shouldn't get out of the way fo the charging bull?

    i'm not an art critic, but i can pretty clearly see that the girl statue was placed where it is in relation to the bull deliberately so the bull is part of the message the girl is supposed to be saying.

    i don't have an opinion on the right versus wrong of the situation, and i stand by my "and...?" reaction to the point that guy makes. I admit he has a point but thats as far as i'm going.



  • @accalia said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    i'm not an art critic, but i can pretty clearly see that the girl statue was placed where it is in relation to the bull deliberately so the bull is part of the message the girl is supposed to be saying.

    And perhaps moving one or the other statues is its own performance with meaning!

    @accalia said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    I admit he has a point but thats as far as i'm going.

    Like on the top of his head?



  • Why is there not a bear there?


  • sockdevs

    @boomzilla said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    And perhaps moving one or the other statues is its own performance with meaning!

    if a tin can full of poo can be art anything can.

    @boomzilla said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    Like on the top of his head?

    iunno. don't have a picture of the guy.



  • SHE's better than a lot of stuff billed as art these days, so it certainly has that going for it.



  • @accalia said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    if a tin can full of poo can be art anything can.

    But let's not bring Swedish delicacies into this.


  • sockdevs

    @boomzilla said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    @accalia said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    if a tin can full of poo can be art anything can.

    But let's not bring Swedish delicacies into this.

    i said art not cuisine


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @accalia truly great food is art in its own right



  • @accalia said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    @boomzilla said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    @accalia said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    if a tin can full of poo can be art anything can.

    But let's not bring Swedish delicacies into this.

    i said art not cuisine

    I said Swedish delicacies not cuisine.


  • sockdevs

    @boomzilla said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    @accalia said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    @boomzilla said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    @accalia said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    if a tin can full of poo can be art anything can.

    But let's not bring Swedish delicacies into this.

    i said art not cuisine

    I said Swedish delicacies not cuisine.

    0_1492614143911_I See What You Did There (2).jpg



  • @lucas1 said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    Why is there not a bear there?

    They want bullish markets, not bearish. So they found a clever way to put a bear trap in a public place.



  • @LaoC Surely though if you are doing some art about the stock market you would have a bronze on of both.



  • On its own terms, the statue is absurd. Taken together with the charging bull, the entire art installation would be more properly titled “Where Are Her Parents?” or “Seconds from Tragedy.”



  • @boomzilla I thought the statue was just an ad for some company?



  • @LB_ Don't try to oppress her with your capitalism!

    Who the fuck knows? Certainly a lot of people have interpreted it as a lot more than just an ad. I'm pretty partial to "Where Are Her Parents?" myself.



  • @boomzilla the statue is a bit of fun.

    If it was a man we'd say 'OK a matador' - a bit boring and with questionable animal rights connotations.

    But it's a girl, so cool. There are still enough stereotypes that need challenging - probably particularly on Wall Street. It might be much more fun to go out with 'crass suicidal woman who stands in front of bull' - so I don't have a problem with this :tropical_drink:.



  • @japonicus said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    If it was a man we'd say 'OK a matador' - a bit boring and with questionable animal rights connotations.

    Being more on top of important current events than you are I know that we'd be making references to this:



  • @boomzilla yuck. You're right I wasn't aware of that, but have somewhat mixed sympathies.



  • Mauled bull defends himself against tormentors.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    I think the two statues and the history behind them are an amazing metaphor for how progressivism works. Or liberalism, or whatever the word for communism is this week.

    The bull is seen as an image of "ruthless capitalism" attacking "the people" - but in fact it was made by a random dude on his own money as a symbol of strength of the people as a whole, its meaning is literally opposite of that, and rich bankers hate it.

    The girl is seen as a symbol of resistance against it, "from the people, for the people" - but in reality, just like "western" progressivism, it's been commisioned by an insanely rich fund and it's literally a symbol of its power. Just like most progressives' beliefs, it came out of a giant corporation's meeting room full of dudes in expensive bespoke suits.

    It reminds me of this comment I saved ages ago on le roddit (it's a reaction to some article on a gay rights site - the quotes come from that; I think it was shitting on Peter Thiel):

    I dare you to say something about me that I haven’t already said about myself.

    Okay.

    Social justice advocacy is a front organization for corporate oligarchs who desperately need society to remain fragmented by wedge issues and not turn their collective ire upon them. You're an unwitting, useful idiot for the very things you proclaim you're fighting against.

    https://i.redditmedia.com/75-wBMquvBwuj3cBjqtiKWBstR_KeW5vwyR3CSbH_c8.jpg?w=1024&s=1953e8f354f936c7323fd6890e19e1ce

    You're nothing more than a fashion accessory for rich, white men - a virtue they can signal to drain simple minded latte socialists and Starbucks Marxists of every dollar they earn; all the while gaslighting you into voting for corporate-warmongers like Obama and Clinton in the name of "diversity" or "representation" or "justice". Match me, comrade!

    When you get here on Feb. 1, we will be waiting here to strip you of your gay identity. You can have sex with all the men you want, but you’re not gay anymore. You’ve used your sexual orientation as an excuse to spit bile and galvanize cowards for long enough. Put your badge and gun on my desk. The community rejects you. You have never been one of us.

    You don't have a community. You're a brand. You're a subsidiary of Neo-Con, Neo-Liberal and Sons Inc. Your every act of social activism was engineered from on high by the patriarchy for the purposes of fragmenting the working class, sweetheart. You're just marching in goosestep with the business plan... clueless and righteous in your hatred of the white boogeymen built for you.

    Perhaps you'd be better served considering what happens to you and your movement when your brand of try-hard Alyssa Edwards goofiness proves unprofitable for those corporate masters? The cultural foundations of progressive politics have already turned to sand beneath your feet. No one likes you anymore. Whatever will you do when McPolitics decides it's more profitable to pander to the nationalists? It won't be long now.

    Tick-tock, you compliant, idiotic shill.

    All aboard the trolleybus!



  • @blek I read the first nested quote before you started editing, so something you did caused NodeBB to break.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @coderpatsy I made an edit before I noticed the broken quotes; it's possible that everything was fine before that, I'm not sure. Now that I left the topic and came back and I see them both. Weird.



  • Yeah after a cold load I see the hidden quote expand marker dealies. So looks like it's a problem with streaming posts that breaks nested quote visibility.



  • @blek both statues are motivated by capitalism, the first is a cynical attempt by an artist to sell over-priced bronzes to multiple cities the second is a marketing gimmick by a faceless asset manager.

    What's important is how people re-interpret both symbols - that's where they begin to acquire value and interest.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @blek said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    Just like most progressives' beliefs, it came out of a giant corporation's meeting room full of dudes in expensive bespoke suits.

    TIL Marx came from "a giant corporation's meeting room full of dudes in expensive bespoke suits".

    @blek said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    All aboard the trolleybus!

    Well don't mind if I do!

    The stuff written there appears to apply equally well (perhaps even better) to the (US) right, especially such factions as the Tea Party and Trumpsters, with only a slight change in rhetoric and flagrant favoritism and fawning for the corporate overclass (see: the election of Trump).

    One might just conjecture that the two major carts are leading a rather significant amount of the horses. This probably explains why even when a group's preferred candidate wins, dissatisfaction still comes around.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @japonicus Sure, but my point is really about how each statue is being perceived. Of course, that's subjective. Anyway, I'm a bit drunk and the reply I started typing below snowballed into a sort of a stream of consciousness rant, so don't take it too seriously.

    Corporate media, as well as nauseatingly rich polititians, try to paint the girl as a symbol for diversity and resistance. But it's actually a monument to a fund, basically a billboard - the exact thing "progressives" claim to fight against.

    And they don't care, they lap it up and regurgitate it ad nauseam, and they (seem to) think these are their own ideas, their own beliefs - but they're not. They're designed by insanely rich legal entities employing teams of marketing experts and psychologists, and they were effectively mass produced. "Trickle down doesn't work!" "Nazis were right wing!" "Socialism would work if we just put the right people in charge!" "Giant corporations hate regulation!".

    Most if not all of the "west" now has its Overton window shifted so, so far left... let me put it this way: Ideas that would make my own eastern European country's communist party, one that famously sent a heartfelt letter of condolences to North Korea when Kim Jong-Il died, say "whoa, slow the fuck down dude, that's insane", seem to be completely mainstream and widely accepted in the US and western Europe. "Universal basic income" is a very on-the-nose example of this - it's so insanely retarded a fifth grader could absolutely destroy it in three minutes, yet here we are, debating it again and again. I have personally witnessed a UBI supporter say "we're talking about systems, math is irrelevant" without a hint of irony. Jesus.

    It's amazing. 44 years of communist rule turned the country I was born in from one of the most developed countries on the planet into a third world banana republic, an utter shithole. Then we finally got rid of the tankies' rule in 1989. The 90s were... wild, to say the least - any dramatic shift of power does that. But we've been getting better, and life 20 years ago and now is incomparably better. And now the fucking "west" is turning into an oppressive authoritarian shitfest that regulates every aspect of each citizen's life even more than the Soviets ever dreamed of, but plenty of people still idolize it because they don't pay attention and think it's the same as it was in the 1960s... but it's not. The red menace is as real as it was in the 1950s, except this time it's coming from the west, not east, and so few people realize that. I can only hope that the pendulum will swing back to the right before this shit gets here en masse.

    Ok, rant over - just one more thing: even if the bull guy was just looking to make money - it's still wildly different. The bull, if I understand correctly, cost him a huge amount of his own money, and then he tried to sell it in a bunch of places. He brought the thing to Wall Street with a friend in the middle of the night. It's grassroots, unless I'm missing something. It's literally one no-name guy trying to earn some cash. If I am correct, then that's no different from someone opening a small business, is it? He invested his own, presumably hard-earned money, made a sort of a product, and tried to sell it the best he could.

    On the other hand, the girl is just a statement of power, a literal "fuck you, I do what I want", made by a legal entity that took literally zero risk by making the thing - I doubt it even registered on their bottom line. It's a fuck you to a symbol of the power of the people, made by a 2,5 trillion dollar Wall Street fund - and yet it's being hailed by, again, corporate media, as a symbol of diversity, because hurr durr luttle gurl, and all those self-professed left-libertarians and ancoms and communists and shit lap it up, just as they've done with every other piece of corporate propaganda claiming to be anti-corporate.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @Dreikin said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    TIL Marx came from "a giant corporation's meeting room full of dudes in expensive bespoke suits".

    No, Marx's teachings came from his brain-eating disease and alcohol addicition. The current progressivism just uses his name as a brand.

    The stuff written there appears to apply equally well (perhaps even better) to the (US) right

    You can't possibly be serious. Can you list a single corporation that supported Trump? From what I've seen, everyone's either been silent, or openly supported Clinton. And if we're talking about media in particular, well, almost literally the entire mainstream jumped on the Hillary bandwagon. Look at the table here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2016

    Tea Party

    That was even less relevant as Occupy Wall Street in the 2016 election, or in the aftermath. That is, not at all.

    fawning for the corporate overclass

    Trumpsters fucking hate the "corporate overclass". In fact, the hatred is mutual. Yes, Trump himself is technically a part of it, in that he owns some corporations - but he's a reject, a persona non grata, in that particular social circle. See the links above. The rest of the corporate world hates him with a passion, and so does a good half of "his" political party. Like it or not, he was the anti-establishent candidate, even though he ironically was a part of the establishment. He overstepped his bounds when he started campaigning - and then had the gall to actually win the election - without the establishent's approval, so I don't think it's fair call him a part the establishment anymore.

    Also by the way, regarding the "corporate overclass" - and again, this isn't really related to the discussion, it's just been on my mind for a time. I feel like a lot of people seem to genuinely believe that corporations are these entities owned by a few old rich white dudes who look like this. They're not - not in any significant degree. In reality they're owned by the 20-something Berkeley revolutionnaire LARPer's mommy and daddy's retirement accounts, but so few people seem to realize that.



  • @blek I scarcely know where to begin...

    Trickle down doesn't work!

    plainly and simply verified by observing the change in distribution of wealth under regimes that have tried it.

    Nazis were right wing!

    basically yes, but there are several definitions of 'right-wing'. The Nazi's power certainly benefited the industrialist plutocracy that sponsored the regime. The concentration of power in a dictatorship is also a typical consequence of extreme right-wing tendencies to value the individual over society. Nationalism, bigotry and conservatism also fit the pattern.

    I think that where you may be confused is the left-wing label sometimes applied to Stalinism and other factions of extremist "communism". If those were also properly labelled as right-wing (or state-capitalist if you prefer) then it would be much simpler.

    Both 'left' and 'right' are slippery labels that don't work particularly well in practice. I think that governments are better characterised by deeds rather than by words, but in terms of aspiration I'd see good governance defined in the most general terms as 'defending the weak against the strong' and 'organising works for the common good'. That more generally fits a 'left' rather than 'right' ethos. (and is incompatible with the corrupt pattern of the Soviet block)

    Likewise, I am somewhat inebriated so my response to your post may not be entirely coherent and really I'm an anarcho-syndicalist at heart so am somewhat bereft of regimes to cite as exemplary :(.



  • @japonicus said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    plainly and simply verified by observing the change in distribution of wealth under regimes that have tried it.

    Uh...no...just the opposite, actually.

    @japonicus said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    basically yes, but there are several definitions of 'right-wing'.

    European "left" and "right" never make any sense to me. From my modern American perspective, Nazism is decisively left wing. From a 1930s American perspective, too. American Progressivism has always been the "respectable" American version of fascism / communism / socialism.

    I fear we're going full :trolleybus: here.


  • area_can

    @coderpatsy said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    something you did caused NodeBB to break.

    Sometimes, nothing needs to be done to cause this


  • Dupa

    @lucas1 said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    Why is there not a bear there?

    Cause bears don't dig on dancing.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Dreikin said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    The stuff written there appears to apply equally well (perhaps even better) to the (US) right, especially such factions as the Tea Party and Trumpsters, with only a slight change in rhetoric and flagrant favoritism and fawning for the corporate overclass (see: the election of Trump).

    That's how it works. Politics in the US is a big game of "Let's You and Him Fight".




  • sockdevs

    @CHUDbert I don't know what's scarier, her or the bull :thinking:




  • :belt_onion:

    @accalia said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    @boomzilla said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    @accalia said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    if a tin can full of poo can be art anything can.

    But let's not bring Swedish delicacies into this.

    i said art not cuisine

    Dunno, I heard those things make people produce genuine Jackson Pollocks...


    Filed under: </obscure reference>



  • @bb36e said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    Why is this being talked about? Because Di Modica, the artist behind the bronze bull, wants 'Fearless Girl' removed. I'm not arguing for either side, but I just thought how it was kind of funny how the bull, intended to represent the spirit of the people and paid for by the artist himself, has been turned into an icon representing greed and the 1% by the investment-fund-financed girl.

    The bull has been a symbol of capitalism (and greed) since it was revealed. Only a moron could look at it--and its surroundings--without getting that message.

    Suppose the new statue instead was an appropriately named "Cowering Girl." Somehow I suspect there would be much less controversy.

    Because it is wrong for anyone (much less a girl) to challenge the Might and Majesty of capitalism. It is only appropriate to cower...or worship.

    That's what "Fearless Girl" represents: a challenge to the Might and Majesty of capitalism. How dare she? She might as well fart loudly in church.



  • @CoyneTheDup said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    @bb36e said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    Why is this being talked about? Because Di Modica, the artist behind the bronze bull, wants 'Fearless Girl' removed. I'm not arguing for either side, but I just thought how it was kind of funny how the bull, intended to represent the spirit of the people and paid for by the artist himself, has been turned into an icon representing greed and the 1% by the investment-fund-financed girl.

    The bull has been a symbol of capitalism (and greed) since it was revealed. Only a moron could look at it--and its surroundings--without getting that message.

    Suppose the new statue instead was an appropriately named "Cowering Girl." Somehow I suspect there would be much less controversy.

    Because it is wrong for anyone (much less a girl) to challenge the Might and Majesty of capitalism. It is only appropriate to cower...or worship.

    That's what "Fearless Girl" represents: a challenge to the Might and Majesty of capitalism. How dare she? She might as well fart loudly in church.

    "Fearless Girl" specifically represents a single stock ticker symbol:



  • @bb36e

    So it's all about perception.

    @accalia said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    i think i'm going to go with "Yeah, he's got a point. And...?"

    The POINT is that it's inversion of the truth, by a massive corporate pretending to represent progress, diversity, the little people, standing up to the wealth, when the truth is the exact opposite.

    The bull represented the American spirit, and the girl pretending to be all that, is the very thing the bull was standing against.



  • @CoyneTheDup said in seriously, the guy has a point:

    That's what "Fearless Girl" represents: a challenge to the Might and Majesty of capitalism. How dare she? She might as well fart loudly in church.

    By being the very thing it pretends to stand against?

    It's the stock market equivalent of the Kendall Pepsi Ad for all the reasons that it backfired. It's just more clever at hiding it, is all.

    Hitler could have worn a shirt depicting the Confederacy surrendering to the Union with the caption "Free the slaves", and you would have bought it hook line and sinker.

    Join the conversation already! SHE's counting on you!


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.