Charles ☕ Stanhope at 2017-04-14T19:16:43Z

I have some sympathy for an artist whose work is perhaps interpreted not in the way they would like (although I don't understand the copyright claims), but it is a public art piece. It's meaning is affected by where it is placed. The artist describes his piece as representing "freedom in the world, peace, strength, power and love." I haven't seen the piece in person, but knowing it's placement, and having seen many pictures of it, my interpretations never included freedom, peace, or love. Strength and (reckless, frightening) power, yes, but not those other things. I find it fascinating that was his intent.

Anyway, no need to beat up on him, but it's too bad he chose to fight this challenge to his work. If he really feels the way he does about his piece, perhaps he could come up with a way to participate with this sudden attention, and recast his work the way he intended, instead of nursing a grievance.

Christopher Allan Webber likes this.

Show all 11 replies
Now that I understand the whole story much more clearly, I take some comfort that the commercial message of the girl appears to have been completely lost on the public at large. The attempt at co-opting seems to have failed. Also, it occurs to me that with perhaps even just a single additional piece (say a  sinister corporate figure pushing the girl out in front of him towards the charging bull) you could create a piece that told its own story.

Charles ☕ Stanhope at 2017-04-18T12:47:48Z

Christopher Allan Webber likes this.

@cwebber, then you might like 99% invisible: the falling of the lennins which I think is fascinating. (I prefer the podcast form over the article. it's playable at the top of the article with proprietary js, or the mp3, or the podcast feed (update to fix links)

Ian Kelling at 2017-04-18T20:00:19Z