Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Art may change with the times, but there's a difference between a change in interpretation and a physical change to the art itself. Question for those who think it's okay for the "Fearless Girl" statue to stay up—would you feel the same way if it were a mural of a charging bull and she'd been painted into it?
Additional question after reading this—would you object to him going in and removing her himself (whether or not he'd do such a thing). After all, if I don't like what you tag in front of my graffiti I can paint over it or wash it off myself.
edited 16th Apr '17 10:56:25 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
He probably wishes he could, but the city ruled to keep the Fearless Girl around until February. I suspect that if the city hadn't done so, he'd have the statue moved personally.
I guess another layer to this is the fact that, since his work predates the 1990 Act and was originally erected without a permit, one could make an argument that the Charging Bull isn't really his (not say it's a good argument of course). It belongs to the city after they decided "hey, this thing we thought was an eyesore is raking in money for the city". And if the city decides that another statue placed in front of the Bull should stay around for a while...it stays. It also doesn't help that while the statue's meaning was altered, the statue itself was not.
Still, I do understand why he's upset and why he wants the statue removed.
edited 16th Apr '17 11:23:19 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedDidn't the bull guy leave it there illegally? I mean, I thought it was on at most a temporary permit. I don't necessarily see why he should get any say on a piece actually commissioned for the space and on a permanent permit.
"Coffee! Coffeecoffeecoffee! Coffee! Not as strong as Meth-amphetamine, but it lets you keep your teeth!"The article said it's been there since 1987, so I'd say it's there on a permanent basis at this point. (Though permanent doesn't mean the city government can't decide to move it for whatever reason.)
But yeah, legal issues aside, I think the guy's got a right to be annoyed here. The addition of the girl does change his work in a way he didn't intend, and was meant to do that, without consulting him. And, if the little girl ends up being permanent too (a year is long enough for people to get attached to the thing) then it does so on a permanent basis and he might try taking it to court. The comparison to graffiti is probably not nearly as apt as was suggested, as there's usually an understanding that it's much more temporary than other things. What with it being spray paint and all, and that stuff fades away if it doesn't get washed off. A statue has much more permanent intentions.
edited 16th Apr '17 11:58:57 PM by AceofSpades
Bottom line: While I sympathize with him, the law really isn't on his side.
It'd be kind of funny though if the negotiations to deal with the statue are only finally resolved in January 2018 or something.
Edit:
BTW, does anyone else think this conversation should be moved to the U.S. Culture thread if it continues?
edited 17th Apr '17 12:39:55 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedSorry for the double post but it's a different topic:
Since this thread started talking about the Religious Right...
Trump's new tax bill might include a repeal of the Johnson Amendment.
This is...bad. Essentially it will allow churches to become taxpayer-funded super PA Cs.
Disgusted, but not surprisedDid anyone read about the Neo-Nazi rally in Berley the other day?
It's really irritating me the way the mainstream media is ignoring the white supremacy and treating the protests like they're normal. I understand that news organizations have an obligation to try and be unbiased, but this is ridiculous. Like, I honestly wonder if they're actually afraid of losing fascist viewers/readers. It fucking disgusts me, all of it.
If someone paints a graffiti at the wall of my house without asking permission, I get to decide if it stays or not. Not the artist. I also get to decide if an additional graffiti by someone else stays or not. In this case the owner is the city. If he didn't want it to be owned by the public, maybe he shouldn't have put in public space without invitation and permission.
edited 17th Apr '17 7:42:59 AM by Antiteilchen
@Removing the Johnson Amendment: That would be bad for Republicans, actually. Beyond Evangelicals and Mormons, most officially Recognized Religions in the USA tend to skew to the left, not the right. From the Catholic Church, to several Jewish Sects, to Scientology and Satanism, to Liberal Evangelicals (that do exist). The Democrats would gain a huge amount of Money, and at worst, they'd probably be less friendly to Abortion (which would be bad, don't get me wrong). The Republicans would not benefit from this, and thus, I doubt they will try to remove the Johnson Amendment.
It would really help the Dems at the local level in particular, while they don't have the megachurches on their side, a lot of smaller ones skew to the Dems if only because of welfare and such.
And that's not getting into all the non-Christian groups who, all policy positions aside, swing Democrat because the other side all but considers them 2nd class citizens.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.The Catholic Church is weird in that its middle management is conservative while the Pope and most American Catholics are comparatively liberal. I mean, even your average American bishop is going to look vaguely reasonable when compared to a loony American baptist congregation.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."

I can sympathize with the bull's creator, though. It's like if you posed for a picture to make yourself look good, but someone edited themself in later on in a way that makes you look like an asshole. If you didn't actually do anything wrong to deserve that treatment, why should the edited version be the one everyone sees, potentially harming your reputation?
edited 16th Apr '17 10:40:12 PM by PushoverMediaCritic