Does the Sculptor behind the Wall Street bull have a legitimate point in wanting the "Fearless Girl" statue removed?

To a degree. The girl, in facing the bull, changes the aspect of the bull. But turn the girl around, having her face the other direction, and she (and the bull) stand alone.

I thought some of those things as soon as the new statue was placed. (I didn’t know all of that history behind the statue of the bull, including the fact that it is still just “on loan” to the City. So that was interesting.)

Parody is a well-known and recognized exception to the general understanding of copyright, and for that reason parody is understood to be a necessary freedom of speech, which is unlikely to be abrogated lightly. But this proximity of the two works of art, where one – more recently placed, and even though a fine work of art in its own right – serves to parody the earlier work in its own space.

That’s sort of like parodying an opera, for example, in the opera’s own musical pit. It’s a breach of artistic etiquette, it seems.

No sympathy for the bull sculptor. He (like any artist) lost control of the sculpture the moment he sold it (or donated it, or whatever) to the city.

Any artist can hope for context (I want my portrait to hang next to the Mona Lisa at the Louvre) but realistically it is the owner of the art that sets its own context.

But even worse is the artist’s demand that the *girl” should be removed. He has absolutely no right to demand that someone else’s work be removed.

I’m fine with the girl there. It make me a little uneasy that the SHE is actually an advertisement, but I like the idea of a girl with the bull, and that both have strength. It reminds me of David and Goliath, although not really an analogy to that story. Art is in the eye of the beholder. How one interprets the statues might have little to do with what the sculptors intended. That’s always a risk with art.

@elbanditoroso Arturo Di Modica still owns the bull. He has every right to take it back if he wants.

He plopped his bull down without permission, just like the creators of the girl.
He can either shut the fuck up, or remove his bull.

Thanks for posting the article. The sculpture debate was heard on the news the other day, but didn’t go into the details.

Based upon that article, yes, Di Modica has a legimitate reason to want the other statue removed. What he doesn’t have is is a legal leg to stand on.

@ragingloli The statue of the girl was placed there with a city permit to do so.

@gorillapaws -he may own it, but it is there with the sufferance of NYC. If they didn’t want it there, it wouldn’t be there. His specific ownership is far less relevance then his utter audacity at telling the duly created gift of the girl, that it has to leave.

The artist is a pompous egotist.

@Pied_Pfeffer
Well, that makes it even worse.

I’m just saying that the girl fundamentally alters the interpretation of his piece. We have a statue of Arthur Ashe here in Richmond. Imagine if another sculptor littered the area with sculptures of beheaded children of the same scale/style of the other kids in the original piece around the roundabout. I could see why that would piss off the original artist.

In this case the bull is being transformed into a symbol of misogyny and patriarchal oppression.

Yes. The artist’s complaint is absolutely legitimate.

I remember a couple weeks ago, I read an article criticizing a man who “humped” the “fearless girl” statue,and posted it on social media. Apparently, the fearless girl can dish it, but can’t take it.

@gorillapaws
”I’m just saying that the girl fundamentally alters the interpretation of his piece”
As did almost 3 decades of wallstreet bullshit, including almost causing the 2nd Great Depression.
“A symbol of prosperity and for strength”? Maybe at the beginning. Maybe.
But today, in context of its location’s history, it is a symbol of the irresponsible and devastating greed of Wall Street.
It desperately needed an opposing symbol.

I understand his complaint, but by the same token once you make a work public you leave it up to interpret how they will, e end if their interpretation is miles removed from your own.

Personally, I’ve always (long before Fearless Girl) viewed the bull as a symbol of capitalist aggression and domination.

His claim of copyright violation is just asinine, as is his demand that the statue of the girl be removed. Both occupy public space, the girl has as much right to that space as the bull does.

Interesting. I’m uneasy about the girl’s advertising aspect. Mainly I like that there are now public conversations about art and cultural ideas being generated.

@elbanditoroso is correct. The artist loses control of the interpretation of his art once he presents it to the public. If he has a problem with the way it is being displayed, and he has the right to take it back, let him take it back. That is the limit of his involvement in the matter.

The presence of the Fearless Girl changes the Bull from symbol to point, to her counter-point.
He has a right to hold his position, but many artists have created a work, to find it’s meaning changed by another.
I say “tough titties!”

30 years is a long time, his original intent is not how the statue will be viewed today or tomorrow. Today it represents a place and system considered foreign to most Americans, not resilience as it once did to him.

The artist may deny it, I’d be surprised if the wealth in the area, and advertising potential there, didn’t have something to do with his original subject and placement anyway.

Someone adding their own riff to that isn’t surprising.

@gorillapaws – The Arthur Ashe equivalent wouldn’t be beheaded children, which are offensive on their own, it would be a nearby statue of Venus or Serena Williams, which in some way appeared greater than the original. That could be interpreted in a number of ways, many of which might have the appearance of playing off the existing statue.

@gorillapaws It’s ironic that you bring up the statue of tennis great Arthur Ashe who fought so hard for racial equality. Perhaps the city-wide debate of its placement took place before you lived there.

When Richmond native Mr. Ashe passed away, a statue was created as a memorial to his accomplishments. Then the debate of where it should be placed began. Half of the city’s population wanted it placed on Monument Avenue. The other half claimed that this was inappropriate, as all of the other statues along the avenue were of US Civil War Confederate heroes. They thought it would be more appropriately placed on the grounds of the Arthur Ashe Athletic Center.

The Monument Ave. voters won. So now the late, great Arthur Ashe statue resides among a long row archaic military men who fought against what Ashe stood for.

Funny, that Bull represents Wall Street to me. A place historically filled with men who had huge egos and too much testosterone. So many of the stockbrokers I have known were over confident womanizer. Not that they all were or are, but I had a kind of radar that if I met a certain type of guy I could guess he was a stockbroker. Women who wanted to be in that field were often treated badly, or subject to the goings on not comfortable for mixed company. It has changed quite a bit now I’m sure, but that Girl next that Bull is a symbol of progress if I knew nothing of the back stories.

There should be a statue of a little boy next to the little girl.
Then it becomes a symbol of the next generation standing up against the destruction of their future by the corporate elite.

You know something, @ragingloli, this time I think you have made a point which is more than valid, it is insightful.

This guy has made a living suing any corporation that’s ever used any likeness of this bull, no matter how incidental.

He must be low on cash since the Wal-Mart settlement.

@Pied_Pfeffer I remember it well. I mentioned the statue because the pose of Ashe with his racquet and kids below him could be totally altered to look like he was beheading children with his racquet while raving madly about some cultist book—clearly not the original intent of the piece, simply by adding other statues around it. Maybe the example is a little ridiculous, but hopefully the idea is clear.

Someone could likewise alter the statue of James Madison at JMU by placing a second statue of a beat slave cowering in front of her master and that would likewise alter the original piece (I’m just choosing statues I’m personally familiar with).