Di Modica at times became emotional during a press conference, and said the bull’s message was supposed to be “freedom in the world, peace, strength, power and love.”
Show of hands, who saw a bull in front of the NYSE on Wall Street as a symbol of “peace and love”? Strength and power, maybe…
Not yours truly
tbh, I never had those emotions when seeing the Bull either.
Ironically:
Di Modica first installed the 11-foot statue of the bull in front of the New York Stock Exchange without a permit in 1987 as a symbol of American financial resilience. Authorities initially removed the statue, but the city later reinstalled it at its current home near Wall Street in the Financial District.
I guess since it wasn’t easy for him, he doesn’t want it to be easy for anyone else.
I have to side with the charging bull on this one.
The artist of the little girl sculpture is essentially incorporating the bull artist’s work into her piece. That’s infringement.
Solution: change the orientation of the girl to be side facing to the bull.
So, art can’t be a response to other art?
More like art can’t include other people’s art in it.
But, imo, it’s not included.
It is because the little girl is standing up to the bull.
Yeah. I understand that. But that’s what we understand about her. We can choose to look at the bull without her inclusion in its context. It’s up to the viewer, imo. Just like a reader can choose to read a Shakespeare play without considering the source play, or even the actual history.
How about we Arc Light the bull instead - six would like that solution
What the artist intended was for the girl to be standing up to the bull. In doing that, the artist included the bull in the art piece. How you choose to look at the piece is irrelevant.
Yes. I know. The girl includes the bull. That doesn’t mean the bull includes the girl. See? It depends on how you want to perceive the bull. It’s completely up to the viewer.
I believe the bull artist is a whiney looser babbie.
But I guess it’s up to a judge to decide.
FWIW, I’m with Lotus on this, and maybe I go even further.
The bull sculptor made his piece “on spec” and essentially donated it as a memorial to the financial district. It’s now in the public domain since he didn’t have a commission or a permit. It belongs to the city, and they’ve already moved it once or twice without a whimper from him.
The girl sculptor is arguably exploiting the existence of the bull, but IMO the girl is able to stand on her own without needing to interact with her surroundings. The fact that she can be seen as interacting with another ambient sculpture …from a respectful distance … is just gravy as far as I’m concerned.
That’s where he loses all rights to speak on artists’ rights, imo.
The little girl without the bull is just a little girl. The artist designed the piece to include the bull in it’s message therefore it’s using another artist’s work without permission.
It’s just like how you can’t take an artist’s song leave a 2 minute pause in it then add a bit to it and pass it as your own.
Yu the twisty - gotta give you credit - you can twist better then anyone
Couldn’t we just donate both of them to the war effort, maybe melt them down to make bombs or something?
How is that twisting? The girl is standing up to the bull as part of the piece. The bull doesn’t belong to the artist of the girl. What right does she have to use the bull in her piece?
To be fair… the bull was there first.