How about we Arc Light the bull instead - six would like that solution
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
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
1 Like
Couldn’t we just donate both of them to the war effort, maybe melt them down to make bombs or something?
1 Like
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.
If the bull was not there we would not have needed the girl - the girl maker shud sue for putting to all the trouble of building her
And you call ME Twisty? Pffft!
1 Like
I can twist em, but never in a million years at yer level
I idolize yer twistyness
1 Like
I feel like I’m starting to repeat myself, but I’ll be patient.
- She is not just a little girl, she is exhibiting resolve and daring.
- Nobody can claim to know what was in the artist’s mind when he “designed” her.
- Regardless of his intention, the bull belongs to the city and not to the original artist. No permission is needed. This is the crux of it, Starling.
- If you wanna make a music analogy, better tighten it up a bit.
If the artist doesn’t own the sculpture, that could be the end of it.
Philosophically speaking, I don’t think an artist has the right to use the work of another artist in a piece without permission where a copyright exists.
I stand by the music analogy.
1 Like
Okay, I’ll start a new thread with it.
I don’t think the space around a sculpture is copyrightable. I honestly do not think one artist needs permission from another artist to place a work in a public space near a city-owned sculpture, whether the new artwork references the other artwork or not. I will be very, very surprised if a judge rules in the bull sculptor’s favor.
I honestly believe my analogy to Shakespeare borrowing from other playwrigths is more apropos than the music analogy. Or, how about all those movies that parody scenes from other movies? Or, how about the many thousands of artists who have, in visual media, borrowed from/referenced/revised other, well-known art works? Could Campbell’s Soup have sued Andy Warhol? The list goes on and on. Art doesn’t exist in a vaccum.
I agree with you Lotus but you cannot include an artist’s actual work in an art instalment without permission. It’s not someone parodying something, making fair comment, alluding or referencing a piece, or even making a likeness. It’s using the actual artist’s work.
That’s not 100% true, if it is in the public domain.
If it is in the public domain then there is no copyright claim.
Being in the public domain doesn’t mean it’s located on public streets.