The little girl is bothering the bull

#21

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

#22

And you call ME Twisty? Pffft!

1 Like
#23

I can twist em, but never in a million years at yer level

I idolize yer twistyness

1 Like
#24

I feel like I’m starting to repeat myself, but I’ll be patient.

  1. She is not just a little girl, she is exhibiting resolve and daring.
  2. Nobody can claim to know what was in the artist’s mind when he “designed” her.
  3. 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.
  4. If you wanna make a music analogy, better tighten it up a bit.
#25

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
#26

Okay, I’ll start a new thread with it.

#27

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.

#28

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.

#29

That’s not 100% true, if it is in the public domain.

#30

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.

#31

You didn’t really just say that!!!

Billdo, someone just hacked Starlings accout

1 Like
#32

Assuming you meant to say “installation,” your statement is correct.

Where you have a problem is in insisting the two statues are an “installation.”

That’s in addition to the clear fact that none of us knows whether any vestigial “intellectual property rights” may inhere in the bull statue for the original artist. This is the crux really, from a copyright law standpoint, and I look forward to seeing how the court rules.

The rest of us here have been spinning our wheels for so long we’re on the threshold of starting to flame each other’s mommas.

#33

I’m on vaction Duke! But yes, I did.

#34

You’re right. I’m arguing under the premise of copyright and assuming such exists by this statement:

“Artist Arturo Di Modica and his lawyers argued at a press conference in New York City on Wednesday that the placement of the statue was copyright infringement and distorted the meaning of his sculpture.”

Yes, I meant installation. I say the bull is part of the piece because of this:

The investment firm, State Street Global Advisors, has said it commissioned the statue from artist Kristen Visbal to call attention to the gender pay gap and lack of gender diversity on corporate boards in the financial sector.

The girl is standing up to Wall Street which is represented by the bull.

Given the presented information, I have to side with the artist of the bull.

#35

I think I will sculpt a puddle of blood (or pee) on the ground between Defiant Girl’s feet, with ants and crows drinking from it.
Maybe a living puddle of water as a bird bath.

1874
January 13 - Battle between jobless and police in New York City, 100s injuried

April 15 - New York legislature passes compulsory education law

July 4 - Social Democratic Workmen’s Party of North America formed

#36

So State Street is standing to WS - State Street is Wall Street - LMAO

#37

Let me add two more logs to this fire.

First, Mayor di Blasio has come out in support of the girl.

Second, as a peace offering to Starling I want to remind Six and others about the history of the Viet Nam memorial on the national Mall.

Maya Lin won a competition to design the Wall memorial, a competition funded not by the government but by Jan Scruggs’s private group to which I contributed. The wall was finished in 1982, amid some controversy about its “nihilistic” design. Since its completion, it has been joined on its 2 acre site by the Frederick Hart bronze figurative statue of 3 soldiers, and since then the Glenna Goodacre figurative statue of 3 women…the Ruth Fitzgerald Memorial Plaque, the underground museum of relics that have been placed at the wall in tribute, and even a fucking flagpole.

None of that shit is part of Lin’s original design, and I have looked on all of it with extreme displeasure. However, since it sits on what is technically public land and the goobermint is involved in it…ya get what ya get.

I am against those additions the way Starling is against the little girl But unlike Starling, I am philosophical about these things because I know how interested governmental units are in placating people with wounded egos, checkbooks, and the willingness to suck a little cawk to get what they want.

#38

My argument is purely legal technicality, not what I support philosophically.

Even if the bull wins, I won’t be happy to see the girl lose.

#39

That is why, in general, the whole thing seems like empty posturing. I would dismiss the lawsuit as frivolous. In reality, it’s an attempt to divert the people’s attention away from the sins of Wall Street. It’s not about art at all.

#40

My attention is not diverted, and I’m interested in copyright law.