Look at the poor man, he's all upset about this little girl.

[Nellooo]

'Charging Bull' sculptor says New York's 'Fearless Girl' statue violates his rights

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/12/charging-bull-new-york-fearless-girl-statue-copyright-claim?CMP=fb_gu

I hadn't realised that the girl statue was in front of the bull

Doh!

I dont know about his human rights but i can understand that he is unhappy thats its changed the 'tone' of the bull

I love it though

Human rights doesn't come into it at all. Copyright laws, perhaps, but not really, considering that this guy who now complains didn't ask for permission before installing his sculpture, either.

From my point of view, art is a form of communication, and as long as the original artwork isn't damaged by the addition, this is just something that happens if you put your art out into the world.

Smells of sad male bullshit to me.

I do think that whoever was in charge should have consulted him about the girl. Surely someone knew he might have had an issue with it? She does augment the context of the bull. She's a temporary addition anyway so his bull will have its territory back soon enough, but let's roll out some lawyers and make a big fuss anyway, heh?

I didn't realize she was in front of the bull. I can see why he might be pissed off, frankly.

I love it!
I hadn't heard of the new sculpture before (knew about the bull, obvs) so at least his complaint is giving it publicity.
I don't think his claim that it violates his copyright by changing the meaning of the work stands up - surely the risk of any public sculpture is that the context around it (both physical and political) can change, thus changing the interpretation?

It distracts from his original artwork, I expect he thinks someone else is jumping on his idea as he himself never had permission to put that bull there if I understand correctly. So I think he has every right to complain, but I wonder what his actual motives are to be honest, more likely publicity ;) mixed with butt hurt as the addition of the girl makes it far more powerful! A better piece.

I personally love the two together!

From the Guardian article:

"There was a time when Charging Bull was in a position similar to the Fearless Girl – waiting for the city to allow the piece to stay.

Di Modica had installed the massive bronze in front of the New York Stock Exchange after the 1987 stock market crash, without a permit in the middle of the night, as a symbol of America’s financial resilience. The city eventually responded to the public clamoring for the artwork to be allowed to remain in the financial district, steps from Wall Street."

Pfft. I'd laugh like hell if NY rescinded the permit for his bull instead, and gave the girl something else to face down.

Part of doing anything political, art or otherwise, is opening yourself up to your views and any representation of your views being responded to and challenged.

The Fearless Girl statue is a response to the culture of Wall Street and big business in general, in the same way that his sculpture was. It's inadvisable to make political statements if you aren't open to them being challenged. I assume he's just butthurt over the public support for the statue.

"The Fearless Girl statue is a response to the culture of Wall Street and big business in general, "

You do know it was put there by an asset management company, don't you?

His PR team must be on holiday.

He's making himself look precious and up himself.

The smart thing to do would be to congratulate the sculptor of the girl and have a photograph taken alongside her, with some easily repeatable soundbite about unity.

Does he have a point? Yes. Is he making a point? Yes, but not the one he thinks he is.

Diddums.

In Edinburgh, there is a statue of Wellington (? I think) at the bottom of the North Bridge. In his day, he must have looked very dashing on his prancing steed, gesticulating expansively with his arm.

Sadly, these days, a junction has sprung up around him and it looks as though he is directing traffic down the A1. He should totes sue for his statue being made to look silly!

Times change. This guy's just trying to get his mug in the newspaper again. Art exists because people around it interact with it. You can't control it.

I've never seen either statue before but I really love the girl.

The bull is his work. The girl + the bull represents another creator's piece of work. The other creator has in effect appropriated his work to incorporate into their own. He probably has a valid point. Frankly, whether he could have better exploited the situation is neither here nor there.

And the girl was put there by an asset management company. It will look very good in their annual report as a gesture towards equality.

I wish there was a [cynic] emoticon.

An asset management company with a senior management team of 28 of which 5 are women............

I can understand why he said that. What he said is true in my opinion.

I don't disagree that he is right that it has infringed his artistic vision.

Neither do I disagree that the motivation of putting the girl there may have been dubious.

But that's not how any of this is coming across.

It's coming across as someone whose artist nose has been put out of joint. Which he may well have a case for. But I n terms of PR it's very negative.

He's in the business of sales. It's not a smart move.

Datun...Maybe he considers his art to be more important than "sales". Principles and all that.

Can see his point, for the reasons bigolenerdy gives.
"Violating his rights" is a bit OTT of course.

bigolenerdy

Yeah, I'm sure you're right.

Bertrand and bigolonerdy- if the girl had been put there by someone else (an independent artist rather than the Asset management company, for example) but was exactly the same, would it change your opinion of the piece, or of the validity of Modica's objections?

The cynical motives behind the Girl does change my opinion of it very much. It's just The Man being exploitative.

I'd have been more sympathetic if he hadn't done exactly the same thing when he installed his Bull.

"Violating his rights". Pfft.

At least he paid for The Bull himself.