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

It makes no difference who put the Girl there.

The creator of the Bull has effectively had his work politicised. By all means remove the Bull entirely and replace it with something else. However, you can't politicise someone else's work without their consent, and then make him out to be the bad guy when he objects. It's a simple issue of respect as much as anything.

PS. For what's it's worth, I think artists do generally have legal rights protecting the integrity of their work from being tampered with in this way, so he may in fact have rights under the law that have been violated, but I have no idea whether New York/US enforces such rights.

Not directly related to the topic but the latest addition heralded this lamentable response:

nymag.com/thecut/2017/03/this-dude-humping-the-fearless-girl-statue-is-the-worst.html

I think he should see the (temporary) addition of the girl as part of an artistic conversation. He would come over much better if he welcomed the challenge, embraced the fact that a small addition has cleverly shifted the perspective of the piece, been magnanimous in his praise and entered into a lively debate about the role of art in politics and then sit back smugly to wait for the girl to be removed next spring.
As it is, he looks like part of the problem.

Doing this without his consent is "part of the problem"

@IAmAmy 

@PerspicaciaTick exactly.

Sorry? I was just illustrating the misogyny anything ostensibly promoting a strong woman or girl exposes and didn't think it'd be relevant to post it anywhere else.

How daft.

What if a real little girl came and stood there? Would he want her removed?

It's public space.

I think he is correct. The statue of the girl isn't occupying a separate space it has been placed in juxtaposition to the the bull and it changes the artistic intent of his sculpture completely. It turns them both into one piece of art and it is unreasonable (and possibly illegal) to do that to an artist's work.

Good article about it here
www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2017/04/12/the_charging_bull_sculptor_is_right_fearless_girl_should_go.html

I think it was interesting having her there for a temporary period to provoke thought but I think his artistic integrity is being violated if you leave her there, turning his sculpture into part of a whole that he never intended.

nothing to do with feminism or him being a man - everything to do with artists' rights.

If someone later came along and placed a statue of a man guiding the girl, people wouldn't be too happy with how we view her had changed.

If his work was in a private gallery Pallisers I would agree with you. But it's on a New York sidewalk.

Lots of public art is on sidewalks etc. It doesn't mean the artist gives up his/her right to the integrity of their artwork.

She isn't just another piece of art next to the bull. She has been deliberately placed so she is staring down the bull (which I think was great for a temporary period). But it is turning the bull into a component in a two-piece sculpture which is saying something entirely different to the bull's sculptor's intent.

If someone put a statue of a man in a business suit, bending over the girl, pointing at the bull as if guiding her and assisting her, how would you feel? It would completely change the intent of fearless girl and turn her into fearless girl instructed by a man. I don't think the argument that it is a new york sidewalk would make it better.

The fact that it's in a public place doesn't remove his right to respect for the integrity/message of his work. The public may choose to remove The Bull from the public place, but it can't choose to leave it there and then augment it's artistic message without the artist's consent.

I agree, Pallisers - it doesn't matter how much you like the girl, it's using the Bull to the point where it wouldn't make sense without it, and changing the meaning of the original sculpture. Whatever any of us think of either work, the original artist still has rights over their work.

I think your thread title conveys your prejudice OP, and isn't a great advert for feminism.

Lucky that Op isn't in the "making adverts for feminism" business then, isn't it?

I think he has a point, and I don't think the statue does feminism any favours. Face it, if that were a real little girl facing a charging bull, she'd be about to die.

I agree with Pallisers and Basket

The Fearless Girl* is a very clever and powerful work which completely changes the meaning of his work. Of course if he removed his statue Fearless Girl^ instantly becomes meaningless.

I also agree the title of this thread is poor. Just because he is a man doesn't mean he is wrong.

"Face it, if that were a real little girl facing a charging bull, she'd be about to die."

Right. Truly excellent point. After all, no classical statues ever show men in life threatening situations to demonstrate their heroism.

And the Wall Street bull is all about a real animal, not a bull market, i.e. a metaphor. Yup.

Look, a little girl facing a charging bull is not showing heroism. This is not an artistic statement, it is a commercial company trying somewhat inanely to look edgy and bolster their profits. It would be fascinating to see how far their commitment to countering the evils of capitalism translates into business practice.

So now your point is about the motives of those who put it there, not the reality of the threat?

Ok doke

It's both. You're being deliberately obtuse.