So...when the "artist" put up this artwork...did he have permits, or permission?
No? Only after the fact?
Hmmm, good old fashioned hypocrisy in action. Nothing to see here, move along.
No? Only after the fact?
Hmmm, good old fashioned hypocrisy in action. Nothing to see here, move along.
7
"Fearless Girl" should be removed. The SoHo artist's sculpture of the bull was placed to remind Wall Street of the strength and resilience of the American people, the "Fearless Girl" was placed as a publicity stunt by "State Street," a Wall Street hedge fund company. The statue's placement alters the spirit and meaning of the bull statue; "Fearless Girl" represents the power of the corporations to commandeer the voice of the people for its own gain.
16
To be fair, they should also install a bear.
8
Mr Di Modica is correct that the girl statue changes the meaning and interpretation of his original art. But he did give it to the city according to my understanding and owners can pretty much do as they please, right?
If I buy an antique vase and decide to use it to hold spare change it is my right as an owner even though it is kind of crazy. I am not sure what legal ground he has unless he has retained ownership of the art.
Whoever is responsible for such things should probably have contacted Mr Di Modica before putting that statue in the same display in such a way as to imply they are of the same work. I do not imagine that Michelangelo would approve if someone hung a Disco ball in front of the Pietà.
The whole fearless girl thing smacks of advertising and Political Correctness run amok. The original Fearless Girl, Lady Liberty, stands proudly on display in the Harbor for all to see. She was also a gift of art and represents the best of America.
If I buy an antique vase and decide to use it to hold spare change it is my right as an owner even though it is kind of crazy. I am not sure what legal ground he has unless he has retained ownership of the art.
Whoever is responsible for such things should probably have contacted Mr Di Modica before putting that statue in the same display in such a way as to imply they are of the same work. I do not imagine that Michelangelo would approve if someone hung a Disco ball in front of the Pietà.
The whole fearless girl thing smacks of advertising and Political Correctness run amok. The original Fearless Girl, Lady Liberty, stands proudly on display in the Harbor for all to see. She was also a gift of art and represents the best of America.
6
It doesn't matter what the message it's trying to send us. By adding to his art piece without his consent they changed the piece completely. To put it in perspective, if they removed the bull and put a sculpture of two parents pointing a camera at the girl, how do you think the girl's artist would feel about it. It would change her from a fearless girl into a NY tourists.
18
let's take this question a step further. Could another artist put a statue of a bird at the bull's foot? In other words, how close is too close to another artist's work without infringement?
6
DiModica's message has always been bullheaded.
7
Well, it's a slippery slop ladies. If you're going to use someone else's work to send your fearless message then don't complain when someone comes along and remakes the fearless girl message into something you don't want with another statue of their own.
7
Couldnt the officials simply turn the statue of the girl around so the girl looks less defiant and the bull less aggressive yet maintaining the meaning of the statue of bringing more females to wall street?
3
Sure, the girl could have been placed in front of a major trading house, staring at it. Rather, the sculptor chose to plagiarize the Bull for her own use.
7
The notion that a little girl represents women on Wall St" is asinine; the "girl" is a gimmick- a hedge fund publicity stunt. Fearless girl should go be fearless elsewhere.
6
A huge bull as a "positive optimistic message?" A bull standing for "peace, strength, power and...love??!" A bull threatened by a little girl? A man threatened by a statue of a little girl?? This guy is an insecure narccisist who can't stand his symbol of maleness infringed on by - HORRORS - a little girl with moxie. I've seen the bull and believe me, "peace & love" it's not - it stands for Wall Street and all things male-dominated. Of course he doesn't like it. That's THE POINT.
14
Freedom, peace, love- represented by a charging bull-really?
4
It's strange that Arturo Di Modica expresses outrage over the placement of 'Fearless Girl." In December 1987, Di Monica installed his 'Charging Bull' without permission in front of the New York Stock Exchange. The interaction of the two sculptures is better than each one on its own. Di Monica should consider himself lucky.
6
To politicize two statues as two symbols of strength and freedom in a place where substance has lost its effect and its meaning, is to ignore the reality of living under trump and bully mentality
SS
SS
3
amazing how many here that hold their views so tightly
1
Maybe the artist of the fearless girl should have put her in a Muslim country. That would certainly have more meaning since women are treated like second class citizens in those countries.
1
Intertexualization and modification of one artist's work by another has been going for millennia. Consider Ovid's conspicuous use of Vergilian language, Cervantes' inspiration for his second _Don Quixote_, and Duchamp's "L. H. O. O. Q." Mr. DiModica should be proud of being in the company of Vergil, Cervantes, and da Vinci.
1
Unfortunately, that's not what is going on here; one is an artist's statement, the other is a global corporation's publicity stunt. As a woman, I am insulted by the idiotic choice of a child as some kind of representation of women.
3
I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with the original sculptor of 'Charging Bull' regarding whether or not this denigrates his work.
However he is stating as a matter of obvious fact that he believes fearless girl *is* a commentary on his work.
IANAL but at face value - that argument means fearless girl would, to the extent it violated his copyright, fall under the parody protections of the copyright act. Whatever his opinion, his *legal* rights to have anything done are undercut by his own argument.
However he is stating as a matter of obvious fact that he believes fearless girl *is* a commentary on his work.
IANAL but at face value - that argument means fearless girl would, to the extent it violated his copyright, fall under the parody protections of the copyright act. Whatever his opinion, his *legal* rights to have anything done are undercut by his own argument.
1
As I read the sculptor's words, I can only think "oh, the poor, tender, male ego."
4
I do not see the girl as a feminist symbol at all. I see her as a personification of innocence endangered by a ravening out of control beast. The image for me evokes a visceral need to defend and protect the child and this in turn represents the vital social instincts and ties that maintain civilizations in the face of the brutal Social Darwinism of the modern business world.
3
Analogously, do artists have the right to direct a museum's curator as to which paintings may be displayed adjacent to their work?
At a minimum, the juxtaposition of other works do not detract one's appreciation of a singular piece or understanding the creator's original vision. While viewing all the art in their totality might be transformative, provocative and synergistic.
At a minimum, the juxtaposition of other works do not detract one's appreciation of a singular piece or understanding the creator's original vision. While viewing all the art in their totality might be transformative, provocative and synergistic.
4
Do you work for State Street?
3
My thoughts. The Bull never struck me as having anything to do with peace, love, goodwill. Power, strength yes and Wall Street power, greed and arrogance. Whew! Yes. The artist may have had good intentions but my interpretation is way different. Let the Fearless One stand up to the charging bull. Peace, Justice, Equality for All.
10
She is wonderful! I think that the tableau image is so much more powerful than either piece alone it should become permanent. To me, it resonates powerfully with our world today, and implicitly references the image captured earlier this year of the young woman in a light summer frock staring down American storm troopers!
Bravo!!!!!
Bravo!!!!!
2
Did anyone see the charging bull as friendly? It looks furious and ready to trample everything and everyone in its way. If it wasn't deadly the image of the girl standing in its path wouldn't have much meaning. The bull exemplifies the destructive ferocity of unbridled capitalism quite well. It's sculptor has no grounds for complaint, the meaning of his work has only been emphasized not changed.
4
I don't think you understand the intent of the bull. It was made when the US stock market plunged back in the 80s. The bull meaning bullish ( stock market going up) is supposed to show the power and strength of the US economy.
1
And courage in the face of adversity. The Girl Thing disrespects an extraordinarily challenging time for many Americans.
1
From a purely legal standpoint, Mr. Di Modica's ownership of the copyright in 'Charging Bull' gives him the exclusive right under U.S. copyright law to have 'Fearless Girl' removed because 'Fearless Girl' is an infringing derivative work. The purpose of 'Fearless Girl' is to interact with 'Charging Bull'. 'Fearless Girl' thus changes Mr. Di Modica's original 'Charging Bull' work to a new work, 'Charging Bull and Fearless Girl', which is derived from Mr. Di Modica's original work. 'Fearless Girl' also converts and reverses the meaning of 'Charging Bull'. Since Mr. Di Modica did not authorize the 'Fearless Girl' derivative work, it is an infringing work which he has the right to have removed under U.S. copyright law.
Although we all agree with what 'Fearless Girl' stands for, including Mr. Di Modica, it should not be done at the expense of 'Charging Bull'.
Although we all agree with what 'Fearless Girl' stands for, including Mr. Di Modica, it should not be done at the expense of 'Charging Bull'.
6
Sorry but you can't just piggyback onto someone else's work and create your own new meaning for the whole diorama. That is essentially stealing someone's work, letting the first artist create half of the work for you—without their permission.
I completely support the first artist di Modica, not only for copyright but on artistic integrity. I see no gray area in this question.
As an aside, I am a feminist and don't like the girl at all. It's much too Norman Rockwell for my tastes.
I completely support the first artist di Modica, not only for copyright but on artistic integrity. I see no gray area in this question.
As an aside, I am a feminist and don't like the girl at all. It's much too Norman Rockwell for my tastes.
6
Why don't they just place the fearless girl beside the bull instead of across from him? I think it would keep the representation of strength while also showing that men and women can work together equally side by side rather than seperately or against each other. I personally love both sculptures and don't take any offense from either of them, but I think having them beside each other would make them all the more meaningful.
2
C'mon Norman! This bull is no Ferdinand with a flower... We all need a little courage born of innocence, or perhaps naïveté, to maintain our equilibrium in a world where the raging bull of Wall Street constantly threatens us, our planet, our humanity, all the time. Let's hear it for a little symbol of innocent valor... Trump Tower is a monument to something, so should the Great Groper have the right to censor what appears in the vicinity if he deems it contrary to whatever he believes is the message conveyed by his hideous gilded monument to greed and superficiality? You used to be in favor of a little healthy heckling, remember?
2
I admire art and artists but personally I feel this is so wacky. Move the statue to his yard.
2
So when do the add-on sculptures stop. Or can more artists join in and add their own pieces?
1
How fascinating that we as a society think for a moment that we can "own" what a thing symbolizes or means to others. Meaning, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder be it book, building, symphony, painting, or even a sculpture. How I would love to be in jury selection and be asked if I were capable of considering with an open mind such an absurd lawsuit. I am pretty sure my laughter would be considered prejudicial to the entire pool.
5
I understand the concerns of Mr. DiModica - the positioning of the girl definitely affects the tone of the bull. The little girl needs to be placed where she'll have an opponent to face down. Considering all that has recently happened, I would suggest placing her on the sidewalk in front of The White House where she can stare down the current tenant who poses much more of a threat than a measly bull!
4
My first impression is that the charging bull looks more like a laboring oxen.
4
Who was the artist commissioned for Fearless Girl?
Kristen Visbal
Fearless girl draws her meaning from its placement in front of Charging Bull. The artist of Fearless Girl is clearly usurping Charging Bull. He is incorporating Charging Bull into a larger work. Fearless Girl is only fearless because of proximity to the perceived danger.
Charging Bull clearly draws meaning from its location in the financial district but is not dependent on another work for its meaning.
The test is this move Charging Bull two blocks away and it is still Charging Bull. Mover Fearless Girl two blocks away and Its Girl with hands on hips. No longer in proximity to Charging Bull and it losses meaning.
Perhaps that is the solution. Since so many seem to be opposed to moving Fearless Girl, let it remain and move Charging Bull two blocks away and let each work stand on its own.
As far as all the other explanations about empowerment etc, I believe they are ex post facto justifications of the original usurpation. If they are true then they will still be true when the works are displayed separately.
Charging Bull clearly draws meaning from its location in the financial district but is not dependent on another work for its meaning.
The test is this move Charging Bull two blocks away and it is still Charging Bull. Mover Fearless Girl two blocks away and Its Girl with hands on hips. No longer in proximity to Charging Bull and it losses meaning.
Perhaps that is the solution. Since so many seem to be opposed to moving Fearless Girl, let it remain and move Charging Bull two blocks away and let each work stand on its own.
As far as all the other explanations about empowerment etc, I believe they are ex post facto justifications of the original usurpation. If they are true then they will still be true when the works are displayed separately.
10
i believe the dichotomy is perfect, each stands on their own and interact on a level that is the essence of life....
4
Context matters. The artist is right to sue, but may not win. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
1
Boy, plenty of people raking Mr. DiModica.
I bet if this guy was your grandad you would be mad that someone made his sculpture an extra in the show. Come on- if you want a partner for the girl, provide it with funding for another sculpture.
I bet if this guy was your grandad you would be mad that someone made his sculpture an extra in the show. Come on- if you want a partner for the girl, provide it with funding for another sculpture.
5
Why not just place the two of them side by side instead of facing off?
1
The bull to me always represented aggressive, unbridled capitalism so maybe the artist's interpretation isn't shared by many. I mean, it's a charging bull on Wall Street.
4
A propos the artist's request for relocation of his work I have a couple of options. It could join a famous herd of cows at Milton Keynes in the UK or alternatively be a companion to the solo cow in Melbourne Docklands.
1
"Fearless Girl" was apparently not thought as a piece of art by itself. Instead, it takes another piece of art and transforms it into something else. Without the artist's consent. I think everyone can understand why Mr. Di Modica would feel cheated.
Something equally shocking is the number of readers who accuse him of, or mock him for, being a machist. Feminism is a good thing. Its sexist version, I'm not so sure.
Something equally shocking is the number of readers who accuse him of, or mock him for, being a machist. Feminism is a good thing. Its sexist version, I'm not so sure.
9
I recall that someone did the same thing with a soup can.
1
Irony in Bronze
Yes all art exists in context. The bull may have been intended to be a symbol of “standing up to fear, standing up to power, being able to find in yourself the strength to do what’s right.”
But, if the above statement is true, now that symbol has been hijacked by and associated with the high priests of greed.
Which is the exactly the context Fearless Girl exists in. If that was not so no one would be upset by it. It just would not work.
Sorry Mr. Di Modica you may have had intent but you do not control context.
Maybe your argument is with Wall Street greed.
But then, you've had 30 years to make that argument haven't you?
Yes all art exists in context. The bull may have been intended to be a symbol of “standing up to fear, standing up to power, being able to find in yourself the strength to do what’s right.”
But, if the above statement is true, now that symbol has been hijacked by and associated with the high priests of greed.
Which is the exactly the context Fearless Girl exists in. If that was not so no one would be upset by it. It just would not work.
Sorry Mr. Di Modica you may have had intent but you do not control context.
Maybe your argument is with Wall Street greed.
But then, you've had 30 years to make that argument haven't you?
10
Of course the precedent is Bernini vs. Borromini in Piazza Navona, co-existing and antagonizing each other for 300+ years.
Nothing exists in a vacuum. Intervention is a given.
Nothing exists in a vacuum. Intervention is a given.
5
The fearless girl statue did not change the meaning of the bull statue. The bull statue had come to symbolize Wall Street long ago--had it not the fearless girl statue would not have worked.
5
The Charging Bull sculptor, Arturo Di Modica, is obviously correct. Fearless Girl totally changes the meaning of Changing Bull. As well-intentioned as Fearless Girl might be, the fact that it's now a "social media sensation" pretty much proves that it's a shallow piece of pop art. Move it to a mall.
7
The bull is hardly some unique artistic vision . It's simply an illustration of a bull market. It's well done but its pop art. If anything Fearless Girl is the more imaginative touch. And she perfectly captures the emotions of these times and is thus more relevant than the bull. Public art modifies the space in which it stands and plays off its physical context.. The girl modifies the bull within a public space which seems perfectly appropriate.
I suspect those who want the girl to go identify with the rampant bull and are threatened by the change. And really, isn't provoking a strong response either positive or negative one of the goals of midern art?
I suspect those who want the girl to go identify with the rampant bull and are threatened by the change. And really, isn't provoking a strong response either positive or negative one of the goals of midern art?
7
Since when has a bull represented peace on earth? Maybe a dove but not a bull. A bull is a male so it's appropriate to have female there as well. Why a bull and not a cow? The artist is rather arrogant to suggest that the Fearless Girl statue be removed. I say remove the bull.
8
Interpretation of art by everyone-including-his-grandmother is one thing -- and is a very fine and great thing. What isn't very fine or great is deliberately placing a second permanent sculpture next to a first one, one that depends on the first for its all-too-obvious meaning and forever imposes an inescapably different meaning on the original piece. In short, the girl's gotta go.
11
The girl simply emphasizes the bull's hostile ferocity, she doesn't create it.
1
Public art is for the public. They may deface, destroy, remove, mistakenly paint, surround, and cover up at their whim. If Mr. Di Modica wanted to keep this pristine he would have placed it in a museum of his making, not dumping it out on the street in the dead of night. Given the current political climate, his bull (golden calf) should be retired to the government warehouse where the Arc of the Covenant (and its morals) has been stored/lost by the current populace.
5
Maybe this holds in the wilds of Connecticut- other places have considerably more stringent standards for the public.
2
I will admit that the bull's original intent was not something I thought much about as I admired "Fearless Girl". But as I read this the following statement -‘Charging Bull’ no longer carries a positive, optimistic message,” adding that Mr. Di Modica’s work “has been transformed into a negative force and a threat.” - it gave me pause. Now that Fearless Girl has faced down the Bull, perhaps she could now join him and they could work together, the small girl and the fearsome bull, to make society more positive and fair to all.
9
I agree with Di Modica that the addition of Fearless Girl subverts the meaning of his work. However, it's understandable in the context of today's mashup culture where everything online seems to be appropriated for another purpose, music is sampled, and parodies of Goodnight Moon are everywhere.
It is perfectly valid and somewhat creative for one piece of art to subvert another in a public space.
1
"Fearless Girl," was a fine temporary stunt, but it is ultimately a derivative and uninspiring piece of art. Leaving it in place for a month was about right. Time for it to go.
4
frankly I think the bigger insult to the artist's work is the line of people waiting to take a picture of themselves cupping the testicles of the bull. that is what I see every time I walk by. and it is a disgrace.
7
What pleasant fantasies we have.
The bull says that Capitalism is this strong, invincible force, when in reality it is periodically brought to its knees by greed and lack of properl regulation. (Or, as conservatives would have it, Capitalism was brought to its knees by poor people who abused the CRA.)
The girl says a strong, individual female can overcome tremendous institutional power when in fact many women lost their jobs and houses and were crushed and have not recovered from the Great Recession.
It's in the financial interest of State Street Global Advisors to keep both fantasies alive. They make huge amounts of money off of these myths.
I'd like to see State Street do something worthwhile. How about cutting all salaries to $100,000 and giving all profits for the year to women still trying to recover from the Great Recession.
The bull says that Capitalism is this strong, invincible force, when in reality it is periodically brought to its knees by greed and lack of properl regulation. (Or, as conservatives would have it, Capitalism was brought to its knees by poor people who abused the CRA.)
The girl says a strong, individual female can overcome tremendous institutional power when in fact many women lost their jobs and houses and were crushed and have not recovered from the Great Recession.
It's in the financial interest of State Street Global Advisors to keep both fantasies alive. They make huge amounts of money off of these myths.
I'd like to see State Street do something worthwhile. How about cutting all salaries to $100,000 and giving all profits for the year to women still trying to recover from the Great Recession.
12
Turn the Girl around and locate beside the Bull - so they are partners.
3
I like the bull sculpture, aside from whatever symbolism people may attach to it. However, both the artist's interpretation and claims that it's a symbol of evil Wall Street greed seem far-fetched to me. Fearless Girl makes me wonder where her parents are, and why she doesn't have enough sense to stay away from a charging bull.
3
Perhaps it would be more fitting to place "Fearless Girl" in front of one of Trump's towers. The message would be that women are not afraid of bullying and menacing and misogynistic people like Trump.
13
It is the height of arrogance for the artist to expect that his sculpture would still even be there after 30 years, much less not wanting to share the space with another sculpture. If public "art" is not functional (a fountain, bench, garden, patio, wall mosaic, or architecture) then it just gets old after awhile and should be moved or removed, like an outdated tattoo or a Confederate general.
7
To me, the bull powerfully represents the financial markets and the economic forces that sweep people up and toss them around, i.e., capitalism. I find it very effective as art. The bull is truly iconic. I'd rather it not be defaced.
To me, the defiant young white child, strangely wearing a dress out of a 1940s or 1950s children's reader, does not work as a representation or symbol of grown women seeking admission to the halls of power. Even less effectively does she stand for all the powerless. She can't be, or become, iconic. Maybe a depiction of an impoverished family group standing facing the Stock Exchange, could.
To me, the defiant young white child, strangely wearing a dress out of a 1940s or 1950s children's reader, does not work as a representation or symbol of grown women seeking admission to the halls of power. Even less effectively does she stand for all the powerless. She can't be, or become, iconic. Maybe a depiction of an impoverished family group standing facing the Stock Exchange, could.
2
The creator of "Bull" would have succeeded at representing peace and love, had the Bull looked more like Ferdinand, flowers included.
8
The artist is correct.
Placing the girl in front of the bull in a defiant pose creates a relationship that was not intended by the artist and changes the meaning of his work.
Art has meaning and is not up for interpretation by everyone who looks at it.
Placing the girl in front of the bull in a defiant pose creates a relationship that was not intended by the artist and changes the meaning of his work.
Art has meaning and is not up for interpretation by everyone who looks at it.
2
hmmm. People not allowed to think, react, or reflect, you think?
Especially about while male privilege?
Especially about while male privilege?
5
Art is absolutely up for interpretation by the viewer.
The point is that the artist's intention in creating Charging Bull is being altered after the fact by it's juxtaposition with Fearless Girl and he doesn't like it.
Fearless Girl should be moved and allowed stand on her own
and not in relation to the bull.
Fearless Girl should be moved and allowed stand on her own
and not in relation to the bull.
3
The bull is symbol of growth, unfortunately people are now associating it more wil Wealth/Power/Greed which are actually what the Bear represents when talking about Bulls and Bears(in finance talk..)
3
The bull is now more a symbol of corrupt white male power and greed and the girl represents the potential of a future female spirit to counteract that corruption....
2
If the girl is truly meant to dismantle white privilege, why not depict the girl with features that aren't typically associated with western Europeans? As it is now, it is only possibly objecting to male privilege, but the Bull isn't white - only the girl is. Buf if you feel the Bull represents white power, and the girl also represents white power - this work of art is an advertisement for white superiority.
What are people misunderstanding? The artist is an immigrant who must have made money in the market in the 80's and wanted to celebrate the stock market by making the bull. Clearly, when Mr. Di Modica made the bull, he thought of the stock market as a venue of success, freedom, and happiness. Right? He stated that the bull represented freedom and love, because, to him, when he made it, the stock market represented freedom and love. If you've ever made money on a good day in the market, you probably felt that way too.
What people are failing to understand is that, at time in the past, many Americans (especially prospering immigrants) saw Wall Street as a savior and as a path to freedom.
What people are failing to understand is that, at time in the past, many Americans (especially prospering immigrants) saw Wall Street as a savior and as a path to freedom.
1
Have you ever actually looked at the bull? It is not a happy, frolicking creature. It looks very much like it is responding angrily to a threat. It is not playing, it is charging in fury.
2
I jog past the bull often. I live 10 block s away. I never said it was a happy, frolicking bull. I day trade stocks. I am pro-capitalist and anti-marxist. I am hoping to earn enough to buy a 2200 sq ft condo in TriBeCa at about 2 grand per sq ft. In order to accomplish this, I have to be as fierce, focused, and driven as a bull. NYC is the living embodiment of ambition, from Broadway actors to UES chefs to Wall St traders. This city exists for the driven, focused, and ambitious. I run 34 miles a week. This is NOT a city for hippies. Nyack is a city for hippies.
The bull and the bear are term used to denote different tenors of market. A "bull market" is a good, profitable, optimistic market. The bull market charges and defeats the bear market, which is pessimistic and down.
People talk without knowing anything.
The bull and the bear are term used to denote different tenors of market. A "bull market" is a good, profitable, optimistic market. The bull market charges and defeats the bear market, which is pessimistic and down.
People talk without knowing anything.
1
The artist worries that the charging bull no longer carries a positive , opimisitic message...that it has been transformed into a negative force and threat. Elsewhere it's described as meaning "freedom in the world, peace, strength, power and love". Charging bulls the world over are held captive in a pen, goaded with lances, and eventually killed. Sounds more like sadistic love. Or maybe the artist was offering a prediction of Wall Street's eventual fate.
8
What if he just turns the bull around? Then what?
2
Mr. Di Modica's argues that the bull represents “freedom in the world, peace, strength, power and love" and because of "Fearless Girl" now "no longer carries a positive, optimistic message...and "has been transformed into a negative force and a threat”
In the early twentieth century the swastika was widely used in Europe and had numerous meanings, the most common being a symbol of good luck and auspiciousness. So by Mr. di Modica's argument, an artist who incorporated the swastika in his work in 1920 say, could argue 40 years later that his art "carries a positive, optimistic message."
The point is, symbols change....society changes....perceptions change...experiences change....how the public viewed a piece of symbolism art 30 years ago is probably going to be very different today.
In the early twentieth century the swastika was widely used in Europe and had numerous meanings, the most common being a symbol of good luck and auspiciousness. So by Mr. di Modica's argument, an artist who incorporated the swastika in his work in 1920 say, could argue 40 years later that his art "carries a positive, optimistic message."
The point is, symbols change....society changes....perceptions change...experiences change....how the public viewed a piece of symbolism art 30 years ago is probably going to be very different today.
6
There are swastikas in the floor tiles of the Prahran Town Hall in Melbourne and you tend to notice them as you traverse the floor. Thankfully they are accepted as being of their time, before the rise of the Nazis, and have been left in situ.
1
Mr. Di Modica defined His bull as “freedom in the world, peace, strength, power and love.” All beautiful Ideals little girls and women live for. However, he is shortsighted and living in past centuries. Women are part of the world and once he placed his art in the community it becomes part of the narrative presented to us. Little girls and women need to be heard and seen. They need to take up space just like your bull. Women routinely make $0.72 cents for every dollar a man makes. That is not acceptable. This is a beautiful bull and I agree with your symbolism. So think about the females in your own family. All women need to be paid the same rate as men. Equal pay for work of equal value. Think of every man that has died and left behind a financially illiterate wife who is ripped off by family, friends, and strangers. Your rights are equal to the rights of a fearless girl. She needs to represent her placement on Wall Street. She is not fighting your bull. She is simply stating her right to face him. To be there little girls must be courageous so they will learn to be strong. Mr. Modica, let us interpret your art for ourselves. We are highly intelligent and know what we like. Let her inspire little girls and women all over the world. It is in the best interests of all if we want the world to remains tranquil, engaging, and respectful. Thank you, State Street Global Advisors for fearless.
6
So, lemme get this straight. The North Koreans are shooting off missiles, Syrians are being gassed and bombed, famine again is sweeping across Africa, the POTUS is mentally and emotionally unstable... and someone is worried about the proximity of two statues to one another?
6
Ever faced a bull? I have. Unexpectedly. On a bicycle ride - on a back road in upstate NY. Trust me, it did not look like peace and love. It was a very scary experience. First the awful realization! OMG! Then, the slow, careful backing away. The relief that it did not follow! In real life, any girl or woman, or for that matter man or boy, would not stand there defiantly.
Which does not detract from the juxtaposition of the NYC girl daintily facing a bull, which I too had always assumed was a symbol of Wall Street arrogance and power. I took the addition of the child to mean a quirky version of David versus Goliath.
Only in the world of the imagination could it ever involve a real girl and a real bull - in those stances.
Which does not detract from the juxtaposition of the NYC girl daintily facing a bull, which I too had always assumed was a symbol of Wall Street arrogance and power. I took the addition of the child to mean a quirky version of David versus Goliath.
Only in the world of the imagination could it ever involve a real girl and a real bull - in those stances.
3
Indeed, I found myself reflecting about a couple of times when I warily retreated from confrontations with large cows, particularly threatening looking males, on my hikes (mostly in England). But I remember painting in a field, and a large curious cow came over and wanted to lick the paints! Meanwhile, a farmer came by behind me in his range rover (jeep?) and laughed. It was an education. Or the time I got out on the road and jumped up and down with a stick - hoo hoo hoo - to chase an errant cow back to the farmer and his herd. But the symbolism here is still priceless, the smaller and apparently weaker force having strength.
2
AWWWW, Mr. Di Monica threatened by a little girl! Pull up your little boy pants and wake up. You just fell head first into the stereotype the symbolism was meant to convey.
6
Must say that every time I see the Di Monica bull.....3.5 tons of bronze?......the first notions to come to mind are peace and love. Nothing says "love" like a lot of bull. As others have stated I wonder whether Mr. Di Modica has questioned whether portrayals of the bull in a Wall Street context somehow reconfigured its interpretation, from freedom to greed, manipulation, and abuse. Undoubtedly he could build a more legitimate case for his ire were he to make public the agreement defining his artistic hegemony over a given space for a given period. Does it provide him with control over other artistic expression?
Perhaps the issue would die away with a crowdsourcing initiative to raise the funds necessary to move the bull from its current location to Central Park or some other location distant from its financial center setting where it could be displaced solely for its contribution to humanity as an artistic endeavor without the implications of commercialism its (inadvertent?) proximity to Wall Street conveys. Then all we would see for the moment would be a sculpture of a sassy 11-year-old. Perhaps Goldman Sachs would help move the bull to the green and peaceful pasture of Central Park, then move the sculpture of the girl to a proud location in front of its headquarters, thereby symbolizing the optimism and energy of youth preparing to tackles the challenges of financial markets. Would Mr. Di Monica please make available his control of artistic expression, or is that bull?
Perhaps the issue would die away with a crowdsourcing initiative to raise the funds necessary to move the bull from its current location to Central Park or some other location distant from its financial center setting where it could be displaced solely for its contribution to humanity as an artistic endeavor without the implications of commercialism its (inadvertent?) proximity to Wall Street conveys. Then all we would see for the moment would be a sculpture of a sassy 11-year-old. Perhaps Goldman Sachs would help move the bull to the green and peaceful pasture of Central Park, then move the sculpture of the girl to a proud location in front of its headquarters, thereby symbolizing the optimism and energy of youth preparing to tackles the challenges of financial markets. Would Mr. Di Monica please make available his control of artistic expression, or is that bull?
7
The artist is 100% correct. There's nothing more to say. Remove, please.
4
Says a guy who names himself "excellency". I hope this was sarcasm.
5
Let's listen to the artist and move his work. What site would he suggest? Trump Tower. I am sure that lying donnie would appreciate the power of the deal.
4
The artist should know that he doesn't own that NYC street. He put the statue on a public street without permission and then negotiated for the right to have it stay there.
The people involved with "Fearless Girl" got permission ahead of time. If Mr. Di Modica wanted control of what's around his statue, he should have put it on private property that he controlled or he should have gotten a contract with the city ahead of time.
The people involved with "Fearless Girl" got permission ahead of time. If Mr. Di Modica wanted control of what's around his statue, he should have put it on private property that he controlled or he should have gotten a contract with the city ahead of time.
8
Idea: Maybe next put "Fearless Girl" in front of a United Airlines airplane.
1
When Mr. Di Modica said “She’s there attacking the bull” about the "Fearless Girl" statue, that made it hard to take anything else he said seriously. She's standing up to the bull but she's definitely not attacking him.
3
"I demand that my art be interpreted by all the way I saw things 30 years ago!" Where was your complaining the past 25 years as the bull became THE symbol of corporate greed. What a whiner.
6
The real message here is that "Fearless Girl" has no meaning absent oppression.
Particularly, that women often play the victim and cannot define another role for themselves. Otherwise, the girl would have appeared in a much different context, perhaps one it's creator is not familiar with.
Particularly, that women often play the victim and cannot define another role for themselves. Otherwise, the girl would have appeared in a much different context, perhaps one it's creator is not familiar with.
1
"Fearless Girl" does not look at all like a victim - just the opposite.
Unlike the bull, she's not taking an aggressive or threatening stance, either - just standing up, asserting her peaceful power, defiantly, fearlessly, and joyfully.
She represents the underdogs of this world - of any gender or ethnicity -
standing up to the bullies and greedy powers-that-be.
For that reason, the sculpture is particularly meaningful in front of the bull - but its image of the courageous lone individual standing up to power would work in any number of public places.
If many of the women you know have "played the victim," maybe they actually WERE victims. Or maybe that had something to do with you.
Unlike the bull, she's not taking an aggressive or threatening stance, either - just standing up, asserting her peaceful power, defiantly, fearlessly, and joyfully.
She represents the underdogs of this world - of any gender or ethnicity -
standing up to the bullies and greedy powers-that-be.
For that reason, the sculpture is particularly meaningful in front of the bull - but its image of the courageous lone individual standing up to power would work in any number of public places.
If many of the women you know have "played the victim," maybe they actually WERE victims. Or maybe that had something to do with you.
3
Most commentators don't understand there is a US law that covers this issue very clearly that was designed to protect visual artists and their work. A 1990 copyright statute grants visual artists the right “to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to [the artist’s] reputation”. People may like the result of the juxtaposition of the "Fearless Girl" and "The Charging Bull" but under this law that protects artists from having the meaning and context of their work changed Di Modica is the aggrieved party. His work and its meaning has been transformed against his original wishes. His bull is now "the bad guy" and cast as a representative of things he never intended. This is what the law was designed to prevent. It is also clear the "Fearless Girl" is a derivative work that cannot be understood absent the "Charging Bull" the original work. Di Modica is right to seek to protect his work under the law and we should respect that right. "The Fearless Girl" should learn to stand on her own. (Surely the original artist can add an opposing creature without illegally and immorally dragooning Di Modica's work for the purpose. Just because you like it and it is politically popular at the moment does not make it right.
5
Why do you assume it's prejudicial to the artist's reputation?
I do not think the bull is protected under this law as there was no alteration to the work itself, nor replication and subsequent modification of the image. If simply the placement of another statue in adjacent public space infringed an artist's rights yoyvwoykd not be able to display works of art bextvto each other in a gallery, museum or down the medians of Park Avenue.
2
Title 17, chapter 1, section 106 A refers only to "modification" and makes no mention of recontextualization. Painting a mustache on a painting is one thing. Reasonable people could argue that Hanging a contrasting painting next to it is quite different.
4
Of course DiModica's bull is not stand-alone work, but itself "co-opts" something to achieve its message: i.e., the nearby towering edifices of Wall Street. Fearless Girl is only drawing from the same.
5
I wonder how Mr. Di Monica would feel if "Fearless Girl" had her back to the bull...?
2
I love the bull. I am pro-capitalist. I trade stocks. But the function of public art is to enhance the lives of the residents of the city. So many people commenting express so much angry, resentment, and loathing toward the bull that it should be removed. Personally, I am a bit flabbergasted by the intensity of the animosity toward the bull, but that animosity seems very real. Why have public art that inspires resentment bordering on rage? I think the bull is a gorgeous work of art that exhibits masterful technique. To me, the sculptor's ability to capture movement and muscular tension in brass is astonishing. The lean is terrific. As a work of art, it is, to my eye, a masterful achievement. But it clearly seems to trigger loathing, rage, and deep resentment. It lowers the quality of life of those who view it, apparently.
4
There is still hope for bull artist Di Modica. Has be even VISITED the statue and site?
if so, he should go again but this time accompanied by news cameras to announce his change of heart. Then he can contritely say that he has seen the light, experiencing the spirit of joy and love that surrounds the "Fearless Girl." Redemption would be his, just as the City eventually forgave him for dumping the bull off in the dead of night. Cue: Photo op and let's go home.
if so, he should go again but this time accompanied by news cameras to announce his change of heart. Then he can contritely say that he has seen the light, experiencing the spirit of joy and love that surrounds the "Fearless Girl." Redemption would be his, just as the City eventually forgave him for dumping the bull off in the dead of night. Cue: Photo op and let's go home.
5
His lawyers said that the bull stands for “freedom in the world, peace, strength, power and love.”
No.
The only thing that this particular bull inspires in my mind is greed. Period.
Move it to the sewer.
Problem solved.
No.
The only thing that this particular bull inspires in my mind is greed. Period.
Move it to the sewer.
Problem solved.
7
What a joke. Fragile male ego so threatened. The man only proves the girl's point.
Signed,
Laughing guy.
Signed,
Laughing guy.
10
I understand Arturo Di Modica's point. Suppose that he artistically created and interpreted the charging bull to be a virtuous animal who represents the grit, the power, the strength, the forward motion, the charge, and the energy of America itself. I know that we are free to apply our own interpretations to art, but here we are permitting another artist to define that meaning for us by placing the charging bull in a different context. As an example, suppose that I take the fearless girl and make her part of a circle of similar fearless girls, with a cowering, bleeding, and battered girl lying on the floor in the middle of the circle of fearless girls? Would the artist who created fearless girl appreciate that recontextualization? Probably not.
2
No artist has a license on defining meaning. In fact no one of us can ensure our words or actions will not be misconstrued.
3
The bull's artist can go twist in the constitutional wind. The owner of the object may do as they wish with their property, and in this instance, Mayor de Blasio made a popular choice to add Fearless Girl precisely because the meaning of the bull had already changed. Mylan, Wells Fargo, VW, Countrywide Financial, 21st Century Fox, Turing Pharma, Goldman Sachs securitized the new meaning of the bull. United Airlines tarnished the bull's bronze anew. The mayor is accountable through the ballot box, so citizens can hold him responsible for his choices if they so wish to commiserate with the artist.
6
All art exists in conversation with other art. Not only is this "conversation" in the context of art history, but also with other pieces situated in proximity. Fearless Girl, despite how it re-contextualizes the Bull, has a right to have that conversation with Di Modica's piece.
Furthermore, when an artist releases a piece he no longer is entitled to tell anyone how to interpret it. Sure, we have ideas about how we want ppl to think about it and how we want it presented. But that goes out the window once it leaves our studios. If Di Modica wants control over those he needs to put it back in his studio and lobotomize anyone who comes in contact with it so he can dictate to them what thoughts they are allowed to have.
I would also argue that his preference for the meaning of his work lends itself to a critique by Fearless Girl. And both pieces probably are setup for a further critique since, seen together, they lend themselves to interpretations that neither artists will like at all.
Furthermore, when an artist releases a piece he no longer is entitled to tell anyone how to interpret it. Sure, we have ideas about how we want ppl to think about it and how we want it presented. But that goes out the window once it leaves our studios. If Di Modica wants control over those he needs to put it back in his studio and lobotomize anyone who comes in contact with it so he can dictate to them what thoughts they are allowed to have.
I would also argue that his preference for the meaning of his work lends itself to a critique by Fearless Girl. And both pieces probably are setup for a further critique since, seen together, they lend themselves to interpretations that neither artists will like at all.
7
I never dreamed "Charging Bull" was supposed to be "art"; I always assumed it was an advertisement to promote a famous brokerage firm. I still think so.
"Charging Bull" is merely an upscale cousin of Joe Camel and the Brawny lumberjack.
"Charging Bull" is merely an upscale cousin of Joe Camel and the Brawny lumberjack.
12
Both should stay. Together they represent the range of things in America. And I just love that she is staring him down! How apropos of our times, and I like to think very American.
If the bull people are so threatened by the girl, they have bigger things to worry about than the statues.
If the bull people are so threatened by the girl, they have bigger things to worry about than the statues.
7
Why doesn't Mr. Di Modica just turn the bull around?
1
According to the artist, the bull represents "freedom in the world, peace, strength, power and love.” Nobody has ever associated the bull with peace and love - whatever his "intent" - it was distorted from the moment the first stood downtown.
On the other hand, I never saw the artist come out to protest that people associated the bull with the stock market. I am afraid the artist lacks credibility.
Artists do not own the artistic experience- it is a communal enterprise.
On the other hand, I never saw the artist come out to protest that people associated the bull with the stock market. I am afraid the artist lacks credibility.
Artists do not own the artistic experience- it is a communal enterprise.
6
you misunderstand. The artist is (I believe) an immigrant from Italy who sees Wall Street and American free market capitalism as synonymous with freedom. The artists himself associates the stock market and free market capitalism with freedom. His bull is a celebration of the stock market and the freedom with which, in his eyes, it is synonymous. To understand the bull, you must understand that the artists likes Wall Street and thinks the stock market is an avenue to freedom and success. I read that the bull costs the artists 350 grand of his own money. Perhaps the artists made money in the stock market in the 80's and wanted to pay backWall Street with the gift of his celebratory art. Back in the 70's, 80',s and even 90's (dot com bubble), investors made TONS of money. My old housemate made enough in the dot com bubble to buy a 3BR in Chelsea. She made, I think, about 1.5- 2 million from around 25 grand. That was the 90's.
sorry for the unintentional pluralizations. the NYT often does that to my words.
Fearless girl stands in the way of progress.
lol
lol
1
Rather than remover her, turn around and face the world instead of the bull. Or you could put next to the bull facing the world with the bull. Either way they would symbolize unity and strength.
1
What on earth kind of law would be the basis of litigation here? Is there seriously some right for an artists not to have other pieces placed near the artist's work? Ridiculous.
5
I love the fact that we are discussing art and artistic intentions. Yes, "Fearless Girl" changes our perceptions of the “Charging Bull”, but that's what art is supposed to do - change our perceptions! And all artist’s creations, depend on the work of artists who came before. It's not a question of which artist is right, they are both right, because each made a piece of art that depended on it's context to make a statement. Each time the context was changed by the efforts of the artist. Aha! Art is not static, it's alive and it's meaning can change within different historical, social and geographic contexts. Some would argue that the ability to imbue meaning while enduring changes in context, indicates great art. If Mr. Di Moca, decides to turn his bull around, or to remove it, then he is merely updating his artistic intent, and that is his right. It's also part of a lively dialogue that is taking place, which should be celebrated by both artists because people are actually being effected by their works. Success!
8
Poor little artist with a bruised ego. Who will give him comfort?
The publicity "Fearless Girl" is generating for his creation has probably enhanced his "career", but he's too bull-headed to see it.
The publicity "Fearless Girl" is generating for his creation has probably enhanced his "career", but he's too bull-headed to see it.
3
It can be argued that the Bull is creating popularity for the girl, because without the bull the statue of the girl lacks the context to hold the meaning that it currently enjoys.
6
Hilarious! Another male threatened by female strength!
3
You go girl!! You stay right where you are, girl! I love the juxtaposition..... Here art is not imitating life, it's living life!
3
He is right.
But the bull is iconic -- I gave my dad a Christmas ornament of it years ago. After Fearless Gil's temporary installation is over, Di Modica's work will be as it ever was. I hope the mediation lets Charging Bull play a role in a contemporary society and not affix it only to its place and time. Their coexistence is valuable -- hopefully the sculptor can accept that for a time.
But the bull is iconic -- I gave my dad a Christmas ornament of it years ago. After Fearless Gil's temporary installation is over, Di Modica's work will be as it ever was. I hope the mediation lets Charging Bull play a role in a contemporary society and not affix it only to its place and time. Their coexistence is valuable -- hopefully the sculptor can accept that for a time.
Set the girl by the bull, not against. It's all about positioning. As this should come out as a win-win, not a who's rights issue.
1
This discussion reveals who much people mistrust Capitalism. People take for granted what Capitalism has done for society. Spend an afternoon reading about pre-18th century Europe. Read about feudalism and serfdom. Read about the bloodshed of the Counter-Reformation. Also, read about female circumcision in non-Capitalist societies. Complain about Ayn Rand, but consider that 150 years ago, a woman would basically have been burned at the stake for writing a novel. Much of what you see as historical progress has come arm in arm with the march of Capitalism. Be critical of it. That's wonderful. But recognize the good it has wrought. Many of you sound like angry 23 yr olds who've read about 17 pages of marx and think they understand the entire history of Western culture from one chapter of the Communist Manifesto. Go read some Max Weber.
It is Wall Street that has changed the meaning of that bull, not the girl. Removing her is not going to revert the bull to the 1990s. If anything, the bull's artist should realize that the two pieces of art on that median have sprung to life. Art that provokes thought should be appreciated. Something was created that continues to evolve and live.
2
They really exist as one work now, rather than two independent works which challenge each other.
2
Wow, this whiny scenario is so much like real life. Mr. Di Modica is afraid that (the statue of) a self-confident female will ruin things for (the statue of) a powerful male.
3
They should have placed the girl next top the bull and facing the same way as the bull. This would have sybolized the power of women standing with the Bull (AMerica) fighting for resilience. The current pose is in defiance of Americas resiliance, which in not what the artist intended, I assume
The Fearless Girl statue has a right to exist, and it highlights an important message, but its placement amounts to little more than vandalism of the original artwork. It is indisputable that the placement seeks to incorporate Charging Bull, thereby distorting it. Imagine if someone carved the names of Vietnamese casualties into the Vietnam Wall, or painted a mustache on the Mona Lisa. Each may be a new artwork, and may have its own merit, but it's still vandalism of someone else's work and ideas.
5
Over time, popular conceptions can change due to upheavals in societal attitutes. Note the rapid condemnations and actions surrounding the Confederate flag issue a few years ago (though I am in no way comparing the content of the two issues). In the current context of the financial industries' overwhelming domination of our economy (which shapes society for all of us), the "Charging Bull" sculpture now evokes different sentiments in viewers than it did 30 years ago. Art is not static. Since Arturo Di Modica appears tone-deaf to all this, I propose another solution: Remove "Fearless Girl" for as long as it takes to end the "temporary" permit for "Charging Bull", have Mr. Di Modica reclaim his sculpture, and and then reinstall "Fearless Girl" on a similar "temporary" permit.
I am not a girl. This is an outrage! So lets put a young black man out there and call him BOY. Right call any man of color a boy and its grounds for a lawsuit.
Girl is an insult to any female over 12 yrs. old.
Sexist . TEAR IT DOWN!
I have been in meetings where the CEO addressed the women at the table as girls. Its an insult. Meaning aren't we cute now go get coffe for the men who really run the show. There are women who don't understand this it is simply because they have no clue how men think of them. The slaves didn't know how good power would feel.
The abused female thinks its normal I hope they out law abortion ,maybe the kids will wake up then!
Girl is an insult to any female over 12 yrs. old.
Sexist . TEAR IT DOWN!
I have been in meetings where the CEO addressed the women at the table as girls. Its an insult. Meaning aren't we cute now go get coffe for the men who really run the show. There are women who don't understand this it is simply because they have no clue how men think of them. The slaves didn't know how good power would feel.
The abused female thinks its normal I hope they out law abortion ,maybe the kids will wake up then!
2
Art is to be interpreted by the viewer. I always found that bull to be an annoying tribute to a bunch of gamblers. Apparently many others share similar thoughts. I like the girl. Maybe the public should decide.
4
Reading through the various responses towards this controversy, I'm surprised by those who believe that all artist's work exists in a private, unassailable space of some kind. As if it is not part of any community in which it is installed, but a perpetual relic of the artist's intent in the moment it was unveiled/installed for the public to see. That the artist's intent has conferred meaning to the sculpture is not argued, nor am I arguing the intent of the original commission. I'm just saying that once it becomes part of a public space, it takes on the life of the community around it. The legal copyright that the artist says has been infringed, deals only with the actual footprint of ground upon which the actual sculpture stands, not an entire public block.
Rather than fight the defiant girl, Wall Street would do well to embrace her and realize that she actually describes our National character much better than the image of an angry, charging beast with little regard to the feelings of those around it or any damage it might inflict. Their machinations and manipulations do not exist inside an invulnerable, private world; but inside the one we all share, and their behavior and actions affect us all by degrees.
Rather than fight the defiant girl, Wall Street would do well to embrace her and realize that she actually describes our National character much better than the image of an angry, charging beast with little regard to the feelings of those around it or any damage it might inflict. Their machinations and manipulations do not exist inside an invulnerable, private world; but inside the one we all share, and their behavior and actions affect us all by degrees.
3
Don't mess with the snowflakes! They'll go on Social Media and destroy you. They are a force to reckon with. The media uses them and are terrified of them at the same time. The NYT, CNBC, New Yorker and many, many others give them a wide berth in which to play and dictate. Be careful of the snowflakes.
3
I'm sorry, were you saying something? The moment I read "snowflakes" my eyes glazed over & I moved on to more important things, like my eBay auction.
When will reactionary conservatives realize that word does nothing but make the user of it look like a rube?
It's funny: once conservatives realized their opposition was now unifying, pushing back, rallying together, letting their voice be heard (the same things the conservatives do) and they no longer had carte blanche to write whatever law they wanted, they immediately reverted back to the last time they ever had any power. Which, based on the juvenile name-calling of "snowflake" must've been on the third grade playground. What's next? Nanny nanny boo boo?
When will reactionary conservatives realize that word does nothing but make the user of it look like a rube?
It's funny: once conservatives realized their opposition was now unifying, pushing back, rallying together, letting their voice be heard (the same things the conservatives do) and they no longer had carte blanche to write whatever law they wanted, they immediately reverted back to the last time they ever had any power. Which, based on the juvenile name-calling of "snowflake" must've been on the third grade playground. What's next? Nanny nanny boo boo?
5
At a time where Roe v. Wade is on the line, a gross sexual predator inhabits the White House and women's rights are being threatened all over the planet, "Fearless Girl" is a hopeful reminder of female strength and power. Perhaps there was a time when the bull was not a symbol of Wall Street's unfettered greed as it is in this era of Donald Trump etal. , but it is clear that this is no longer the case. Leave "Fearless Girl" where she is, and if the bull is as strong as he appears, he will take care of himself.
9
Roe v Wade isn't remotely in danger, quit hyperventilating. And proven sexual predator Bill Clinton is not in the White House.
1
Roe v. Wade isn't on the line? I'll stop hyperventilating when men can get pregnant.
3
Copyright infringement? Space intrusion?
Please.
If anything, it's an obvious parody that would get Di Modica laughed out of court thanks to a little thing called "fair use".
Most of the people who'd be motivated by the Girl to want to buy whatever State Street's selling would be far too poor to, anyway. So it's not like profit motive would undermine a fair use argument.
Of course, I'm not naïve to pretend State Street is altruistic with it, and the ideal would be to evict BOTH and the whole of Wall Street, reuse the buildings for affordable and free housing units for real people, and thus fix de Blasio's damned-if-you-do(n't) homeless problem as an added bonus; but I'll take the baby steps and fight copyright abuse, for now.
Please.
If anything, it's an obvious parody that would get Di Modica laughed out of court thanks to a little thing called "fair use".
Most of the people who'd be motivated by the Girl to want to buy whatever State Street's selling would be far too poor to, anyway. So it's not like profit motive would undermine a fair use argument.
Of course, I'm not naïve to pretend State Street is altruistic with it, and the ideal would be to evict BOTH and the whole of Wall Street, reuse the buildings for affordable and free housing units for real people, and thus fix de Blasio's damned-if-you-do(n't) homeless problem as an added bonus; but I'll take the baby steps and fight copyright abuse, for now.
1
The only thing that was harmed here was the artist's ego. Leave it for a few months, then move it somewhere else downtown and create another bull sculpture that looks different. Enough of this bull!
2
The reality is that regardless of what he though the bull's meaning was 30 years ago, times have changed and the meaning has changed with them. People have the right to interpret art the way they want to, not only the way the artist intended to. The location is a public space in the city of NY and they have the right to issue permits to place whatever they want on the land.
The bull may be a sign of a strong market but the girl represents the hope that a strong market does not overshadow the need for gender and pay equality. Any lawsuit filed is not only frivolous but also exposes the lack of understanding by the sculptor that his work no longer carries the same meaning as it did 30 years ago. Times change, and you'd better be ready to deal with that reality rather than trying to deny it.
The bull may be a sign of a strong market but the girl represents the hope that a strong market does not overshadow the need for gender and pay equality. Any lawsuit filed is not only frivolous but also exposes the lack of understanding by the sculptor that his work no longer carries the same meaning as it did 30 years ago. Times change, and you'd better be ready to deal with that reality rather than trying to deny it.
5
Some lawyers will take any case! No one is reproducing or altering his work. Another piece of art nearby is looking at his bull. He has no case. I'm surprised he hasn't filmed the many photographers and movies that used the bull in less than respectfull ways! LOL
3
How about a compromise? Put the Fearless Girl behind the bull - as if she's just run him out of HER pasture...
4
I love that fearless girl is "attacking the bull". Literally!!
3
The bull showed up unannounced, unwanted, and was ultimately moved to Bowling Green. If the artist is upset with sharing the location with "Fearless Girl", go ahead and have it moved again!
4
It's really not a big deal. It's a clever gimmick, sure, but when we hit another crash or recession, then I imagine people will change their minds about it real quick.
Wall street could certainly use some representations to tone down the chauvinism, though. I always thought the animal spirits were needlessly unbalanced - maybe we can have some momma grizzlies? Bear markets are just as necessary.
And a Sharknado.
Wall street could certainly use some representations to tone down the chauvinism, though. I always thought the animal spirits were needlessly unbalanced - maybe we can have some momma grizzlies? Bear markets are just as necessary.
And a Sharknado.
1
Stay Strong. Each can send a message. Let's not be a bully..
1
I am from California, Los Angeles, Manhattan Beach to be exact. Been to NYC 6,7 times over the years. Saw the Bull thing several times. With every encounter I was hit by the avarice, the greed, the raw exclusive power of wealth that the controlling few exercise over the Nation.
“‘Charging Bull’ no longer carries a positive, optimistic message,” Apologies, but I just do not get that. That "the brokers who were roaring like beasts on the floor of the brouse" (Stock exchange) ever gave to minutes to consider the Common Good of the nation let alone women is seriously doubtful.
“‘Charging Bull’ no longer carries a positive, optimistic message,” Apologies, but I just do not get that. That "the brokers who were roaring like beasts on the floor of the brouse" (Stock exchange) ever gave to minutes to consider the Common Good of the nation let alone women is seriously doubtful.
7
Irregardless of Mr. Di Modica's intentions of what his bull represents, to him, the placement of the little girl is brilliant, very like a Marcel DuChamp ready-made. The so-called controvery reminds me of an over heard comment at the Modern between two suburban matrons viewing a gigantic Picasso. One says to the other: "I look at it and, I like it. I read the title and I hate it.
1
I agree with the artist, even though I love the Fearless Girl statue. His art is being misrepresented by the unwelcome addition.
If you really want to show Female empowerment, they should have the Fearless Girl posing in front of the NYSE or maybe a Goldman Sachs office.
Wait, is there an Uber office in NYC?
If you really want to show Female empowerment, they should have the Fearless Girl posing in front of the NYSE or maybe a Goldman Sachs office.
Wait, is there an Uber office in NYC?
3
Much ado over nothing.
2
“She’s there attacking the bull,” he said. Yep, we say. I feel so much more empowered from the image of the two of them together than I ever did after the Bull's Wall Street 'lost' half of my retirement in 2008.
If the little girl is attacking Wall Street's Bull, I say more power to her.
If the little girl is attacking Wall Street's Bull, I say more power to her.
7
You only lost half your retirement in 2008 if you were foolish enough to have cashed out at the bottom.
Many works of art are presented in contexts that the artists never intended. Paintings are hung beside each other in museums without artists' approvals. In fact, they are often strategically hung in order to inspire a dialogue between the works. In the same way films are placed on double bills unimaginable to their creators. The artist may have a message he wishes to convey, but once the work is made public people will come to their own interpretations.
Also, "Charging Bull" possesses a temporary permit to sit on public land. If Mr. Di Modica wishes to take his sculpture back, he is free to do so. But he cannot dictate how public lands are used. Those decisions are made by officials appointed by those whom the people elect.
Lastly, this is issue is about copyright and cash flow. Mr. Di Modica seems to be afraid that if an additional understanding (which to my eyes was always present) of "Charging Bull" emerges--not one about "freedom in the world," but a negative one about male aggression and dominance--his copyright will not be as valuable. "Fearless Girl" just assists people to see the "negative force and threat" that has always been a valid way to experience this work of art. And why would any artist want to control the way people responded to his art? Propaganda delivers messages; art inspires ruminations.
Also, "Charging Bull" possesses a temporary permit to sit on public land. If Mr. Di Modica wishes to take his sculpture back, he is free to do so. But he cannot dictate how public lands are used. Those decisions are made by officials appointed by those whom the people elect.
Lastly, this is issue is about copyright and cash flow. Mr. Di Modica seems to be afraid that if an additional understanding (which to my eyes was always present) of "Charging Bull" emerges--not one about "freedom in the world," but a negative one about male aggression and dominance--his copyright will not be as valuable. "Fearless Girl" just assists people to see the "negative force and threat" that has always been a valid way to experience this work of art. And why would any artist want to control the way people responded to his art? Propaganda delivers messages; art inspires ruminations.
8
The Bull has message. Now with the girl it is just a cow with horns. It's not about the girl. Choose whatever you want little boy, pizza rat and it will be the same stuff. Blasio's "men who don't like women taking up space.." are empty words. What might he said if offended men ask to put little boy in front of green woman, you know, Statue of Liberty? Oh! Undocumented immigrant would be better..
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, so they either both stay or they both go.
7
It's particularly nauseating that Fearless Girl is interpreted as a symbol of women power. It is insulting and condescending to women on Wall Street. Point made, now haul the chotchke to a playground.
3
I don't think she is supposed to be a feminist symbol. I think she is supposed to be a child. It is her youth and innocence in the face of the bull that gives the statement power. It really would not be very effective to havevWonder Woman facing down the bull.
1
If you love your 'Art', then set it free, and if it comes back that means it loves you. Or, maybe the little girl is saying, "I see you, you thieving bad boy."
4
The fact that Mr. Di Modica made and installed the bull at great personal expense (nearly $700,000 in 2016 money) versus the statue of the girl, which proudly proclaims its corporate sponsor at its feet tells me everything I need to know about the supporters of this corporate advertisement.
The people who think the girl, a unremarkable sculpture which would be left at the impound lot if left anywhere else, actually stands for anything are fools. It is simply a message telling that people value words, letting people know that you have self proclaimed virtue and acknowledge a problem exists.
But feel free to enjoy this ad for SHE Index Funds. Maybe it will get people talking more if we put a glowering statue of Donald Trump holding back the foreign hordes in front of Lady Liberty. After all the approving face of Liberty looking down on the sight of immigrants being crushed would get people talking about the statue again, and isn't it the publicity that is really important in art? Eat at Trump Grill.
The people who think the girl, a unremarkable sculpture which would be left at the impound lot if left anywhere else, actually stands for anything are fools. It is simply a message telling that people value words, letting people know that you have self proclaimed virtue and acknowledge a problem exists.
But feel free to enjoy this ad for SHE Index Funds. Maybe it will get people talking more if we put a glowering statue of Donald Trump holding back the foreign hordes in front of Lady Liberty. After all the approving face of Liberty looking down on the sight of immigrants being crushed would get people talking about the statue again, and isn't it the publicity that is really important in art? Eat at Trump Grill.
2
Bam! Ajax!
Exhibitions of art regularly juxtapose opposing viewpoints. No one defaced his sculpture, just presented another viewpoint for the observer.
8
I get his point. A big, big part of a piece of art is the context in which it is viewed. The Bull by itself is one context. With the girl is a totally different context. But, times change, which changes the context.
Mr. Di Modica has legal and probably contractual rights which are being violated. Those who believe that rights have weight and must be enforced should understand and support Mr. Di Modica.
Mr. Di Modica has legal and probably contractual rights which are being violated. Those who believe that rights have weight and must be enforced should understand and support Mr. Di Modica.
1
What are his rights?
2
Di Modica miscasts his statue's obvious reference to "bull market". Investopedia:
"The terms 'bear' and 'bull' are thought to derive from the way in which each animal attacks its opponents. That is, a bull will thrust its horns up into the air, while a bear will swipe down."
Fearless Girl's defiance suggests freedom, peace, strength, power and love are independent of stock market performance.
"The terms 'bear' and 'bull' are thought to derive from the way in which each animal attacks its opponents. That is, a bull will thrust its horns up into the air, while a bear will swipe down."
Fearless Girl's defiance suggests freedom, peace, strength, power and love are independent of stock market performance.
6
An artist owns the work, but he does not own the meaning and importance viewers give to it. Personally, a virile charging bull doesn't scream peace and love to me. Perhaps if he'd chosen to sculpted a lioness we'd be having a different conversation...
7
And let's not lose sight of what the Fearless Girl statue really is: corporate advertising. It's not an artist's statement; it's a corporation's statement. And a financial corporation at that.
3
Not being a lawyer, I have no opinion on the validity of Di Modica's legal argument, but I can say that I believe that he is correct in that the installation of the 'Fearless Girl' sculpture fundamentally changes the context in which we see his work.
What I also believe is that it is unreasonable for artists that produce work for public spaces to expect that the context within which their work is seen should remain static in perpetuity. Art doesn't work like that; it has NEVER worked like that (wishing things to 'remain as they are' is the basis of most human conflict and suffering, IMO) . A work is always in a conversation, sometimes a confrontation, with it's physical environment and historical events. For example, the Charging Bull was probably viewed very differently in 1988 than it was in 2008, due to the economic events of those years.
I had a teacher, a painter, who advised us that once a piece was completed and sold that we should no longer consider it to be ours, and that we no longer have any special claim over how it is viewed or interpreted. The only work that should concern us are the ones that are in progress, or not yet begun.
What I also believe is that it is unreasonable for artists that produce work for public spaces to expect that the context within which their work is seen should remain static in perpetuity. Art doesn't work like that; it has NEVER worked like that (wishing things to 'remain as they are' is the basis of most human conflict and suffering, IMO) . A work is always in a conversation, sometimes a confrontation, with it's physical environment and historical events. For example, the Charging Bull was probably viewed very differently in 1988 than it was in 2008, due to the economic events of those years.
I had a teacher, a painter, who advised us that once a piece was completed and sold that we should no longer consider it to be ours, and that we no longer have any special claim over how it is viewed or interpreted. The only work that should concern us are the ones that are in progress, or not yet begun.
8
The bull has been neutered.
Another victory for "overdone" political correctness.
Another victory for "overdone" political correctness.
1
I can understand he wants his work to be shown as he pleases, but times change and context changes. Now his artwork is looked at more from a different angle and is seen by different people. I think this arrangement makes the bull more of a living character than it was before.
6
Fearless girl is the height of our Pollyanna society....
So tiresome
So tiresome
3
Charging Bull may have, at the time, represented America's indomitable spirit...now, not so much. To me it represents the unstoppable force of Wall Street greed and its ruthless power over the interests of ordinary citizens. Fearless Girl is the perfect antidote.
8
I see room for more art additions. City tourist board rejoice.
Someone incorporated another piece of work into his own work and changed the meaning of the work. Now the sculptor is running afoul of the PC police. Sad. He should have the bull melted down and sold for scrap. Better that then giving in to this theft of meaning. Howard Roark it bro.
1
I thought meaning was in the eyes of the beholder. My high school art teacher warned us not to get upset if viewers didn't see the masterpieces we painted and walked on.
1
why do you think that the name of the creator of the fealess girls - Kristen Visbal - is not mention even once?
is the firm that paid for it is the only owner? legal issues or?
is the firm that paid for it is the only owner? legal issues or?
2
For 30 years the bronze bull has been a symbol of irrational, out-of-control testosterone, inspiring Wall Streeters to rampage across the country, the government, and the world. To me this is not a "positive, optimistic message," regardless of Mr. Di Modica's intent. To me it has ALWAYS been a "negative force, and a threat," and not in the least does it represent "freedom in the world, peace, strength, power and love.” I sincerely wonder if Wall Street would have been a little bit less rapacious if the bull had never been installed.
Now that the "Fearless Girl" stands in the way of the rampaging bull, I am inspired. I see the twist of the bull's body as fear, and shying away from the steady gaze of courage. I also see it as a symbol of hope that our young people will stand up for humanity against the worship of the dollar.
Now that the "Fearless Girl" stands in the way of the rampaging bull, I am inspired. I see the twist of the bull's body as fear, and shying away from the steady gaze of courage. I also see it as a symbol of hope that our young people will stand up for humanity against the worship of the dollar.
10
Why isn't this artist blaming Wall Street for changing the meaning of his art, from one of American resilience to one of the bull of Wall St. running through the china shop of the American economy?
Wall Street is distorting the image of the bull.
Wall Street is distorting the image of the bull.
9
WOW! Life is too short. Isn't it?
6
I was literally STUNNED to read that the original artist considers the bull to be a symbol of "freedom ... peace, strength, power, and love", and "a positive, optimistic message".
I have to wonder if he would be surprised to learn that a great many Americans view that symbol as one of unrestrained indiscriminate destruction, and a clear message to the poor: "get out of the way of the investor class, or we will literally trample you to dust".
Maybe we'd all be better off if the artist took his toys and went home.
I have to wonder if he would be surprised to learn that a great many Americans view that symbol as one of unrestrained indiscriminate destruction, and a clear message to the poor: "get out of the way of the investor class, or we will literally trample you to dust".
Maybe we'd all be better off if the artist took his toys and went home.
7
The girl has had her moment, get rid of it, he's right.
Next year someone else will want to put a turtle in then sue NYC for 1,000,000 until it happens.
Enough!
Next year someone else will want to put a turtle in then sue NYC for 1,000,000 until it happens.
Enough!
1
It is utter nonsense to place defenders of Fearless Girl into a PC slot. Art builds upon art, whether or not it's welcome (Shakespeare and Plutarch, duh.) Otherwise the object in question is no longer living, or even "art" by any definition, but instead becomes yet another fossilized commodity.
I would think that Mr. Di Modica would be delighted that his statue is stirring up so much controversy! But perhaps he would rather it be just another part of the downtown landscape, suitable for a pigeon perch and not much else.
I would think that Mr. Di Modica would be delighted that his statue is stirring up so much controversy! But perhaps he would rather it be just another part of the downtown landscape, suitable for a pigeon perch and not much else.
8
Clearly you don't live and work in this city. That Bull is incredibly popular and surrounded by tourists all day, every day and it has been since it was first installed. A pigeon perch? Hardly.
1
Perhaps he should reward Fearless Girl for all the extra attention he's getting!
He seems to think his art is eternal and other people are not allowed to make art if it juxtaposes other kinds of thoughts and feelings on the ones he wants to dictate.
Here's Kristen Visbal:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristen_Visbal
If anything, he is amplifying the conflict in a way that reflects negatively on his sense of entitlement. There is room in the world for men and women, boys and girls, and the working class and less privileged as well as the wealthy financial industry. The latter are all too often gambling predators, particularly at the casino on Wall Street, removing value from the public sphere for personal profit.
He seems to think his art is eternal and other people are not allowed to make art if it juxtaposes other kinds of thoughts and feelings on the ones he wants to dictate.
Here's Kristen Visbal:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristen_Visbal
If anything, he is amplifying the conflict in a way that reflects negatively on his sense of entitlement. There is room in the world for men and women, boys and girls, and the working class and less privileged as well as the wealthy financial industry. The latter are all too often gambling predators, particularly at the casino on Wall Street, removing value from the public sphere for personal profit.
10
Transforms the statue into Ferdinand the Bull, the children's book figure, potentially stimulating the gentle instincts within all mammals as the beast encounters the beauty/innocent. Isn't that part of the sculptor's intent? As a lifelong animal rescuer with daughters who followed in my path, I saw the gentle beast myth in this coupling - not the gendered empowerment of females.
2
I'm continually amazed by the fragility of the male ego.
10
I think Arturo meant "peace" as in "might makes right", freedom for the rich and powerful and love through fear of the almighty bull. That's just what his argument is: bull. Arturo has been castrated by the mere sight of a girl in front of his sculpture and he can't stand it.
9
Girl Power!
6
It took 30 years to complete! I see a symbol of Charging corporate Bull tempered by us common folks in the guise of a Fearless Girl. Your art is still there for all to admire. Take it to the courts if the Fearless Girl decides to ride the bull.
2
I'm an artist. Formally trained.
Here's the thing about art; it is open to interpretation by every person who views or experiences it. And yes, context does affect that interpretation.
“Fearless Girl” is not on the "Bull," it hasn’t been installed as part of the "Bull" sculpture. I fail to see how the “Fearless Girl” violates Di Modica’s copyright in the "Bull" in any way. Nor are Di Modica's VARA moral rights violated; his sculpture has not been damaged.
“Fearless Girl” is a stand-alone sculpture of a girl in defiance. Place her facing something, and in that context she is expressing defiance of whatever she’s facing. Install her at the edge of a playground facing a real bulldozer, and she’s that story. She doesn’t change the bulldozer.
I have been to “Charging Bull” many times. Every time I have been to the "Bull," I have seen people of all ages – especially tourists – standing at the rear end of the "Bull" and having their picture taken holding the "Bull’s" testicles. Did Di Modica sculpt his bull intending to create the photo opportunity of people holding it’s testicles? Was that his sculpture’s intended message?
Di Modica needs to get over himself and unclench.
Here's the thing about art; it is open to interpretation by every person who views or experiences it. And yes, context does affect that interpretation.
“Fearless Girl” is not on the "Bull," it hasn’t been installed as part of the "Bull" sculpture. I fail to see how the “Fearless Girl” violates Di Modica’s copyright in the "Bull" in any way. Nor are Di Modica's VARA moral rights violated; his sculpture has not been damaged.
“Fearless Girl” is a stand-alone sculpture of a girl in defiance. Place her facing something, and in that context she is expressing defiance of whatever she’s facing. Install her at the edge of a playground facing a real bulldozer, and she’s that story. She doesn’t change the bulldozer.
I have been to “Charging Bull” many times. Every time I have been to the "Bull," I have seen people of all ages – especially tourists – standing at the rear end of the "Bull" and having their picture taken holding the "Bull’s" testicles. Did Di Modica sculpt his bull intending to create the photo opportunity of people holding it’s testicles? Was that his sculpture’s intended message?
Di Modica needs to get over himself and unclench.
14
Oh please. Art evolves. Once you display a work of art to the public, it is open to their interpretation. The original sculptor could look at this a different way: a new artist chose to create and position a piece that would interact with his, thereby making it relevant again. He chose to display his art in a public place; he does not own the space or have any say on what else can go there.
8
Hilarious idea to turn the bull around, turning tail, after a look by Fearless Girl!
5
How sad that his widdle feelings are hurt.
7
The artist is right: it detracts from his work, and "Fearless Girl" is an ugly little nod to political correctness that makes no sense whatsoever on Wall Street
4
Good art is meant to express ideas & provoke emotion. Obviously Fearless Girl has taken on that role quite well. It is telling that ideas like "political correctness" means whatever the user wants it to mean. I find the idea of protecting the snowflakes on Wall Street from art they don't approve of the ultimate form of political correctness. Oh and an aside I am appropriating the term "snowflake" from it's conservative hate radio usage to describe the tender feelings of those with power & wealth who are constantly whining and acting the victim.
6
I would say it draws more attention to his work. It still represents Wall Street in whatever context the viewer is seeing it.
1
I think Fearless Girl should be moved. It should not take away from another piece of art. And I'm not happy with a statue of a little girl to represent women. Mainstream media already does enough of that.
4
The 87 crash was one of the many crashes caused by the people on Wall Street whom that bull represents. The “Bulls of Wall Street” is not neutral nor a compliment. The Bull in relation to Wall Street has always stood for and meant to convey the arrogance and destructiveness of those driven by avarice for money and false power above all else.
The artist may have intended it stand for the “Strength and power of the American people” but it always has and always will stand for the uncontrolled avarice that drives much of Wall Street investment culture.
Those people destroyed the controls the American People placed upon them in the early 80’s. Once done they almost instantly started causing the exact same problems those controls were intended to prevent. Only one of those intentional crisis (savings and loan) the first one cost the taxpayer $132.1 Billion. The 08 crash was a derivative of the exact same sorts of open shenanigans with lending practices.
No sir that Bull is being shown for exactly what every thinking person knows it to be; A representation of the dangerous arrogance and evil that allowing avarice for money to be ones driving force inevitably, by synergistic effect, sets loose.
The artist may have intended it stand for the “Strength and power of the American people” but it always has and always will stand for the uncontrolled avarice that drives much of Wall Street investment culture.
Those people destroyed the controls the American People placed upon them in the early 80’s. Once done they almost instantly started causing the exact same problems those controls were intended to prevent. Only one of those intentional crisis (savings and loan) the first one cost the taxpayer $132.1 Billion. The 08 crash was a derivative of the exact same sorts of open shenanigans with lending practices.
No sir that Bull is being shown for exactly what every thinking person knows it to be; A representation of the dangerous arrogance and evil that allowing avarice for money to be ones driving force inevitably, by synergistic effect, sets loose.
7
Go to any art gallery and you can see that once an artists loses possession of their art work they lose control over the context in which it is displayed. It's even worse with music where the way it is played is open to numerous interpretations. The only art form I can think of where the artist has some control is the written word but even that can be 'read' in different ways. Kipling is interpreted differently to the way he was originally interpreted for instance.
To me both statues enhance each other and I hope they are not separated.
To me both statues enhance each other and I hope they are not separated.
7
This morning I linked into a previous NYT article about this debate which has a video of the installations. People are interviewed, we get a good close-up front view of "Fearless Girl," especially the expression on her face, and then the camera pans to a full view of the plaza, where we see both "Charging Bull" and "Fearless Girl" in the frame BUT from the side. After seeing the powerful affect the artist captures in the face of the girl up close, the full side-view appeared to cast the bull almost as an emanation sprung from "Fearless Girl." It looks like her "spirit animal" let loose a' la some anime character or animistic tribal belief system. I was surprised how what I thought of the pieces shifted when I saw them from a different perspective with additional visual information. From this interpretation, she looks totally in charge of this animal's power and confident it will do her bidding. From this new angle, to me at least, Fearless Girl IS the Charging Bull and there is no confrontation at all. I found this interpretation most hopeful.
7
Di Modica is being a silly little man.
A bit of icing that he wants to mansplain the meaning of his statute...“freedom in the world, peace, strength, power and love.” It is art...its meaning is as varied as the number of people who view it. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what he intended it to mean....even, indeed, if he intended it to mean freedom, peace and love. Would imagine he could pull some reference to that meaning out of the press from 30 years ago when it first was released....if he really thinks that matters.
Nevertheless, this is not about meaning. This is about any agreements he had with the City. Did his agreement preclude the City from using nearby land for other uses? If not, Mr. Siegel is destined to fail. Go to trial. NYC will not support the Bull.
A bit of icing that he wants to mansplain the meaning of his statute...“freedom in the world, peace, strength, power and love.” It is art...its meaning is as varied as the number of people who view it. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what he intended it to mean....even, indeed, if he intended it to mean freedom, peace and love. Would imagine he could pull some reference to that meaning out of the press from 30 years ago when it first was released....if he really thinks that matters.
Nevertheless, this is not about meaning. This is about any agreements he had with the City. Did his agreement preclude the City from using nearby land for other uses? If not, Mr. Siegel is destined to fail. Go to trial. NYC will not support the Bull.
8
...and I wonder just who might be paying his legal fees...?
5
Move the BULL!
7
here's an idea: instead of the two sculptures facing each other down, how about putting them side-by-side, taking on the challenges of the world together?
1
Take a look at some video of "The Running of The Bulls" in Pamplona Spain.
Whatever his intent, that bull represents the dangerousness of allowing bulls to run rampant in our streets. That is a metaphor for the Wall Street investors who have been wreaking havoc on our economy for 37+ years extracting trillions of dollars from the American Taxpayer through government bailouts and insurance payouts and directly by ripping them off outright in business.
Whatever his intent, that bull represents the dangerousness of allowing bulls to run rampant in our streets. That is a metaphor for the Wall Street investors who have been wreaking havoc on our economy for 37+ years extracting trillions of dollars from the American Taxpayer through government bailouts and insurance payouts and directly by ripping them off outright in business.
7
What is all of this fuss about a statue in the middle of the street in NYC of all places?? Time Square is littered will huge billboards competing against each other, just sayin.
If it were a statue of flowers placed in front of the 'charging bull' instead of the 'fearless girl' would it have the same meaning?? In both instances, the 'charging bull' would plummet both.
There are way more important issues/injustices to discuss in this world than to talk about a statue in the middle of a busy street. This is going on way too long.
If it were a statue of flowers placed in front of the 'charging bull' instead of the 'fearless girl' would it have the same meaning?? In both instances, the 'charging bull' would plummet both.
There are way more important issues/injustices to discuss in this world than to talk about a statue in the middle of a busy street. This is going on way too long.
The Mr. Di Modica has a point. One of the purposes of art is individual interpretation. That is what makes art controversial at times. It is why art is so important because it can make you think.
What Mr. Di Modica cannot control, however, is the interpretation. "Fearless Girl" is yet another interpretation. If Mr. Di Modica wants to control the interpretation then he does not understand artistic expression. He can't have it both ways.
What Mr. Di Modica cannot control, however, is the interpretation. "Fearless Girl" is yet another interpretation. If Mr. Di Modica wants to control the interpretation then he does not understand artistic expression. He can't have it both ways.
2
We love you Fearless Girl. Stand firm.
7
And the winner is ....?
The meaning of the bull and the girl are contradictory. The bull represents the strength of the American economy and the girl, in this context, represents opposition to that. The girl deserves her own place.
2
Di Modica is right. Completely changes the meaning of his work. Fearless Girl is wonderful piece in its own right but it shouldn't be facing down the bull. Put it somewhere else.
3
If his work is that easy to re-interpret, then it wasn't that good to begin with.
1
There is a purely commercial issue with a purely commercial answer: The value of the artist's trademark is greatly diminished if the bull is a symbol of overbearing Wall Street.
So, what does his contract with the city actually say? Does it allow him to control his "brand"? If so, invoke the contract. If not...he's had a good run for 30 years based on a clever (initially illegal) trick. His run is over.
As pure art, the current configuration is far more enduring and powerful. Street art morphs...get over it.
So, what does his contract with the city actually say? Does it allow him to control his "brand"? If so, invoke the contract. If not...he's had a good run for 30 years based on a clever (initially illegal) trick. His run is over.
As pure art, the current configuration is far more enduring and powerful. Street art morphs...get over it.
7
Right on, Laura, so beautifully phrased:
"[Artist Di Modica has} had a good run for 30 years based on a clever (initially illegal) trick. His run is over. As pure art, the current configuration is far more enduring and powerful. Street art morphs...get over it."
Give him 30 days to wake up, accept reality or take "his" bull away.
"[Artist Di Modica has} had a good run for 30 years based on a clever (initially illegal) trick. His run is over. As pure art, the current configuration is far more enduring and powerful. Street art morphs...get over it."
Give him 30 days to wake up, accept reality or take "his" bull away.
3
Never, he never had any permission or authority to place his oversized trinket of a bull sculpture on Wallstreet. Now, the fact that he his complaining is way out of bounds. He should be writing and voicing gratitude for all the good fortune this unwanted sculpture has brought him.
7
They are both works of art. Together they form an even greater work of art than viewed separately. The girl is staying, period.
5
Let's face it. Without the Bull she'd be just another cute little bronze figure. Face her towards Gracie Mansion, or Albany where we've never had a female Mayor or Guv.
6
Put the girl side by side with the bull facing in the same direction as the bull and show teem work and togetherness.
Mr. Di Monica should be commissioned to create a bear to face off the raging bull. The pessimistic bear is traditionally the counterpart of the overly optimistic bull. In the stock market where there are bulls there are always bears. And Maybe we need another little girl to confront the bear. Bears are as threatening as bulls.
4
Too bad that if we turned the little girl around, leading the bull, it would look like she’s about to get trampled. Otherwise, a girl leading the way to financial optimism and prosperity (what the bull was really supposed to represent) would make total sense!
1
Man who sculpts homage to capitalism whines that a four-foot bronze girl was an act of capitalism that ruined his homage to capitalism.
15
Sorry folks, you can't copyright the space in front of you or your alleged art. It is so interesting how many commenters are completely uncomfortable with the notion that the "meaning" of something can change over time. On the other hand, the rather trite metaphor represented by the Bull, is hardly original. The artist should consider himself lucky to have something added that maybe brings his metaphor to the level of art.
4
Actually, you can indeed copyright art, and Di Modica not only did that but trademarked it too.
4
Yet another reason for "Fearless Girl" to remain defiant!
6
Remove the "girl" and put her facing the Google building. Folks, the tech industry is the new enemy when it comes to gender equality, how many articles have been written about Google, Uber and other startups that barely employ any women or treat them horribly? Let's leave the "bull" alone.
3
If you check numbers you will learn the gender equality in Google is better than financial services (except for financial services part of Bloomberg Financial Services Gender Equality Index - most not American companies), which Google have similar numbers.
Google diversity numbers: https://www.google.com/diversity/
Google diversity numbers: https://www.google.com/diversity/
1
Peak White Male Fragility
8
This all sounds like an April Fool's joke to me...
3
If Fearless Girl's sculptor has a message, it shouldn't need to be in the context of another artist's work. IMHO.
6
All artists steal, borrow, recontextualize. Nothing is original. There have been many sculptures of bulls. And girls. Someone get Mr. Di Modica a Kleenex.
4
@Pocopazzo: You are so right: Art should exist in a vacuum.
4
Sorry, I think this is finely crafted graffiti.
"Fearless Girl," the gift that keeps on giving.
The latest actor is the curmudgeonly, PR-challenged artist who could have capitalized on the opportunity to reinvent the spirit of the bull. All he did was step in it instead. An amazing marketing communications opportunity lost, if only he had the smarts and grace to be accommodating.
Congratulations to the visionary State Street Global Advisors, as they have captured the culture's zeitgeist perfectly.
The latest actor is the curmudgeonly, PR-challenged artist who could have capitalized on the opportunity to reinvent the spirit of the bull. All he did was step in it instead. An amazing marketing communications opportunity lost, if only he had the smarts and grace to be accommodating.
Congratulations to the visionary State Street Global Advisors, as they have captured the culture's zeitgeist perfectly.
11
This bull sculpture has always seemed to me a cliché given the location. Now that the artist has weighed in with this nonsense, the bull on Wall Street, half the typical investment metaphor, has been joined by a bear, growling and sneering at a little girl like she disturbed his hibernation. She should stay as they need her occupation; it is now a new Wall Street versus Main Street metaphor that I hope New York embraces for a long time to come.
5
Seems to me I read that he left the bull in Bowling Green one night 30 years ago. And with it, he dumped any claim to influence what is done with it.
And did he actually say that she's "attacking" the bull? Well, he's wrong about that too.
And did he actually say that she's "attacking" the bull? Well, he's wrong about that too.
7
Ferdinand the Bull. Now THERE was a bull who stood for love peace and resistance.
7
Regardless of the artists intent the bull represents financial aggression & oppression not freedom, except perhaps the freedom to exploit those less powerful then yourself. Let
5
I don't get Di Modica's whiny disapproval of the Fearless Girl. After all, his bull is getting more press and publicity than it has in years. Nevertheless, I do have a question: if someone (say a 10 year old girl) had her photo taken in the manner of Ms. Fearless, juxtaposed against the Bull, and it was published over the internet and printed on posters and such, would that constitute a copyright infringement? Or is the Bull (or the Girl) part of the public domain?
4
Come on.
Why is Mr. DiModica supposed to be "a good sport" about someone incorporating his sculpture into the visual space of another sculpture? It is clever etc etc but you have to respect that the original work has an intention of its own.
Would you be cool with someone just adding a chapter to a book you had written? This is a problem for a curator.
Why is Mr. DiModica supposed to be "a good sport" about someone incorporating his sculpture into the visual space of another sculpture? It is clever etc etc but you have to respect that the original work has an intention of its own.
Would you be cool with someone just adding a chapter to a book you had written? This is a problem for a curator.
3
Good point @kg.
1
Thanks for your response. I will still look forward to you or anyone directly answering my question.
1
Mr. DiModica's work and its meaning is changed by the context of adding another piece of sculpture and making an art work into an installation piece.
You could negotiate that with the artist but it is not appropriate to permanently mess with this sculpture, dress it, or otherwise alter it from the intention of the artist and the folks who commissioned it. It would be like adding pages to someone else's novel.
I like Fearless Girl but raise funds for the other half of an installation for her if you want her in a permanent relationship with the bull.
You could negotiate that with the artist but it is not appropriate to permanently mess with this sculpture, dress it, or otherwise alter it from the intention of the artist and the folks who commissioned it. It would be like adding pages to someone else's novel.
I like Fearless Girl but raise funds for the other half of an installation for her if you want her in a permanent relationship with the bull.
3
Unlike Di Modica's "Charging Bull," "Fearless Girl" is not fine art, it is a commissioned piece in a marketing plan.
"Fearless Girl" does not challenge patriarchy, it co-opts feminism to buttress it. State Street Global wants to look "woke," ...but they don't really want to change the status quo, just stop you from questioning it.
Regardless of what one thinks of Mr. Di Modica's work or intent, he copyrighted and trademarked the piece and has a valid legal claim – especially because his work is being used without consent for business purposes.
It's just like when Bruce Springsteen demands that Republicans stop using "born In The USA" at campaign rallies. It's the exact same thing.
"Fearless Girl" does not challenge patriarchy, it co-opts feminism to buttress it. State Street Global wants to look "woke," ...but they don't really want to change the status quo, just stop you from questioning it.
Regardless of what one thinks of Mr. Di Modica's work or intent, he copyrighted and trademarked the piece and has a valid legal claim – especially because his work is being used without consent for business purposes.
It's just like when Bruce Springsteen demands that Republicans stop using "born In The USA" at campaign rallies. It's the exact same thing.
6
I love the fearless girl juxtaposition vs the Bull. It's truly fantastic. BUT- I gotta say. The artist is absolutely right. The narrative created by the 2 statues completely recast the Bull's image and the artist intent. It's akin to graffiti on a beautiful building, or a knifes slash through a painting. Regardless of how much amazing the fearless girl statue is (very wonderful!) & how clever the mash-up of the two statues is. Good idea on paper. But, unfortunately, I feel the concept defaces the Di Modica's work.
5
Maybe a better statue than Fearless Girl might have been A Fearless Bear protecting her Cubs.
2
Amazing that someone finally picked up on the actual symbolism of "bull" vs. "bear" in the context of Wall Street, which "Fearless Girl" in fact ignores. A bear would actually would be better. As long as the artist agreed.
1
Given me a break!! Arturo need to get over himself. That little girl has made his Bull relevant again.
5
"Fearless Girl" represents exactly what NYC is about, When tries to run one over, you gotta stand firm and stand fearless. A powerful contrasting image. Keep "Fearless Girl" where she stands.
7
Easy solution: move the bull. Perhaps to an Italian vineyard, where dying workers can lean their weary heads against its cold flanks and give a little prayer of thanks to the titans of Wall Street.
2
Bravo!
1
The bull was there first.
1
...and the girl is a legal, sponsored, immigrant to the space. So you're saying, "There goes the neighborhood"?
It appears that Mr. Di Modica may be a graduate of the Sean Spicer School of Public Relations.
3
While I understand the artist's complaint, I believe that new art will always comment on and reflect the surroundings. Just as Charging Bull gains relevancy from its presence on Wall St., Fearless Girl gains relevancy from its presence near Charging Bull. Art, especially in public places, will always be subject to commentary, interpretation, re-interpretation, etc. I imagine an artist would understand this and not stand in the way of this dialogue.
I do not know enough about the artist's "legal rights" to understand if the permits granted to Fearless Girl violated those rights. But it will be fascinating to find out more about the permitting process for the initial installation and it's subsequent extension. Why? Because millions of New Yorkers are impacted by a variety of cumbersome permitting procedures on a daily basis. Some of us have applied for permits for everything of use of public space to apartment renovations. We face delays. Long review times. Inconvenience. And we all pay higher prices for goods and services because of the bureaucracy that governs stores, vendors, public spaces, etc. If the normal process was somehow short-circuited because the Mayor agreed with the artistic statement, then we should all know about that.
I do not know enough about the artist's "legal rights" to understand if the permits granted to Fearless Girl violated those rights. But it will be fascinating to find out more about the permitting process for the initial installation and it's subsequent extension. Why? Because millions of New Yorkers are impacted by a variety of cumbersome permitting procedures on a daily basis. Some of us have applied for permits for everything of use of public space to apartment renovations. We face delays. Long review times. Inconvenience. And we all pay higher prices for goods and services because of the bureaucracy that governs stores, vendors, public spaces, etc. If the normal process was somehow short-circuited because the Mayor agreed with the artistic statement, then we should all know about that.
1
Oh, please.
2
Shame on Norman Siegel. There is no legal case here - merely publicity. Di Modica gave the City the right to display the statue; he doesn't control the property on which it is situated, and he certainly does not control the statue's interpretation. The interpretation of art is in the public domain. If New York City chose to reinterpret the bull by placing Fearless Girl in its path, that is the city's prerogative.
Di Modica may think that Wall Street represent power in democracy, but not everybody agrees. Many agree with the mayor that it represents a power that does not always work in the public interest, and that the fearless girl is the symbol of democratic resistance. While the artist may not like that, no artist controls how his work is received.
Unless the copyright, trademark, and contract with New York City specify that the artist controls, not merely where his art is placed, but also the art and other objects in the surrounding area, then a lawsuit would be hopeless. Norman Siegel should know that. Free speech and civil liberties say that fearless girl should remain; and the artist should stop trying to stifle other people's speech by bullying them into accepting his intentions.
Di Modica may think that Wall Street represent power in democracy, but not everybody agrees. Many agree with the mayor that it represents a power that does not always work in the public interest, and that the fearless girl is the symbol of democratic resistance. While the artist may not like that, no artist controls how his work is received.
Unless the copyright, trademark, and contract with New York City specify that the artist controls, not merely where his art is placed, but also the art and other objects in the surrounding area, then a lawsuit would be hopeless. Norman Siegel should know that. Free speech and civil liberties say that fearless girl should remain; and the artist should stop trying to stifle other people's speech by bullying them into accepting his intentions.
9
Mr. Arturo Di Modica
Grow up and stop whining!
Think about how much positive publicity you would get if you embraced the Little girl and talked about what it means to millions of girls around the World.
Talk about how art must evolve and how it represents the sentiment of our time symbolically and emotionally.
At this moment - you are losing credibility for your artwork by being a petty, grumpy old man, not an artist!
Grow up and stop whining!
Think about how much positive publicity you would get if you embraced the Little girl and talked about what it means to millions of girls around the World.
Talk about how art must evolve and how it represents the sentiment of our time symbolically and emotionally.
At this moment - you are losing credibility for your artwork by being a petty, grumpy old man, not an artist!
4
No, no, no......
Fearless Girl is the best thing to have happened this year and I hope this iconic statute stays there forever.
The bull can go.....
Fearless Girl is the best thing to have happened this year and I hope this iconic statute stays there forever.
The bull can go.....
4
Charging Bull was (and perhaps still is) a symbol of optimism. However, today it seems to only symbolize the optimism of the market makers. The meaning of this has been subverted many years ago, not least in 2008 with the crash.
The optimistic promise can only survive if the markets work for the people, not the people for the markets. The markets and their agents need to remember that, they need to be reminded of that. Fearless Girl, the representative of the normal people, is doing exactly this. We need both. We need optimism. But we also need reminder that the optimism of the market must jibe with the optimism of the people.
If I was Mr. Di Modica I would be honored by Fearless Girl, as it puts Charging Bull back into a context of optimism, freedom, strength, peace, power and love - for all.
The optimistic promise can only survive if the markets work for the people, not the people for the markets. The markets and their agents need to remember that, they need to be reminded of that. Fearless Girl, the representative of the normal people, is doing exactly this. We need both. We need optimism. But we also need reminder that the optimism of the market must jibe with the optimism of the people.
If I was Mr. Di Modica I would be honored by Fearless Girl, as it puts Charging Bull back into a context of optimism, freedom, strength, peace, power and love - for all.
3
Art's meaning over time is not static. To claim it is is ridiculous. This isn't even about art in a bubble like a museum, it's public art which is partially informed by location. It's existence within that space is going to change with the persception of the space. He put the art in public. If he doesn't like public commentary then he has the right to remove it from public. But no more than that.
5
If the artist is offended replace the bull with a statue of Bernie Madoff and the message will remain the same. And Fearless Girl needs to remain to stand up to the corruption.
5
When I see Fearless Girl facing up to Raging Bull I immediately think of the iconic image of tank man standing up to the line of tanks in Tienanman Square, and how powerful that moment seemed, ripe with possibilities.
Of course the reaction by Chinese officials (destroying as many copies of the image as possible) and the fact that no one really knows tank man's fate (many reports say he was executed, others that he chose to live in hiding) suggest how hard it is to stand up to power.
Of course the reaction by Chinese officials (destroying as many copies of the image as possible) and the fact that no one really knows tank man's fate (many reports say he was executed, others that he chose to live in hiding) suggest how hard it is to stand up to power.
4
I'm sorry, but this statue is an advertisement. For a product. Period. It has no right to be on city land for free. I think that is the most important issue at stake.
Next we will have Tiffany's put a statue of MLK in central park advertising diamond rings and Citi a statue of Rosa Parks in the battery advertising free checking. All for free, with the mayor tweeting in support!!
Next we will have Tiffany's put a statue of MLK in central park advertising diamond rings and Citi a statue of Rosa Parks in the battery advertising free checking. All for free, with the mayor tweeting in support!!
5
Yes - almost no commenters here have realized that "Fearless Girl" is marketing, not art. The work is deceptive, and Di Modica has a valid claim.
2
its only going to be there for a year
that adds to the mythwork of the statue
instead of diminishing it, its a fairly weak
vision if it cant take public engagement
he should have put it in a museum, not
the streets of downtown manhattan
that adds to the mythwork of the statue
instead of diminishing it, its a fairly weak
vision if it cant take public engagement
he should have put it in a museum, not
the streets of downtown manhattan
1
Got to love it. A grown up man feeling threatened by a little girl... made of bronze. Does Di Modica own the sidewalk where the girl is standing? I do not think there is any distortion of messages. If any, there is a response to a message. Wall Street is like a bull (and sometimes like a bear). Let's see if it can face a little girl. It appears it can't!
7
Di Modica may "never dismiss the possibility of litigation," but he does not have a legal leg to stand on.
In this situation, vague threats of legal action are spurious. If Di Modica is so "hurt" by the fearless girl's presence, he might be able to withdraw his bull from the plaza (depending on how the statue was deeded), but I can't imagine that the courts would force the city to move the little girl or otherwise allow Di Modica to dictate the terms of this urban setting in perpetuity.
In this situation, vague threats of legal action are spurious. If Di Modica is so "hurt" by the fearless girl's presence, he might be able to withdraw his bull from the plaza (depending on how the statue was deeded), but I can't imagine that the courts would force the city to move the little girl or otherwise allow Di Modica to dictate the terms of this urban setting in perpetuity.
5
OK, point taken. Let's place Fearless Girl in front of Trump Tower instead :-D
5
"Il Fiocco Di Neve" needs to get over himself.
1
Just remove the bull and make the girl triumphant. Case closed.
5
What a cranky artist! So it is all about an ego. No two statues could peacefully coexist together? A genuine artist should be happy to see his art "reinterpreted."
2
No. Not cranky. He made the thing. Find an artist who is thrilled about their work being the setting for someone else's ring please.
6
"Fearless Girl" did not imbue "Charging Bull" with negative energy. "Charging Bull" already exuded negative energy long before "Fearless Girl" was even conceived. "Fearless Girl" simply stands in opposition to the negative energy of "Charging Bull."
3
No see it was commissioned by State Street Global Advisors who have very few female top execs so this was just a cheap ploy by a huge conglomerate for some cheap publicity and hey it worked didn't it.
"Fearless Girl" borrows relevance from Modica's "Charging Bull", quite clearly, and therein allegations of copyright violation may well stand.
The proper resolution is to move the girl, and let her stand on her own.
And that, supposedly, is what proponents of "Fearless Girl" claim they advocate.
The proper resolution is to move the girl, and let her stand on her own.
And that, supposedly, is what proponents of "Fearless Girl" claim they advocate.
3
Di Modica's "Charging Bull" borrows "relevance" (I think you mean "meaning") from Wall Street. It "stands on its own" no more than "Fearless Girl."
Move it to the Bronx Zoo, or the Meat Packing District, or Pamplona, or Disney World, or rural China, and its meaning changes again and again. In fact, "Charging Bull" is ripe for a reddit Photoshop Contest.
The fact is, no artwork stands on its own. It "borrows meaning," to a greater or lesser extent, from all the works of art that preceded it, from the point in time and place in which it was created, and from the mind of each individual who interacts with it.
If an artist creates a work of art in a forest, burying it so that no one will ever see it, and without any media reports, is it art?
Move it to the Bronx Zoo, or the Meat Packing District, or Pamplona, or Disney World, or rural China, and its meaning changes again and again. In fact, "Charging Bull" is ripe for a reddit Photoshop Contest.
The fact is, no artwork stands on its own. It "borrows meaning," to a greater or lesser extent, from all the works of art that preceded it, from the point in time and place in which it was created, and from the mind of each individual who interacts with it.
If an artist creates a work of art in a forest, burying it so that no one will ever see it, and without any media reports, is it art?
1
Someone- I'm quite sure I intended to say "relevance", it's not your place to tell me what I intend.
And "relevance", particularly, is the alleged infringement of Modica's copyright. "Fearless Girl" -incorporated- Modica's work without permission. Without the Bull, Girly has a completely different interpretation in this location. Remove the Bull at this point and the entire situation becomes performance art. Go put her in front of City Hall, or Trump Tower, or out on Ellis Island if you want to say something about women in America. Or... in a cornfield.
You are merely changing the subject as an endeavor to avoid Modica's legitimate claim.
And "relevance", particularly, is the alleged infringement of Modica's copyright. "Fearless Girl" -incorporated- Modica's work without permission. Without the Bull, Girly has a completely different interpretation in this location. Remove the Bull at this point and the entire situation becomes performance art. Go put her in front of City Hall, or Trump Tower, or out on Ellis Island if you want to say something about women in America. Or... in a cornfield.
You are merely changing the subject as an endeavor to avoid Modica's legitimate claim.
The muscular bull statue was appropriate enough in the pre-stockmarket crash period of the mid 80’s but by my reckoning it should have had the foil of the bear. It now has a counterbalance and it succeeds brilliantly. Considering how his work first arrived at where it has been for the lat 30 years I think that Mr Di Modica is being a bit precious.
2
I like "Fearless Girl" a great deal, but have to concede that Di Modica has a point--one that had not occurred to me me before. It does change the whole meaning of his sculpture. Legal questions aside, what moral obligation do we have to let artists set the conditions under which their works must be experienced? Does the fact that the sculpture resides in a public space affect those obligations? It's a fair question.
2
Copyright law answers all these questions, which are legal, not moral.
3
Both sculptures are part of the evolving built environment. Fearless girl is speech and not subject to constraint by another creator of art located in the public realm. Just as an architect has no right to object to the form of neighboring buildings, public art becomes part of an urban ecosystem that includes artists like Keith Haring, Banksy, and the sculptor of Fearless Girl.
Moreover, Mr. DiModica's interpretation carries his own perspective and bias. He should reflect on his inability to accept another artist's point of view, not to mention his fragile, oversized ego. IMO, Fearless Girl gives Mr. DiModica's tired statement new relevance.
Moreover, Mr. DiModica's interpretation carries his own perspective and bias. He should reflect on his inability to accept another artist's point of view, not to mention his fragile, oversized ego. IMO, Fearless Girl gives Mr. DiModica's tired statement new relevance.
5
I agree. The bull statue shouldn't share billing with any statue for that matter. This is Wall St. period.
3
And that's the problem. Period.
4
So the bull's creator's message is more important than Fearless Girl's message? Fortunately that's not how the First Amendment works. Everyone gets to interpret art in their own way - what the artist wants is besides the point. Shame on him.
3
Why can't you put Fearless Girl next to Charging Bull, standing side be side, facing the world optimistically together? Is it too much to think that some how, in society today, we can not all stand supportively together and face our challenges as one force? I suggest it is not...
1
Wow. This artist has not one but two sculptures on public display that some artists can only dream of having. creating a response that is mostly received as positive. Tempest in a teapot.
1
In other news, France demands the Statue of Liberty be returned...
5
Turn the girl around so she is to the right and slightly ahead of the charging bull, positioned as if she were leading it.
Throw a party. Invite the media.
Sell tchotchkes.
Do I have to explain EVERYTHING?
Throw a party. Invite the media.
Sell tchotchkes.
Do I have to explain EVERYTHING?
1
Arturo Di Modica (born January 26, 1941) is an Italian-American artist, born in Vittoria, Sicily. He is best [and only]* known for his sculpture Charging Bull (also known as the Wall Street Bull, in reference to Wall Street), which he installed WITHOUT PERMISSION** in front of the New York Stock Exchange in December 1987.
~ WikipediA
* [ ] insertion mine.
** EMPHASIS mine.
~ WikipediA
* [ ] insertion mine.
** EMPHASIS mine.
7
"None of us here are in any way not proponents of gender equality,”
What a ringing affirmation of feminism.
What a ringing affirmation of feminism.
5
At least he didn't refrain from using a double negative! :)
Let's follow this juxtaposition of images to its conclusion. The symbol of the empowered woman, in this case, a little girl (which is more than a little demeaning) is about to be killed by a much stronger and more powerful bull (which now has been interpreted as Wall Street greed). How is this an empowering image for women?
2
From my understanding, Di Modica has not donated Charging Bull to NYC and it is on an extended loan. In fact, he has tried to sell it multiple times--on the condition that the purchaser donate it to the city, and he keeps the profit generated from the sale--but there have been no takers. And it is also my understanding he has taken in profits from souvenirs (and have stopped others from creating souvenirs) based on this work. It seems to me that he has much more than his work of art's reputation at risk, but the commercial value that he has developed over his loan. If he feels that strongly about Fearless Girl damaging Charging Bull's intent, NYC could thank him for generous extended loan and remove his statute. (It may also mean that Di Modica would lose his own revenue stream but that's the price of art.)
6
One day "Fearless Girl" will grow up, get married, have a daughter who will one day stand fast with her fists on her hips and say, "Mom butt out!"
3
The word, "bully" has a very clear definition:
"A person who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker."
Since 'person' no longer suggests animation, it can refer to institutions as well, namely Wall Street, itself associated with aggression, greed, corporate bullying.
A perfect metaphor. No more horsing around - keep Feerless where she is!
"A person who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker."
Since 'person' no longer suggests animation, it can refer to institutions as well, namely Wall Street, itself associated with aggression, greed, corporate bullying.
A perfect metaphor. No more horsing around - keep Feerless where she is!
4
Interesting that the power and potential of women is exemplified by a statue of a little girl. Since at least the 1970's, women have demanded to be seen as adult women on par with adult men. Now, this statue of a child is supposed to be celebrated as a symbol of women's empowerment? No thanks. Put her in front of an elementary school somewhere, and let's have a statute on wall street of one of the female leaders in the world of finance, like Victoria Woodhull and Tennessee Claflin, sisters who were the first women to open their own brokerage house in 1868, or Muriel Siebert, the first woman to buy a seat on the NYSE and the first woman to serve as New York State’s Superintendent of Banks, or Katharine Graham, the first female fortune 500 CEO. Get rid of the girl, and give us a fearless woman.
5
where do your think women come from?
5
Amen.
3
It's easy for a girl to be fearless. She's still protected, and hasn't yet entered the world of men where, unfortunately, she'll have to fight for her place. Especially in the financial world. A fearless girl can easily give up and turn into a timid woman. So, yes, give me a fearless woman who has had a goal in mind and accomplished something. I wish the girl well, but there's no guarantee she'll still be fearless when grown.
1
I agree with Mr. Di Modica, especially as the bull was donated. I would also think that the creator of "Fearless Girl" would understand Mr. Modica's point of view as well and, suggest moving the girl sculpture.
Yes it is an interesting juxtaposition of the two pieces, and as such can be interpreted "for its message about 'the power of women in leadership", and "Fearless Girl" on its (her) own is a wonderful piece. But as an example, if Mr. Di Modica did not approve "Fearless Boy" standing across from the bull, would this even be in the paper? I am surprised at some comments, and also Mayor de Blasio's apparent lack of understanding.
Yes it is an interesting juxtaposition of the two pieces, and as such can be interpreted "for its message about 'the power of women in leadership", and "Fearless Girl" on its (her) own is a wonderful piece. But as an example, if Mr. Di Modica did not approve "Fearless Boy" standing across from the bull, would this even be in the paper? I am surprised at some comments, and also Mayor de Blasio's apparent lack of understanding.
3
Meaning is in the mind of the beholder AND entirely dependent on context, which inevitably changes over time. Any public art lives in an environment of constant flux -- of different people interacting with it differently, amid taxis, pets, street trash, changing weather, autumn leaves, snow, and so on. An alert, honest observer will experience a different meaning from that artwork even from day to day. The meaning is created in the mind of the observer regardless of what the artist intends or desires, and he cannot control it. To deny this truth is to delude oneself.
If another artwork is sited close by, or if social attitudes change, the context becomes different and new meanings will be created and I the artist may be disappointed but, hey, I made it public which means I excepted the risk. If I had wanted to control its meaning once and forever, I should have kept the work in my private studio. Instead I chose to share it and now I see that sharing can be uncomfortable.
If another artwork is sited close by, or if social attitudes change, the context becomes different and new meanings will be created and I the artist may be disappointed but, hey, I made it public which means I excepted the risk. If I had wanted to control its meaning once and forever, I should have kept the work in my private studio. Instead I chose to share it and now I see that sharing can be uncomfortable.
5
The artist would be better served by going after the Wall Street villains who ruined the bull's reputation
11
If DiModica turns the bull around, move Fearless Girl so she's standing directly in front of it. Tiananmen Square.
1
If he really meant the bull to symbolize peace and love, why didn't he depict him chasing butterflies and smelling the flowers like that better known bull Ferdinand.
11
Methinks the artist feels his manhood threatened.
11
Girl=David
Bull=Goliath
'Nuff said.
Bull=Goliath
'Nuff said.
5
I think Di Modica is David, and State Street Global is Goliath. And most of the commenters here are philistines!
2
Mr. Di Modica, would you like some whine with your bull?
7
All I can say is BULL!
6
• ... “Fearless Girl” had subverted the bull’s meaning, which Mr. Di Modica defined as “freedom in the world, peace, strength, power and love.”
Bull! A docile cow might be that.
Mr. Di Modica's interpretation comes 'ex post facto', a narcissistic reaction to a statement for which he has no valid reply. Charging Bull is nothing if not a symbol of absolute male-dominated, capitalist, market power, aggression.
"Talent works, genius creates." ~ ROBERT SCHUMANN
It is Fearless Girl that is emblematic of “freedom in the world, peace, strength, power and love”; of courage, of "speaking truth to power".
The acclaimed Mexican muralist Diego Rivera once notably stated, "If it's not political, it's not Art."
Well, Fearless Girl has given new meaning to the "Lonely Bull", a context, a life; made it the prefect political statement for modern times and, in politicizing the stagnant iconic bull, has created a meaningful work of Art that speaks to everyone.
Public statements require replies, even if perceived as "insult".
The bull is arrogance. Fearless Girl in no way 'diminishes' Raging Bull but elevates it from mere decoration to ART.
You 'fear', Mr, De Modico, a little girl? Sad.
"Art isn't a contest. It's a conversation between artists, living and dead, and between artists and us, too unruly to stick to the neat scripts historians devise for it."
~ MICHAEL KIMMELMAN (4.16.06)
NYTimes columnist, architecture critic and writer on issues of public space and social responsibility.
Bull! A docile cow might be that.
Mr. Di Modica's interpretation comes 'ex post facto', a narcissistic reaction to a statement for which he has no valid reply. Charging Bull is nothing if not a symbol of absolute male-dominated, capitalist, market power, aggression.
"Talent works, genius creates." ~ ROBERT SCHUMANN
It is Fearless Girl that is emblematic of “freedom in the world, peace, strength, power and love”; of courage, of "speaking truth to power".
The acclaimed Mexican muralist Diego Rivera once notably stated, "If it's not political, it's not Art."
Well, Fearless Girl has given new meaning to the "Lonely Bull", a context, a life; made it the prefect political statement for modern times and, in politicizing the stagnant iconic bull, has created a meaningful work of Art that speaks to everyone.
Public statements require replies, even if perceived as "insult".
The bull is arrogance. Fearless Girl in no way 'diminishes' Raging Bull but elevates it from mere decoration to ART.
You 'fear', Mr, De Modico, a little girl? Sad.
"Art isn't a contest. It's a conversation between artists, living and dead, and between artists and us, too unruly to stick to the neat scripts historians devise for it."
~ MICHAEL KIMMELMAN (4.16.06)
NYTimes columnist, architecture critic and writer on issues of public space and social responsibility.
7
Political correctness uber alles.
5
Ok everyone, open your art history books to Richard Serra's Tilted Arc and read the paragraph that discusses its removal from the Foley Federal Plaza in 1985. The trial resulted in the removal of that commissioned work to a storage unit in New Jersey. This establishes a precedent for Mr. Di Modica's suit. In 1990, the VARA amendment was added on to existing copyright law to provide the artist with "moral rights" to the integrity of the piece. So, now Mr. Di Modica's argument must prove that the integrity of his piece is violated by the presence of the "Fearless Girl." Political correctness? animal rights? Wall street protests? Your baggage, and Mr. Di Modica's interpretation of "Fearless Girl" doesn't matter, the meaning of the integrity of "Charging Bull" is all that matters. Mr. Di Modica stated that the meaning of his "Charging Bull" was "in response to the stock market crashes in the late 1980s." How has that meaning changed by "Fearless Girl?" That's one for the court who, one hopes, showed up for art history class that day.
3
@art history anyone?, Thank you! Add the fact that the work has been used without consent for commercial uses, and Di Modica has a solid case.
3
"The lawyers said that “Fearless Girl” had subverted the bull’s meaning, which Mr. Di Modica defined as “freedom in the world, peace, strength, power and love.”
Peace and love? Seriously? It must then be Ferdinand the Bull.
Peace and love? Seriously? It must then be Ferdinand the Bull.
6
What if another artist put the petulant little girl's mother in front of her, imploring her not to kill more kittens? Would all of you still defend changing the meaning of one's art?
Or do you only have principles for that with which you agree?
Or do you only have principles for that with which you agree?
5
So let's stretch credibility a bit here and say that Mr. Di Modica really did intend the bull to represent "freedom in the world, peace, strength, power and love". (Not sure how a charging bull could represent peace and love, but let's pretend.) If that's the case, then the artist's original meaning was lost long ago, as many if not most people now see it as a symbol of rampant greed, corruption and oppression. Why isn't Di Modica concerned with that subversion of his original meaning?
It really looks like what we're dealing with here is one man's jealousy over his creation being temporarily eclipsed by someone else's. A true artist - and especially a truly unselfish artist, which Mr. Di Modica claims to be - should be pleased that new interpretations and new depths are being brought to his work.
It really looks like what we're dealing with here is one man's jealousy over his creation being temporarily eclipsed by someone else's. A true artist - and especially a truly unselfish artist, which Mr. Di Modica claims to be - should be pleased that new interpretations and new depths are being brought to his work.
8
If people keep injecting meanings into the Bull (notice that I did not write "Charging Bull"), it would not be far fetched to infer that the bull is not charging, it is slumping due to animal abuse by humans, etc. That would not be an unreasonable stretching of the mind, for art allows such varied interpretations. But in matters of settling disputations, over an art's meaning, the interpretation that carries weight is the one given by the creator of the art -- the same thing applies to written works and songs. One can interpret "You're So Vain" in whatever way one wants, but the interpretation that matters most in accuracy is that of Carly Simeon.
Mr Di Modica's interpretation of his own art work cannot be ignored simply because some people wanted to alter his creation; that's not fair. What is going on here is irrational political correctness, which was why we (liberals) lost the last presidential election. We have to listen to what others are saying and make a little room for "ignorance" and "intolerance", for we may not be correct at all times.
Mr Di Modica's interpretation of his own art work cannot be ignored simply because some people wanted to alter his creation; that's not fair. What is going on here is irrational political correctness, which was why we (liberals) lost the last presidential election. We have to listen to what others are saying and make a little room for "ignorance" and "intolerance", for we may not be correct at all times.
1
This is the same old Charging Bull of the original intent of the Founding Fathers arguments.
No way to enter the same river twice says Heraclitus "ta panta rhei" and so does the Fearless Girl!
No way to enter the same river twice says Heraclitus "ta panta rhei" and so does the Fearless Girl!
3
nevertheless, she persisted
"She was warned. She was given an explanation. Nevertheless, she persisted.”
In case memories are fading on the origin of that quote, it was uttered by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), in an attempt to defend his & other Senate Republicans' straight-party-line vote to invoke a seldom used and arcane Senate rule to interrupt Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and force her to sit down. Sen. Warren had been reading a 1986 letter by Coretta Scott King, the wife of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr, re the alleged racism of Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL).
The rule (Rule 19) provides that senators may not “directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.” The Senate adopted Rule 19 in response to a 1902 fistfight between 2 Democratic senators, which erupted after one called the other treacherous for being open to the GOP position on certain issues, including the annexation of the Philippines. Aside from a 1979 invocation of the rule (after Sen. Lowell Weicker (R-CT) called Sen. John Heniz (R-PA) "idiot"). Finding other uses of Rule 19 is reportedly a challenge to historians.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/02/08/the-silenc...
I hope that "Fearless Girl," & State Street Global, despite this equally dubious "warning" & "explanation" will similarly "persist."
In case memories are fading on the origin of that quote, it was uttered by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), in an attempt to defend his & other Senate Republicans' straight-party-line vote to invoke a seldom used and arcane Senate rule to interrupt Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and force her to sit down. Sen. Warren had been reading a 1986 letter by Coretta Scott King, the wife of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr, re the alleged racism of Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL).
The rule (Rule 19) provides that senators may not “directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.” The Senate adopted Rule 19 in response to a 1902 fistfight between 2 Democratic senators, which erupted after one called the other treacherous for being open to the GOP position on certain issues, including the annexation of the Philippines. Aside from a 1979 invocation of the rule (after Sen. Lowell Weicker (R-CT) called Sen. John Heniz (R-PA) "idiot"). Finding other uses of Rule 19 is reportedly a challenge to historians.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/02/08/the-silenc...
I hope that "Fearless Girl," & State Street Global, despite this equally dubious "warning" & "explanation" will similarly "persist."
Simple. Just turn the bull 180 degrees away from the girl.
1
A girl made him cry. Boo boo.
5
Just turn the bull around and it will make "Fearless Girl" into "Tormenting Girl"
1
Maybe fearless girl should be facing Trump Tower?
17
This article makes me imagine all the places "Fearless Girl" might go and view in our country in the future. I hadn't thought about the way this defiant stance calls into question the values encased in what she is viewing. I can think of many places in our country that needs a skeptical eye looking at it.
1
Love it when art is discussed in main stream media.
When art leaves the studio, it belongs to the world.
When art leaves the studio, it belongs to the world.
5
What a man-fant! Crying that the original meaning of his sculpture has now been subverted. At least we now know the original meaning of the sculpture. To me it always symbolized Wall St. greed. That is the funny thing about art - cant control what happens in the environment around the art nor how people interact with the art. The artist should immediately seek therapy for his "control issues". Although I would have been more impressed with a bronze sculpture of a "Fearless Woman". That would have spoken greater volumes than a little girl. I know too many grown men who refer to grown woman as girls.
6
The irony is that if Mr. Di Modica is successful in having it removed, we will never again look on his work as he intended. It will be a symbol of intolerance and a target for graffiti for the foreseeable future.
I don't really care for Di Modica's phrasing, but it's a fair argument. I really loved the story of the fearless girl appearing before the bull, but despite all positive invocation, it does distort another's art. Imagine putting another image before Mona Lisa's fixed gaze or maybe a fan blade and some mixed paints near a Pollock. Not to say his art is in measure to those, but I'm just "illustrating" a point.
2
As an artist and in support of women's rights, I agree with the artist, the young lady should be moved to another location. Either that or turn the Bull in another direction. What is now was not what was intended then. Create another piece for the young lady to boldly stand before.
From Wikipedia:
The sculpture was the artist's idea, not the city's. In an act of guerrilla art, Bedi Makky Art Foundry, along with Di Modica, trucked it to Lower Manhattan and on December 15, 1989, installed it beneath a 60-foot (18 m) Christmas tree in the middle of Broad Street in front of the New York Stock Exchange as a Christmas gift to the people of New York. That day, crowds came to look at the bull, with hundreds stopping to admire and analyze it as Di Modica handed out copies of a flier about his artwork."
The sculpture was the artist's idea, not the city's. In an act of guerrilla art, Bedi Makky Art Foundry, along with Di Modica, trucked it to Lower Manhattan and on December 15, 1989, installed it beneath a 60-foot (18 m) Christmas tree in the middle of Broad Street in front of the New York Stock Exchange as a Christmas gift to the people of New York. That day, crowds came to look at the bull, with hundreds stopping to admire and analyze it as Di Modica handed out copies of a flier about his artwork."
Unless you're a member of Wall Street's vampire class, “Charging Bull" has not carried a "positive, optimistic message” for at least a decade. "Fearless Girl" is not the cause, it's a welcome (and useful) symptom.
1
You shouldn't be surprised when a strongly yang-oriented symbol that is *always* depicted as a part of a contrasting diad attracts a strongly yin-oriented symbol for contrast and completion. Small, she operates indirectly, outside the context of the confrontation, and thus threatens the great direct force.
This is one of our public gods depicted in an unbalanced fashion as deliberate spiritual propaganda. That one-sided rendering of the national faith in the Animal Spirits of the Market has clearly influenced many, as can be seen by the strong emotions around the completion of the diad.
Opposition to the current display should provide a more appropriate yin-oriented counterpart to the bull -- if one can be created at this point. I feel like this art has reached its completion and the girl should be made permanent. If the sculptor wanted deference, he should have completed his own work and not left it an open arch begging for a counterpart.
This is one of our public gods depicted in an unbalanced fashion as deliberate spiritual propaganda. That one-sided rendering of the national faith in the Animal Spirits of the Market has clearly influenced many, as can be seen by the strong emotions around the completion of the diad.
Opposition to the current display should provide a more appropriate yin-oriented counterpart to the bull -- if one can be created at this point. I feel like this art has reached its completion and the girl should be made permanent. If the sculptor wanted deference, he should have completed his own work and not left it an open arch begging for a counterpart.
2
et us consider this from a Neutral point of view:
What message should be seen and taken in today’s society. The message to Wall Street and the World should be one of unification. There needs to be more messages about coming together, working as a team, with partnership, showing what great things can be done if everyone puts aside the indifferences and just work as a collective to overcome difficulties, problems, issue, objectives, etc...
Instead of sponsoring one gender/race/age/religion it would have been healthier to show one of equality. Showing, that together as a team, anything can be overcome / accomplished.
The correct statue to have been placed in front of the bull should have been more than a single individual. It should have been 2 or more from both genders linking arms showing again that together adversity can be discouraged. This team of individuals could have be of any age, health, background, etc., further promoting the message; “All individuals are equally important / can make a difference”.
Next, State Street Global Advisors should have been discouraged during the permit process of actively engaging with other existing public objects.
Continue below:
What message should be seen and taken in today’s society. The message to Wall Street and the World should be one of unification. There needs to be more messages about coming together, working as a team, with partnership, showing what great things can be done if everyone puts aside the indifferences and just work as a collective to overcome difficulties, problems, issue, objectives, etc...
Instead of sponsoring one gender/race/age/religion it would have been healthier to show one of equality. Showing, that together as a team, anything can be overcome / accomplished.
The correct statue to have been placed in front of the bull should have been more than a single individual. It should have been 2 or more from both genders linking arms showing again that together adversity can be discouraged. This team of individuals could have be of any age, health, background, etc., further promoting the message; “All individuals are equally important / can make a difference”.
Next, State Street Global Advisors should have been discouraged during the permit process of actively engaging with other existing public objects.
Continue below:
Wait a minute. I'm sure I recall that when the bull statue was first put up, it was sort of "magically" placed on Wall Street without any sort of permit or permission...a giant bronze graffito as it were, and one not universally loved. I fail to see how "Fearless Girl" is any different in that regard. Di Modica is a whiner.
7
Long before "Fearless Girl" represented the hyper-sentimental silliness of the First World "Raging Bull" outlived its relevance as a symbol of financial egalitarianism. We have a trump in the White House. Maybe both sculptures should be removed and replaced with one that depicts a train off its rails.
2
I understand (perhaps incorrectly) that Mr. Di Modica put the bull in place without permission and then extracted a license when people responded positively. Not sure he has any standing to complain when someone else essentially does the same thing. If I am correct about how the bull got there, it's not as though he was commissioned to create the bull in that spot and retained certain rights to its setting and projected image. But perhaps the license he obtained gave him those rights. Time will tell and litigation may be the answer.
1
100% Correct.
Put the girl somewhere else.
Put the girl somewhere else.
The Boston firm stands for gender equality (sounds nice), yet upon reviewing their Leadership Team only 5/28 of the positions are held by women. I call their bluff.
3
Whose streets? Our streets, move the bull to storage or some deep dark corner of the city or to the zoo.
2
Liberals nearly always support artists and their work, especially when they are 'site specific"! Except when they don't!
Yeah, I was wondering how you get to put a giant statue on a city sidewalk.
2
I would have never known about the bull if it wasn't for the fearless girl, Mr. Di Modica.
3
Let me get this straight. An older man is threatened because there's a new girl in town?
5
The artist is 100% right. Why must everything be a confrontation?
So a huge, raging bull on Wall Street represents freedom in the world, peace and love. Who knew?
6
The bull is in no way a symbol of "freedom in the world, peace, strength, power and love". If that were the intent, it would be a cow.
3
"His lawyers said that the bull stands for “freedom in the world, peace, strength, power and love.” - Well, that certainly sounds like bull to me.
4
I live in a country where statues erected for "peace, prosperity, and friendship" switched their message 180 degrees with regime change. On one hand I understand that the artist creates with set goal in mind. On the other, what was a message of hope in 1980's is now symbol of hopelessness. Can't escape the feeling there is more than artistic message at play, perhaps the very ideas that many people see in the bull today. Greed, agressiveness, trumping on other people.
Little girl standing her ground is hardly a fearsome opponent. Or is she?
Little girl standing her ground is hardly a fearsome opponent. Or is she?
6
Di Modica also installed the bull in the middle of the night without a permit. Now he's not only upset about art interacting with art, but he wants to challenge the legality of the permit for the new arrival? Please! Art is as the viewers see it, not only as the artist intends it, as any artist worth her/his salt should know. Plus, if he had just let this artistic event unfold, it would have so much less power than it does now. I'm with the girl - fearless! Mr. Di Modica, let your art go!
5
The artist has the right to demand that the intent behind his expression not be defiled, which is exactly what is happening here. Why not paint a happy face on the wall that is frowning at the Mona Lisa? I wonder how many "fearless girl" supporters would like that? If there was no artistic intent in placing the bull there to begin with, then why have it? I hope he sues and wins.
DiModica exaggerates the bull's importance — it has always represented a bull market (vs a bear market) and while pleasing to look at has zero greater significance.
1
As it is clear that for most of the general public Mr. Di Modica's "Wall Street bull" does not now represent "freedom in the world, peace, strength, power and love," as much as the rampaging destructive greed of Wall Street, perhaps he should move his sculpture to China where the bull (or Ox) has its own "year" and is said to be gifted with many favorable personality traits. Every time the "year of the Ox" (2021) rolls around it would be suitably feted.
2
Picasso on Guernica: When asked to explain his symbolism, Picasso remarked, "It isn't up to the painter to define the symbols. Otherwise it would be better if he wrote them out in so many words! The public who look at the picture must interpret the symbols as they understand them."
Di Modica has no standing to expect the public to accept his interpretation of Charging Bull as the "true" meaning of his work.
Di Modica has no standing to expect the public to accept his interpretation of Charging Bull as the "true" meaning of his work.
9
"Fearless Girl" is clearing standing on a separately paved portion of the plaza from "Charging Bull". She is in no way in "his space". The addition of the girl has made his sculpture even more famous than it was and in no way detracts from the original idea of the design, the heady rush of a bull market. The sculptor really needs to get a grip and stop acting like a typical man confronted by a woman.
6
During one of our many trips to New York City when my boys were much younger, we visited Wall street and viewed the bull close up. What we saw was a raging bull representing the power of money and the bull market of Wall Street. There was nothing in the bull that conveyed love or peace or even freedom in the world, unless one refers to the destructive freedom of unfettered capitalism.
What the Fearless Girl does for the bull is change it from a mere Wall street logo into actual art. Now there is a dynamic and a story; Will the girl tame the bull, or will the bull react in blind male fury as it's creator appears to have and destroy the beautiful? Is Mr. Di Modica disturbed that the girl elevates his work?
It is really a shame that Mr. De Modica has decided a piece he created as "public art" is now his inviolate personal statement. As an artist, he should know this is not how art functions. Perhaps he is most concerned about his copyrights and trademarks. He needs to remember he placed his work in a public space and the girl is a separate sculpture. He does not have the rights of curator in his own personal museum. The little girl has as much or more right to be on Wall Street as his bull. Maybe it is time to remove the bull and keep the Fearless Girl.
What the Fearless Girl does for the bull is change it from a mere Wall street logo into actual art. Now there is a dynamic and a story; Will the girl tame the bull, or will the bull react in blind male fury as it's creator appears to have and destroy the beautiful? Is Mr. Di Modica disturbed that the girl elevates his work?
It is really a shame that Mr. De Modica has decided a piece he created as "public art" is now his inviolate personal statement. As an artist, he should know this is not how art functions. Perhaps he is most concerned about his copyrights and trademarks. He needs to remember he placed his work in a public space and the girl is a separate sculpture. He does not have the rights of curator in his own personal museum. The little girl has as much or more right to be on Wall Street as his bull. Maybe it is time to remove the bull and keep the Fearless Girl.
10
I have always seen "Charging Bull" as a symbol of the threat of rampant capitalism. The author may have had a positive vision of it, but it has never communicated that to me or to many other viewers who've reacted publicly to it. I find the juxtaposition of "Fearless Girl" with "Charging Bull" to be an apt and accurate commentary on the effect of capitalism on the world and on the power of ordinary people to stand up for human values against rampant greed and exploitation. And by the way, for those who follow astrology, I'm a Taurus, whose zodiacal sign is ... The Bull.
49
Just because you like the "Fearless Girl" statue, doesn't mean you should overlook the fact that it does indeed change the original artist's intent with "Charging Bull."
If this was a temporary artistic statement, fine. But if it is a permanent fixture, the artistic implications are damning.
As a writer, I cannot fathom someone taking my work, adding a few paragraphs or a few pages, and ultimately changing the meaning of my work without my consent. That is absolutely what has happened here.
I don't photoshop my work into another artist's photo. I don't paint my own work into another artist's canvas. I don't invent a character and start speaking my own dialogue during another artist's play. And I don't dance my own moves in the middle of another artist's choreography. Why is this OK then?
If this was a temporary artistic statement, fine. But if it is a permanent fixture, the artistic implications are damning.
As a writer, I cannot fathom someone taking my work, adding a few paragraphs or a few pages, and ultimately changing the meaning of my work without my consent. That is absolutely what has happened here.
I don't photoshop my work into another artist's photo. I don't paint my own work into another artist's canvas. I don't invent a character and start speaking my own dialogue during another artist's play. And I don't dance my own moves in the middle of another artist's choreography. Why is this OK then?
42
If Fearless Girl had been riding the bull your argument might have merit but just putting it in proximity is hardly the same as adding paragraphs to an existing book that change its meaning. What you are complaining about is that someone put a book on a shelf next to yours and you're not happy the the titles now read "Bull Market" "Ground Beef Cookbook."
Because it's on public property. It's on land owned by the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation. If Di Modica wanted a canvas that wouldn't ever be contested, he could have installed at a private residence. But he chose guerilla art to get maximum visibility; and the placement of his bull by the Parks Department 2 blocks south in it's now current location is a direct result of public sentiment and a willingness to have the art on public land. Sentiment has changed. If he wishes to preserve the original intent, he can move the sculpture elsewhere. But he doesn't have a right to the public land. Particularly if public sentiment has shifted.
2
Correct. If we defend Bruce Springsteen in objecting to GOP candidates using "Born In The USA" at campaign rallies, we should defend Di Modico here too.
Quite the collective of ignorant comments below. Di modica has clearly stated a deeply held sense of values for his sculpture - every one of which is clearly there when you view the "charging bull" on its own -
All you need do is listen to what the inane Di Blasio claims about the sanctimonious girl statue to understand Di Modica's values have been entirely subverted and diverted!!!!! It has become "raging bull" vs "clueless girl" - "clueless girl" absolutely needs to be moved.
All you need do is listen to what the inane Di Blasio claims about the sanctimonious girl statue to understand Di Modica's values have been entirely subverted and diverted!!!!! It has become "raging bull" vs "clueless girl" - "clueless girl" absolutely needs to be moved.
2
de Blasio should just give his bull back to him. Spare everybody the cost of the lawsuit.
I never could stand the thing.
I never could stand the thing.
1
In what alternate universe has a charging bull - a huge, aggressive, dangerous beast - EVER represented “freedom in the world, peace....and love”?!?
Strength and power, yes - along with aggression, domination, greed. And the kind of "freedom" espoused by Wall St. and the Rightwing Korporate Kleptocracy - which just means the unfettered freedom to manipulate, deceive, cheat, and steal without conscience or consequence.
Whatever Mr. Di Modica's original intent, from the very beginning, that bull represented the "greed is good" mentality as portrayed in the 1987 movie "Wall Street."
OTOH, "Fearless Girl" represents the small, powerless, and voiceless finding their own power in standing up to power. The statue itself is something of a paradox - except for the athletic footwear and fearless, defiant posture, the girl looks quite retro - a cross between a Degas dancer and a 1950s little girl.
Yet that helps make the point, too - her vulnerable "little girl" appearance belies her strength.
Yes, she's a feminist symbol - and I love how women and girls of all ages and ethnicities relate to her and pose with her. But the image would be just as powerful if it were a statue of young black or brown boy.
It's the underdog standing up to the raging bullies of Wall St. and their bought-and-paid-for-politicians.
Strength and power, yes - along with aggression, domination, greed. And the kind of "freedom" espoused by Wall St. and the Rightwing Korporate Kleptocracy - which just means the unfettered freedom to manipulate, deceive, cheat, and steal without conscience or consequence.
Whatever Mr. Di Modica's original intent, from the very beginning, that bull represented the "greed is good" mentality as portrayed in the 1987 movie "Wall Street."
OTOH, "Fearless Girl" represents the small, powerless, and voiceless finding their own power in standing up to power. The statue itself is something of a paradox - except for the athletic footwear and fearless, defiant posture, the girl looks quite retro - a cross between a Degas dancer and a 1950s little girl.
Yet that helps make the point, too - her vulnerable "little girl" appearance belies her strength.
Yes, she's a feminist symbol - and I love how women and girls of all ages and ethnicities relate to her and pose with her. But the image would be just as powerful if it were a statue of young black or brown boy.
It's the underdog standing up to the raging bullies of Wall St. and their bought-and-paid-for-politicians.
72
I recommend you look up what the bull and the bear represent when mentioned in the context of finance.
Sam, I know what the bull and bear represent in finance - and neither has anything to do with “freedom in the world, peace....and love”.
2
Yes women belong in boardrooms and just about anyplace else they would like to be, but one almost wonders whether State Street is funding Mr. Di Modica's lawsuit. This brouhaha comes across as convenient free publicity for them! It also seems like theatrics by an artist who appears to be seeking some recognition or perhaps compensation for himself in his twilight years.
Ironically, none of State Street's top five executives listed in their 2016 proxy materials is a woman and only three of its eleven directors are female. As for Mr. Di Modica, didn't he himself originally placed the bull sculpture in NYC without solicitation or permission? Both sides seem a bit hypocritical.
Ironically, none of State Street's top five executives listed in their 2016 proxy materials is a woman and only three of its eleven directors are female. As for Mr. Di Modica, didn't he himself originally placed the bull sculpture in NYC without solicitation or permission? Both sides seem a bit hypocritical.
2
Awww... Is the big bad bull afraid of the little bity girl?
Priceless!
Priceless!
65
Actually, yes. And that is at the root of all misogyny in the world. It is as simple as that.
3
Personally, I would rather remove the bull, but if fearless girl has to go, please relocate her to just outside the Oval Office.
9
Give Fearless Girl a hamburger and leave her alone.
1
That's pretty funny. Of course she "undermines" the nature of his work - male testosterone driven greed and capitalism.
- you got to hand it to the little girl, she's got the big bad bull intimidated:-)
- you got to hand it to the little girl, she's got the big bad bull intimidated:-)
1
Who owns the statue of the bull? I realize it is copy written but that just means it cannot be reproduced without his permission. He doesn't own the area around the bull. Grow up sir.
1
The bull's meaning had better be stated on the plaque (if there is one) because I, personally, don't perceive "freedom in the world, peace, strength, power and love." I sense power through the unbridled capitalism championed by Wall Street, which I consider to be a negative force and a threat to the future of humanity. But hey, I'm not much of an art aficionado, maybe I just don't feel the love.
There had better be some hard documentation of "intent" because you can't just manufacture "intent" now because you feel threatened by a "threatening" little girl. If our contract laws and copyright laws rule in your favor, then I suggest the City just give you back your bull and you can then take it home and use it as a lawn ornament. The bull is yours, the space is not. I, for one, would be very happy to see it gone.
There had better be some hard documentation of "intent" because you can't just manufacture "intent" now because you feel threatened by a "threatening" little girl. If our contract laws and copyright laws rule in your favor, then I suggest the City just give you back your bull and you can then take it home and use it as a lawn ornament. The bull is yours, the space is not. I, for one, would be very happy to see it gone.
5
Arturo di Modica, may I introduce you to Richard Serra? His mighty and brilliant Tilted Arc in Foley Square lost to public opinion and so will your bull.
2
I'm so happy to read that this little girl intimidates you, Mr. Di Monica.
6
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. This guy needs a life. And as for the IP lawyers in the midst of this, the Fearless Girl is temporary anyway, and the dispute will be moot.
And by the way - this guy has obviously never met a real bull.
And by the way - this guy has obviously never met a real bull.
2
I think that Mr. Di Modica does have some point in that Fearless Girl changes his installation rather dramatically. I'm not sure I agree with removing her but perhaps she could move. Perhaps she could move regularly. How great would it be to have this as a traveling installation that faces other installations across NYC? Or perhaps the world? I love the symbolism and think it could become an attraction and a fresh conversation wherever she goes. Or, if she stays. I suspect that most real women face a range of challenges in their lives, though as I type this I guess maybe it is, in fact, just the "same old bull'...".
3
Do New Yorkers have nothing more important to worry about
1
I had never looked very closely at his sculpture until this new one was installed nearby and created all this discussion and buzz. I rather like the image of a defiant little girl facing off against a big, beautiful, powerful bull. The dialogue between them would be diminished if either piece were removed or altered at this point, and they both have something to say about how we Americans perceive ourselves. Exactly what you'd hope from public art.
3
Context, context, context. You CAN have it both ways. Hey the Girl could be facing the Bull and thinking "Yeah give me some of that".
The Bull looks like it is about to come over and off the little Girl a ride.
Looks to me like there's a place for both of these powerful figures on the street corner.
The Bull looks like it is about to come over and off the little Girl a ride.
Looks to me like there's a place for both of these powerful figures on the street corner.
1
Quick, somebody make a bronze sculpture of the bull artist as a baby in a diaper and put it on top of the bull.
2
If the bull can't stand up to an opposing viewpoint then it's just that - bull.
1
Keep the girl -- ditch the bull!
If both these statues were in a popular museum, say MOMA where they would get a lot of exposure, and a curator placed them in the same context, would we even be having this conversation?
This whole debacle is about attention and money. The Charging Bull artist is acting like he can protect his art when it's been released into the world. Like children, art must take on a life of it's own as it interacts with the world. You can't "own" art once it's out there, unless you plan on paying for it the rest of your life.
Since when does a charging bull represent love and a peaceful world anyway? Been around bulls much?
This whole debacle is about attention and money. The Charging Bull artist is acting like he can protect his art when it's been released into the world. Like children, art must take on a life of it's own as it interacts with the world. You can't "own" art once it's out there, unless you plan on paying for it the rest of your life.
Since when does a charging bull represent love and a peaceful world anyway? Been around bulls much?
1
Does Arturo Di Modica still own the statue? No he doesn't.
If I bought a Picasso and defaced it, can the Picasso family come after me? No, they can't.
Isn't this the essence of capitalism? Isn't that what the bull is supposed to stand for?
Yes, in capitalism, the owners get to call the shots.
If I bought a Picasso and defaced it, can the Picasso family come after me? No, they can't.
Isn't this the essence of capitalism? Isn't that what the bull is supposed to stand for?
Yes, in capitalism, the owners get to call the shots.
1
Excellent. A battle between two pieces of crappy public modern "art."
A modern art solution is required.
Let Christop's wrap both objects to hide them from public view.
Why does Christop's only get to mess up natural views? Let's turn him on the art world.
Also Christos should use his "art" to neutralize the blight of modern architecture.
He could wrap the Zakim bridge and calm the Boston viewshed.
A modern art solution is required.
Let Christop's wrap both objects to hide them from public view.
Why does Christop's only get to mess up natural views? Let's turn him on the art world.
Also Christos should use his "art" to neutralize the blight of modern architecture.
He could wrap the Zakim bridge and calm the Boston viewshed.
2
Methinks he doth protest too much. How dare a woman, let alone a girl, stand up to a male, mindless symbol of masculinity. Its down right un-American. We deserve the bull, which is half the word that symbolizes Wall Street.
Y'all started it. Be men and put up with it. Of course being a man is different than being male. I doubt the Wall Street posers (and thieves) are quite up to that.
Y'all started it. Be men and put up with it. Of course being a man is different than being male. I doubt the Wall Street posers (and thieves) are quite up to that.
4
Who owns the Charging Bull? Who owns the real estate the Charging Bull and the Fearless Girl stand on?
It is ridiculous to assert the right of an artist of how their work will be displayed long after it has been donated or bought. Will artists start suing museums if they do no do not like how it is hung? If he still owns it he can take it home or wherever he will be allowed to be displayed it.
If in fact there some legal rational to protect the Charging Bull from the Fearless Girl, the girl stays and the bull goes.
It is ridiculous to assert the right of an artist of how their work will be displayed long after it has been donated or bought. Will artists start suing museums if they do no do not like how it is hung? If he still owns it he can take it home or wherever he will be allowed to be displayed it.
If in fact there some legal rational to protect the Charging Bull from the Fearless Girl, the girl stays and the bull goes.
1
If the bull can't stand up to an opposing viewpoint then it's just that - bull.
2
Puleeeeeez! Get over it.
1
I'm with Di Modica on this one
3
First world problems.
Aren't artists supposed to let the public's interpretation of their interpretation be given respect when it comes to publicly displayed sculpture?
If De Modica does not like the way people are interpreting his "Bull in front of Wall Street" and responding to it with "A Fearless Girl Staring Down the Bull"...then he should relocate his art.
We'll all be happy to see the tamed bull relocated somewhere else, and then the Fearless Girl turned around to stare directly at the Wall Street buildings...to hopefully vacate them off all the financial fraudsters and manipulator.
The Wall Street Bull should be tamed, and all the Bullish Wall Street Boys should be eliminated.
If De Modica does not like the way people are interpreting his "Bull in front of Wall Street" and responding to it with "A Fearless Girl Staring Down the Bull"...then he should relocate his art.
We'll all be happy to see the tamed bull relocated somewhere else, and then the Fearless Girl turned around to stare directly at the Wall Street buildings...to hopefully vacate them off all the financial fraudsters and manipulator.
The Wall Street Bull should be tamed, and all the Bullish Wall Street Boys should be eliminated.
2
Mr. Di Monica should wander over to Grant's tomb and reflect.
Time to castrate the wild bull for all the lives he's trampled.
2
I've always associated that bull with the outrageous excesses of Wall Street that led to the depression and brought this country to its knees. Hats off to Fearless Girl for her stance. Bull artist, get over it.
3
Ugh...another example of tone-deafness in what seems like a never ending stream of it. Mr. Di Modica, put your fragile ego aside and look at the bigger (and much more important) picture. It would do you a world of good to look at all the contexts here and see that they can co-exist. Threatening litigation only makes you look small, petty and self-centered. In the end, regardless if the "Fearless Girl" remains or not, your reputation will be stained; not because of it, but because of your own arrogance.
51
Simple solution: move the Bull. It's run its course.
Huh. Not sure how the artist thought we were supposed to get a "peace & love" message from an angry charging bull on Wall Street. I look at it and see a tribute to the violence of the market.
The artist should not try to stamp out another work of art. Instead he should understand that his sculpture doesn't work as intended. If he wants to get the bull away from the girl, the bull should retreat. The bull can literally be put out to pasture -- moved to a field in a rural landscape where it can take on yet another meaning.
The artist should not try to stamp out another work of art. Instead he should understand that his sculpture doesn't work as intended. If he wants to get the bull away from the girl, the bull should retreat. The bull can literally be put out to pasture -- moved to a field in a rural landscape where it can take on yet another meaning.
4
The girl is a response to the bull. Di Modica put the bull there for a reason. It was well received at the time. It is a beautifully done sculpture of a powerful, angry, male animal. The girl is a response that Di Modica didn't expect. Times have changed and people don't tolerate being bullied. Di Modica, your sculpture is in a public place and you refuse to try to understand the response of this Fearless Girl who speaks for all the fearless people in this world. This is a conversation and you want to sue to shut her up? Are you really so weak you cannot endure a conversation which has a different interpretation of your bull? This bull is not about "love and peace".
5
How about the bull's rights? Free the bull from cheap corporate publicity! Remove the fearless girl and place her where she should be directly in front of Trump Tower. How's that for a more true political statement?
1
I'm split on this, but perhaps the perspective the courts should take should have to do with actual perspective. If a subject were to stand in front of the bull looking towards the south, than this installation is a casting of a girl standing defiantly with her back to Staten Island. If the subject stood in front of the girl, the bull has the same perspective as it did before. If an out of towner wants to pose for a pic with his head up the bull's bum, you get it.
The bull has no embellishment that would make it so very unique, plus it's a near literal interpretation of industry jargon that predates the art, and the chosen venue was a public space which comes with caveats, so I hope that nobody (including the courts) pay much mind to this fight.
Regardless of what plays out, I am very glad to see Norman Siegel is still plying his craft to help the masses of kids who have been poisoned with lead. (that last part was sarcastic to anyone who didn't get the joke).
The bull has no embellishment that would make it so very unique, plus it's a near literal interpretation of industry jargon that predates the art, and the chosen venue was a public space which comes with caveats, so I hope that nobody (including the courts) pay much mind to this fight.
Regardless of what plays out, I am very glad to see Norman Siegel is still plying his craft to help the masses of kids who have been poisoned with lead. (that last part was sarcastic to anyone who didn't get the joke).
1
The attitude of Mr. Di Modica, shared by many insecure GOP voters is precisely why we have a misogynistic bully in the White House. I hope New Yorkers protest this artist's demand to have "Fearless Girl" moved. She is exactly what this country needs to empower.
2
Just because you have a RIGHT to do something does not entail that you OUGHT to do it. Yes, Mr. Di Modica has a right to remove the Fearless Girl statue. But I also have the right to swear at my mother. Ought either of these things happen? Doubtful. This is chance for Mr. Di Modica to publicly acknowledge the dynamism of art, and to accept how his work has been subject to reinterpretation. Instead, he is being petty and demanding to hold onto the "good old days" when wall street stood and fought for......peace and love...
2
“She’s there attacking the bull,” he said.
A little girl attacking a bull? Seriously? The Bull doesn't represent any of the things Mr Di Modica says it does, it is a symbol of financial powerhouses. The bullish, brutish manner in which they shove aside all others in the name of corporate gain. The image of the Fearless Girl is brilliant, conjuring an the idea that enough is enough, we are standing up to these reckless economic rogues and will not allow them to plow blindly on at the expense of everyone else. Mr Di Modica should be ashamed of himself for condeming this when his work is finally part of something good.
A little girl attacking a bull? Seriously? The Bull doesn't represent any of the things Mr Di Modica says it does, it is a symbol of financial powerhouses. The bullish, brutish manner in which they shove aside all others in the name of corporate gain. The image of the Fearless Girl is brilliant, conjuring an the idea that enough is enough, we are standing up to these reckless economic rogues and will not allow them to plow blindly on at the expense of everyone else. Mr Di Modica should be ashamed of himself for condeming this when his work is finally part of something good.
3
"Fearless Girl" has not distorted the optimistic vision the artist meant to imbue the bull with when he first created the bull. The abject corruption and heartlessness of Wall Street did that.
4
Oh please. Artists juxtapose images all the time. "Charging Bull" is in a public space. The proximity of "Fearless Girl" challenges the viewer and promotes meaningful conversation. I say let her stay, at least for a while...
1
I was driving by when I first saw the Fearless Girl and I thought it was a human girl for a few seconds. As enchanting as it is, and since it represents power, according to its creators, the proper place for it is not in front of the Bull, whose creator says does not represent power. The Bull's creator is entitled to not have his work distorted through politically correctness. At almost 30 years of age, the three weeks' old Fearless Girl ought not to disturb the Bull's peace and space. Please take away the Fearless Girl for the sake of artistic freedom and purity. She has her own charm and she can sustain herself wherever she is placed henceforth.
2
It is unfortunate that the context has changed the original meaning of his sculpture. The times are a'changing...and it is not the 1980's anymore...great art always provokes conversation...it is just that he was not expecting this type of confrontation...
"Fearless Girl" is plainly does not exist in the absence of a threat, without which, she's just a waif on a street corner absent context. In this way, Kristen Visbal lacked any independent creative context and plagiarized Modica's work... recasting it as her own message. It's really shameful, to be honest, that she could not conceive relevant art absent contrast to another artist.
3
As a novelist, I find it strange that Arturo Di Modica has apparently never understood the fact that when exhibits one's art in public by any means (publishing, performance, installation, particularly in an outdoor, public space), one completely cedes control of it. One's work becomes the property of the *public,* which is free to interpret, understand, misunderstand, reinvent, subvert, satirize & even ridicule it in whatever way it wishes.
This is particularly true when one is fortunate enough to have one's work before the public for 30 years -- and even more so when one's work is installed in "the public square," where every person who needs to pass the location in question cannot escape one's art even if they wanted to.
One might as well ask the pigeons not to poop on it.
If one is extremely talented and fortunate -- a Shakespeare or a Beethoven -- one's work continues to find an audience (or at least persist in public) for hundreds of years after one's death. In that case, one not only one cedes control to audience, but also lacks even any knowledge of the subsequent fortunes and ultimate fate of one's work.
But one needs only to glance at "Charging Bull" to see that Mr. Di Modica would be unlikely to understand the fundamental relationship between a work of art and its audience, & that (no coincidence) neither is he a Shakespeare or Beethoven.
This is particularly true when one is fortunate enough to have one's work before the public for 30 years -- and even more so when one's work is installed in "the public square," where every person who needs to pass the location in question cannot escape one's art even if they wanted to.
One might as well ask the pigeons not to poop on it.
If one is extremely talented and fortunate -- a Shakespeare or a Beethoven -- one's work continues to find an audience (or at least persist in public) for hundreds of years after one's death. In that case, one not only one cedes control to audience, but also lacks even any knowledge of the subsequent fortunes and ultimate fate of one's work.
But one needs only to glance at "Charging Bull" to see that Mr. Di Modica would be unlikely to understand the fundamental relationship between a work of art and its audience, & that (no coincidence) neither is he a Shakespeare or Beethoven.
1
She's not moving.
Charging Bull is a master piece and fearless girl is getting advantage of it. The girl is nothing without the bull facing her. Mr. Moddica is right.
3
All over the world, sculptures are situated in a certain setting and then that setting changes over time. The argument that a sculptor is entitled to guarantees about the zoning of an area or patch of land in order for the work to be seen "in a certain way" does not wash. Di Monica is either attempting to get a bit of publicity, or simply manifesting the blatant kind of sexism that makes "Fearless Girl" such a priceless addition to Wall Street. Women and daughters have also contributed to the economy that has made human Civilization possible. Our contributions are enormous; our remuneration paltry, taken in toto. Plus, as the photo shows, there is plenty of space between the two works to admire them separately -- exactly as one would in a museum. Congratulations to all concerned. You, too, Arturo. Now please stop complaining. There are sculptors as good as you and better who would love to have the kind of attention you get every day. Don't be envious, and don't be sexist.
1
I lived just up Crosby St from Di Modica's studio watching this bull and other similarly old-school bronze & stone take shape in his storefront.
As an art student living in the post-punk, neo-expressionist graffiti-art-strewn still-industrial soho while being patronized by a motley bunch of failed, chain-smoking postmodernist 'professors' all craving self-validating disciples, it was refreshing to see an actual sculptor working in actual materials & forms.
He'd offered me a job grinding bronze, but alas I was too busy fighting for my sculptural freedom against teachers trying to dismantle the history of art with their egos through minimalism, constructivism, conceptualism & every other snarky postmodern insult to sculptural form.
It was the time of the Reagan-era yuppie stock market boom & concurrent art-market ostentation, so it somehow wasn't all that surprising to see this thing land in the middle of the night on Wall St.
But it is surprising that Arturo DiModica would take issue with this apt addendum to his original blast of macho modernism, which was, after all, itself an uninvited bit of guerrilla-art vandalism long before it became his copyrighted iconic claim-to-fame.
Di Modica should welcome 'Fearless Girl' to the installation & stop sounding so insulted. After all, the great Luis Jimenez didn't sue Di Modica for appropriating the original inspiration for this bull, so Arturo should chill out & take the attention as a compliment.
As an art student living in the post-punk, neo-expressionist graffiti-art-strewn still-industrial soho while being patronized by a motley bunch of failed, chain-smoking postmodernist 'professors' all craving self-validating disciples, it was refreshing to see an actual sculptor working in actual materials & forms.
He'd offered me a job grinding bronze, but alas I was too busy fighting for my sculptural freedom against teachers trying to dismantle the history of art with their egos through minimalism, constructivism, conceptualism & every other snarky postmodern insult to sculptural form.
It was the time of the Reagan-era yuppie stock market boom & concurrent art-market ostentation, so it somehow wasn't all that surprising to see this thing land in the middle of the night on Wall St.
But it is surprising that Arturo DiModica would take issue with this apt addendum to his original blast of macho modernism, which was, after all, itself an uninvited bit of guerrilla-art vandalism long before it became his copyrighted iconic claim-to-fame.
Di Modica should welcome 'Fearless Girl' to the installation & stop sounding so insulted. After all, the great Luis Jimenez didn't sue Di Modica for appropriating the original inspiration for this bull, so Arturo should chill out & take the attention as a compliment.
2
It changes the meaning of the piece, its disrespectful to the artist. It would be like putting a mustache on the Mona Lisa.
3
A white girl in a ponytail and dress is not the face of feminism in NYC. NYC is 70% non-white and has over 270K LGBTQ residents. This art piece was installed by an out-of-state artist with a corporate background who saw an opportunity with the Women's March. Maybe she meant well, but it completely misrepresents and trivializes the feminists of NYC.
1
A few facts might help:
Who owns the land on which the sculptures sit?
Who owns the sculptures?
What contracts have Mr. Di Modica and the owners of the land executed?
If the land is public, what are the rules and policies under which the sculptures are displayed?
This article is not up to the NYT standard of excellence.
Who owns the land on which the sculptures sit?
Who owns the sculptures?
What contracts have Mr. Di Modica and the owners of the land executed?
If the land is public, what are the rules and policies under which the sculptures are displayed?
This article is not up to the NYT standard of excellence.
1
Mr. Di Modica should be ashamed of himself.
1
Easy solution to this artist's distress -- remove his sculpture. His artwork is on display at the City's discretion; he doesn't own the sidewalk, and if he's got an issue, I say 30-years for a sculpture being on public display is enough time.
3
Meaning is alive and being actively contested. We should appreciate the moment. Ideally anybody could participate in shaping its next iteration.
"State Street Global Advisors" versus artist, wherein the "Global Advisors" represent themselves as bearers of the moral high ground.
I sympathize with Di Modica, who crafted a piece only to see its meaning subverted.
The contest over its meaning remains active. His next step could be to rotate his sculpture 180 degrees along the y axis.
"State Street Global Advisors" versus artist, wherein the "Global Advisors" represent themselves as bearers of the moral high ground.
I sympathize with Di Modica, who crafted a piece only to see its meaning subverted.
The contest over its meaning remains active. His next step could be to rotate his sculpture 180 degrees along the y axis.
2
As time goes by the context withinh which every art exists changes and so does the perception and interpretation of the art.
The old interpretation will still exists in historical context but I think it's pointless for an artist to argue with the change of perception of his art with regards to the change of the world itself. This change should help us reflect on the art in a better and more complex way.
I'm sure Da Vinci never meant for Mona Lisa to be held behind glass and other artists never wanted their works hidden in collections, isolated from the public and any context. Art always was and is supposed to interact with the world in one way way or another. And as the world changes so does art.
The old interpretation will still exists in historical context but I think it's pointless for an artist to argue with the change of perception of his art with regards to the change of the world itself. This change should help us reflect on the art in a better and more complex way.
I'm sure Da Vinci never meant for Mona Lisa to be held behind glass and other artists never wanted their works hidden in collections, isolated from the public and any context. Art always was and is supposed to interact with the world in one way way or another. And as the world changes so does art.
2
As a grown woman who has worked in a male dominated industry (oil business) for 20 years, I have observed that men hire what I like to call little girls but not women. Female employees are then made to stay in relatively junior roles, until they give up and leave the business. They are replaced by new little girls who think feminism is a joke because look they have a chance at this just like the boys. Most of the girls have no children or other responsibilities and when they do they leave for good. I'm sorry but a little girl cannot embody my struggle a little girl has not really experienced sexism. The statue misses the point completely and perpetuates the notion that there is no difference between a little girl and a woman.
4
Reminds me of what was said about infighting in Academia:
The intensity of the feelings and struggle are inversely proportional to the importance of the actual matters at stake.
The intensity of the feelings and struggle are inversely proportional to the importance of the actual matters at stake.
1
What a moot argument. Neither statue inspires justice, equality, tolerance. "Fearless Girl" depicts an age group with no legal standing in the workforce, its presumed aspiration -- of a future when female Wall Street executives get paid the same multimillions as their male counterparts -- hardly a message we should promote, internalize, and promulgate.
2
Public art doesn't exist in a controlled museum context. By definition it's part of a changing public environment. The artist can't expect to maintain control over the surroundings. It's conceivable another piece of art (or other public works) could come along and alter the meaning of the girl, too. That's the nature of anything that resides in the public space.
55
Let me get this straight. The bull statue has been there for 30 years and now the guy who made it is complaining about more artwork being installed nearby? Wow. Insecure much?
36
I predict he will change his mind pretty soon and ta da! another news story. Especially if he has a Trumpian awakening ("I changed my mind.").
7
Inspiring and enduring works of art cluster in close company across the globe at museums, academic institutions, private collections, and yes--public places. The fact that a Le Brun portrait is hanging next to a Gainsborough portrait does not rob either work of its individual merit and the effect each has on me.
I acknowledge that the claim here isn't that proximity alone has a deleterious effect but rather that the two works seem to interacring, creating a new piece all togther. However, each piece can easily be viewed in isolation from the other should a viewer choose to do so.
As for me, I am proud and blessed to live in a city where we have access to pieces of this caliibre at all, where each inspires public celebration and is woven into our cultural identity.
I acknowledge that the claim here isn't that proximity alone has a deleterious effect but rather that the two works seem to interacring, creating a new piece all togther. However, each piece can easily be viewed in isolation from the other should a viewer choose to do so.
As for me, I am proud and blessed to live in a city where we have access to pieces of this caliibre at all, where each inspires public celebration and is woven into our cultural identity.
11
Fearless Girl is the representation that liberals and their childlike ignorance are stifling prosperity for all.
8
And Charging Bull is the representation that conservatives and their moral ignorance are stifling humanity?
3
Sorry my friend- the "liberals" are the ones who have basically created and built every viable new business in this country in the last 40 years.
4
Nevertheless, she persists...
I hope she wins.
I hope she wins.
53
If DiModica succeeds in turning his statue, it will look like Fearless Girl will have averted the bull. Not sure which imagery is more powerful, the face off or the turned statue, particularly if it's a 180.
2
Yesss. She Persists.
FTW.
Unbelievable. The art work is either he property of NYC taxpayers, or it is placed in a public place at our sufferance. We can juxtapose any other work, or indeed any object, as we see fit.
I have watched with alarm the growing privatization of our public commons ("alienation" the lawyers call it - though "enclosure" would be more historically apt) but this takes the cake. The sculptor wants to dictate to the city where and how his art will be displayed on public land?!?!
If it is ours, I say we mothball it in a warehouse. If it belongs to him; give it back. Either way, get it off our streets.
I have watched with alarm the growing privatization of our public commons ("alienation" the lawyers call it - though "enclosure" would be more historically apt) but this takes the cake. The sculptor wants to dictate to the city where and how his art will be displayed on public land?!?!
If it is ours, I say we mothball it in a warehouse. If it belongs to him; give it back. Either way, get it off our streets.
40
Yes, actually Cormac, artists DO have control over how their work is exhibited.
Imagine, if you will, that a novel is parted out, and incorporated within another piece of literature. It makes little difference whether the result is public property. The process constitutes copyright infringement.
Imagine, if you will, that a novel is parted out, and incorporated within another piece of literature. It makes little difference whether the result is public property. The process constitutes copyright infringement.
2
At first I liked the “fearless girl,” and thought it was a clever comment on the bull, which brought the two works to a higher level. I have mixed feelings about altering the original intent of any artist’s work without consent. But I set that aside for values I hold which I thought this culture displayed.
But over time the work has not held up for me. First, I walk past it nearly every day, and see the huge throngs of tourists, and can’t help but think the mayor’s generous permit extension is more tied to revenue than morality.
As for the artistic merits, I have wondered: why depict a girl, not a grown woman? Why is the girl white? Why is she such a safe distance away from the bull, not challenging it more directly? Most importantly, it’s interesting that most people understand the work to suggests that women in general should stand up to patriarchy - but that’s not really it. The piece was commissioned to promote female leadership on corporate boards. And it was done to draw admirable attention to State Street Global. In other worlds, this is very effective marketing which co-opts feminism at the service of patriarchy.
Now, none of that will matter to a little tourist girl who sees the work and feels empowered. That’s good. But let’s not kid ourselves. This message has a narrow purpose, and it is not to harm the bull.
So, I completely understand the Mr. De Modica’s complaint that the bull “has been transformed into a negative force.”
But over time the work has not held up for me. First, I walk past it nearly every day, and see the huge throngs of tourists, and can’t help but think the mayor’s generous permit extension is more tied to revenue than morality.
As for the artistic merits, I have wondered: why depict a girl, not a grown woman? Why is the girl white? Why is she such a safe distance away from the bull, not challenging it more directly? Most importantly, it’s interesting that most people understand the work to suggests that women in general should stand up to patriarchy - but that’s not really it. The piece was commissioned to promote female leadership on corporate boards. And it was done to draw admirable attention to State Street Global. In other worlds, this is very effective marketing which co-opts feminism at the service of patriarchy.
Now, none of that will matter to a little tourist girl who sees the work and feels empowered. That’s good. But let’s not kid ourselves. This message has a narrow purpose, and it is not to harm the bull.
So, I completely understand the Mr. De Modica’s complaint that the bull “has been transformed into a negative force.”
118
Picky, picky, picky. "Why not a group of females? Why not a cow?" At the end of the day, your argument boils down to exactly one thing: how dare the submissive sex challenge the testosterone-fuelled masters of the universe? How dare we remind you that we exist, that we matter, that we stand alongside, that perhaps we are right to expect something better?
1
Yeah State Street Global with very few women at the top, quite hypocritical on their part. And as for race of the sculpture, who in hell cares? Let's make her purple to encompass all colors of every nation. Would that make you feel better?
1
Here's another interpretation of both pieces together:
Bull is preparing to charge towards the girl. She stands still, braced for impact, waiting. We see them at the tense moment before true intentions of both parties are clearly visible. Would it be impossible for the to meet halfway without violence? Impossible to show anything but aggression with how the animal is shaped, but the idea of an understanding is there - just squint, and you'll see. It's in that negative space between them.
Maybe the tourists are obscuring that. ;)
Bull is preparing to charge towards the girl. She stands still, braced for impact, waiting. We see them at the tense moment before true intentions of both parties are clearly visible. Would it be impossible for the to meet halfway without violence? Impossible to show anything but aggression with how the animal is shaped, but the idea of an understanding is there - just squint, and you'll see. It's in that negative space between them.
Maybe the tourists are obscuring that. ;)
Mr Di Modica is originally from Italy. Civil law countries have a different relationship to art and copyright. Whatever legal nonsense his lawyers are spouting, he is essentially arguing moral rights, i.e. that he has an ongoing right to control the context in which his art is presented. Unfortunately for him, that's a concept which doesn't exist in American copyright law.
He could have achieved a lot more just by writing an op-ed about the misinterpretation of his work. He may even have a legitimate point, and it's certainly up for discussion. The lawsuit is a mistake.
He could have achieved a lot more just by writing an op-ed about the misinterpretation of his work. He may even have a legitimate point, and it's certainly up for discussion. The lawsuit is a mistake.
87
VARA was incorporated into US Copyright Law in 1990. But it's about moral rights and really has nothing to do with copyright. The European droit moral laws are much stronger. Di Modica's sculpture is in the US, not in France, so VARA would apply.
I personally don't see any VARA violations here. I agree with you, the lawsuit is a mistake and the artist would have served his message better had he written an article.
I personally don't see any VARA violations here. I agree with you, the lawsuit is a mistake and the artist would have served his message better had he written an article.
Appears the artist has conveniently forgotten the guerrilla origins of his own work. Appears he has also forgotten that it was public opinion that led to the 'permanent' installation of Charging Bull on Broadway. But now he's opposed to the public opinion that likes the placement of Fearless Girl. He also appears to be tone deaf to the current symbolism of the Charging Bull as one of greed, sexism, racism, etc.
If Di Monica wants to reclaim his donation of the sculpture to the city, let him cart it away. Fearless Girl -- even with her corporate origins -- communicates a powerful message in 2017 and she deserves a prominent place in the Financial District.
If Di Monica wants to reclaim his donation of the sculpture to the city, let him cart it away. Fearless Girl -- even with her corporate origins -- communicates a powerful message in 2017 and she deserves a prominent place in the Financial District.
27
Not w/o the bull she doesn't.
He has a point. The Fearless girl only exists as a counterpoint to the Bull sculpture, and was meant to be and therefore creates one sculptural piece, where one sculptor simply, rightly does not want to be a part of the ‘new’ sculpture. The sculptor of the Bull should have been consulted and provided permission for the Fearless girl to exist in the same sculptural space.
16
His lawyers are grasping at straws.... In the history of art I'm willing to bet one cannot find a bull that represents freedom, peace and love. That's not what Di Modica initially said in 1989 when he dumped it on Wall St. near the NYSE in the middle of night, and without permission. It was a "gift" to America where anyone could come, work hard, and succeed. That's a far cry from "freedom in the world, peace, strength, power and love".
A bull represents male power and superiority, with strength to "bull" doze anyone in its path. The Bull is a symbol of a strong market in which participants are optimistic and confident (just to be polite). One must have excess money to participate.
If Di Modica feels so hurt, he can have it moved. He initially deposited the Bull in the dead of night on Wall St. near the NYSE, and without permission. NYSE did not like it (no kidding!) and it found another home a few blocks away.
Here's a quote from Investopedia: "Man (sic) onlookers...believe that the Charging Bull brings luck, prosperity and a good financial day, but on one condition. And that is to rub the Bull in the rear on his testicles..."
So much for freedom in the world, peace, love....
A bull represents male power and superiority, with strength to "bull" doze anyone in its path. The Bull is a symbol of a strong market in which participants are optimistic and confident (just to be polite). One must have excess money to participate.
If Di Modica feels so hurt, he can have it moved. He initially deposited the Bull in the dead of night on Wall St. near the NYSE, and without permission. NYSE did not like it (no kidding!) and it found another home a few blocks away.
Here's a quote from Investopedia: "Man (sic) onlookers...believe that the Charging Bull brings luck, prosperity and a good financial day, but on one condition. And that is to rub the Bull in the rear on his testicles..."
So much for freedom in the world, peace, love....
21
It's not even a gift...he retained ownership, despite what he said, and now he wants even more control. Seems like a whole lotta bull to me.
3
You nailed it.
1
Forget about Wall Street and all the unholiness it represents for a moment and just consider that if there was no "Charging Bull" there would have been no "Fearless Corporate Gimmick". The bull can exist quite comfortably without the girl but the girl exists only as a parasite upon the bull. It is vandalism as sure as if you has doused it with a can of paint. Would there be the same gloating if she had been parked in front of Michelangelo's "David" in the name of protesting male hegemony? Why not move her to the top of the tower at Columbus Circle, where she can confront the statue of Christopher Columbus for all his sins? Anyone who finds this even mildly emboldening is barking up the wrong tree and has doubtlessly never created a thing in their lives.
25
Prefer the girl to the bull, thank you.
1
Warren Wilhelm needs to make records concerning the placement of this second statue public. If they do refer to its position relative to the bull, then the artist is correct: his creation has been hijacked.
9
His creation was a donation to the City of New York, which has the right to display public art any way they please.
1
Wouldn't having them side by side resolve the dilemna?
Thanks, but as a grown woman and feminist I don't find the "Girl Power" message particularly inspiring. In fact, it's a little demeaning. And I sympathize with the artist who had his work hijacked.
140
I do not see how your dislike of the Fearless Girl leads to conclude that the Bull was hijacked. If we had a grown woman facing the bull, it would be ok?
I agree that men deal much better with little smart girls than with smart grown women. I am just not looking at it that way, simply thinking of young girls that will be happy to imagine themselves changing the world- if they act in coordinated form, they may achieve something. I also like the idea of little boys looking at it and growing up respecting the might of girls. That would also change the world. Sadly for us grown women, it might be too late - I am a realist in this- been fighting for too long to think otherwise.
I agree that men deal much better with little smart girls than with smart grown women. I am just not looking at it that way, simply thinking of young girls that will be happy to imagine themselves changing the world- if they act in coordinated form, they may achieve something. I also like the idea of little boys looking at it and growing up respecting the might of girls. That would also change the world. Sadly for us grown women, it might be too late - I am a realist in this- been fighting for too long to think otherwise.
1
Perhaps an artist his age is more concerned with legacy that others can understand. Perhaps it makes him plain sad that a piece of work he made is cast so obviously the villain. I can understand that. I also don't mind the attention "Fearless Girl" brings to issues not normally on the minds of Wall Street. So a net good overall because of this brouhaha.
33
Here is the sad thing. The presence of the girl does not make the bull the villain. That is only one interpretation. If you look at the girl and bull as one piece, which they are not, you could easily see the possibility of the girl taming the bull. The bull is a wild and confused animal. I see the dynamic between the two pieces as an exciting story. Would people be happier if there was a fence to protect the bull from the girl, or the girl from the bull?
1
Mr. Modica and his legal posse might want to consider taking an extended vacation, and take his hot-blooded longhorn bull with him. An artist may legitimately claim ownership to an artwork's design, but nothing in copyright law protects either the work or the copyright owner from parody, ridicule, or scorn. If juxtaposing that artwork with another that changes the overall context of the two (or more) when viewed together, so be it. I can even imagine someone placing a Spanish bullfighter within viewing distance, reinforcing the notion that for most of us, that bull is only three degrees of separation from becoming a Big Mac.
The conceptual framework that Wall Street projects as its own conceit would have to be that the financial services industry sees the bull (along with investors generally) with the same eyes as the bullfighter, that is, as meat on the hoof. Put the bull sculpture at the front gate of a meatpacking plant, and voila, all that high-flown financial industry symbolism is instantly replaced with the reality that the statuary does indeed symbolize 'meat on the hoof'.
The conceptual framework that Wall Street projects as its own conceit would have to be that the financial services industry sees the bull (along with investors generally) with the same eyes as the bullfighter, that is, as meat on the hoof. Put the bull sculpture at the front gate of a meatpacking plant, and voila, all that high-flown financial industry symbolism is instantly replaced with the reality that the statuary does indeed symbolize 'meat on the hoof'.
16
The girl is the matador who will tame the beast without killing it. the meatpacking district would be an apt placement for the bull. The poor beast.
1
"She's there attacking the bull," he said.
This is almost Onion-worthy.
This is almost Onion-worthy.
62
I don't see freedom, peace and love in the bull. I see machismo unleashed.
And I do see freedom, peace and love in the girl.
Mr. DiModica, I think doesn't want to share space with the feminine side of things.
And I do see freedom, peace and love in the girl.
Mr. DiModica, I think doesn't want to share space with the feminine side of things.
18
Alas, Kegel, you can't recognise your own sexism.
I can understand his argument only in that if there was no Bull there, then the girl doesn't make any sense as she would be out of context. This by definition changes the original work as they can't really be divorced.
In that way, it's almost like Kristen Visbal has stolen Arturo's work and made it her own. The only way Di Modica can regain his work is to remove it, or perhaps to somehow change it so the two pieces aren't confronting each other.
How would Visbal like it if someone sculpted a man to appear to step in front of the girl to "protect" her? Or if someone added trinkets that made the girl to appear materialistic?
Would it be OK to put a sculpture of a man with a shot gun facing down the bull where the girl is? It's a strange issue to contend with.
In the end of the day, I think he should change the context of the scene if he is upset. Vidal changed it, so why can't he?
In that way, it's almost like Kristen Visbal has stolen Arturo's work and made it her own. The only way Di Modica can regain his work is to remove it, or perhaps to somehow change it so the two pieces aren't confronting each other.
How would Visbal like it if someone sculpted a man to appear to step in front of the girl to "protect" her? Or if someone added trinkets that made the girl to appear materialistic?
Would it be OK to put a sculpture of a man with a shot gun facing down the bull where the girl is? It's a strange issue to contend with.
In the end of the day, I think he should change the context of the scene if he is upset. Vidal changed it, so why can't he?
13
Ah we need a matador!
When does a bull statue reflect "freedom in the world, peace, strength, power and love"? I'll give you two of those, but the rest are a delusional stretch.
23
Fearless Girl is an addition to an already existing work of art. Fearless Girl is not a "stand alone" work of art. The artist who created the bull did not invite, nor did he give permission for another artist to make an addition to his work.
Hundreds of women wrote comments on the NY Times Facebook link to this article insulting DiModica for being a man. Is this what we worked so hard to achieve over the last few decades? The right to insult and demean someone because of their gender?
If a woman had been the creator of the bull and a male artist made an unwanted addition to her work would we be outraged? I think we would be.
Hundreds of women wrote comments on the NY Times Facebook link to this article insulting DiModica for being a man. Is this what we worked so hard to achieve over the last few decades? The right to insult and demean someone because of their gender?
If a woman had been the creator of the bull and a male artist made an unwanted addition to her work would we be outraged? I think we would be.
108
Nonsense. His "work" is limited to the statue itself. He has no claim over the area surrounding it. The idea that he has been "violated" in any way is simply ridiculous.
23
I disagree, "Fearless Girl" could stand anywhere and still be a worthy piece of art. But for now, she chooses to stare down the bull.
Remove the bull. Leave the girl. Problem solved.
1
As an artist, I love Fearless Girl. But as an intellectual property lawyer, I will say that Mr. Da Modica has a valid legal argument.
Fearless Girl is a work of art that incorporates Charging Bull without permission of the copyright owner. Unauthorized use of a copyrighted work--unless it falls within some narrow exceptions--is straight up copyright infringement.
In my opinion, Mr. Da Modica is absolutely correct that Fearless Girl completely changes his sculpture's meaning. You can't control how people view your copyrighted work necessarily, but you can certainly prohibit them from using it without authorization. The relevant factual question would be, does Fearless Girl use the bull sculpture.
Fearless Girl is great, but people are unfairly attacking Mr. Da Modica. He could have easily and justifiably simply filed what would be a very strong claim for infringement--but he hasn't. He's trying to work things out. THAT is a rare find, indeed.
Fearless Girl is a work of art that incorporates Charging Bull without permission of the copyright owner. Unauthorized use of a copyrighted work--unless it falls within some narrow exceptions--is straight up copyright infringement.
In my opinion, Mr. Da Modica is absolutely correct that Fearless Girl completely changes his sculpture's meaning. You can't control how people view your copyrighted work necessarily, but you can certainly prohibit them from using it without authorization. The relevant factual question would be, does Fearless Girl use the bull sculpture.
Fearless Girl is great, but people are unfairly attacking Mr. Da Modica. He could have easily and justifiably simply filed what would be a very strong claim for infringement--but he hasn't. He's trying to work things out. THAT is a rare find, indeed.
150
Do we need another lawyer here? Really? Da Modica, would his art be as famous without Wall Street? Where else could he put his bull? The only thing missing here is some bronze fecal matter strategically placed near the bull. Let's move on for crying out loud!
2
I already interpreted the bull as an obnoxious representation of greed. Fearless Girl hasn't changed that.
1
Sorry, but as an intellectual property lawyer you should remember that _copy_right only prevents copying... there is no protection against juxtaposition if it is the original that is juxtaposed. And, as the article indicates, VARA happened after Charging Bull, so is inapplicable. No IP infractions have been committed here.
3
Di Modica is quite correct. The presence of Fearless Girl totally misrepresents the meaning of Charging Bull. It was never labelled with the interpretation as expressing masculine dominance, but rather the economic strength of Wall Street and of investors in that market. The girl now stands in condemnation of a non-existent implication, serving solely to arouse a visceral response to a supposed meaning that didn't exist -- until the girl's artist, and those who permitted its installation in opposition to the bull, invented it. It is, bluntly, a cheap shot.
The presence and defense of Fearless Girl in that installation is just another example of PC thought going over the edge.
The presence and defense of Fearless Girl in that installation is just another example of PC thought going over the edge.
97
"just another example of PC thought going over the edge."
You man like dictating to taxpayers how they may display their property because you happ no to have made it some years back? That kind of PC?
You man like dictating to taxpayers how they may display their property because you happ no to have made it some years back? That kind of PC?
Mr. DiModica and Texas Liberal both assert an entitlement that does not exist in public space.
The additional sculpture represents the people Wall St repeatedly, heartlessly tramples. It is far more important than a charging bull.
1
I'm reminded of Bernini's Fountain of the Rivers, which he constructed directly in front of the church of St Agnes- built at roughly the same time by his rival Borromini. The figures in his fountain are literally shielding their eyes from the church, and one is holding up his arms as if the church will fall upon them at any moment. Classic example of an artistic statement directly engaging and subverting the meaning of another artistic statement. Funny that Borromini didn't feel the need to get his lawyers involved
161
Nah. It is just a mixed metaphor now. He's not a sculpted; he's a grouchy bear awaking from torpor to complete the original and make the competing metaphor stronger than ever.
Visitors to Rome hear this story frequently but its an urban legend. Even Romans seem to like the tale. Bernini and Borromini were rivals no doubt but the fountain predates the baroque church by several years.
Loved your comment but found this in Wikipedia:
"A legend, common with tour-guides, is that Bernini positioned the cowering Rio de la Plata River as if the sculpture was fearing the facade of the church of Sant'Agnese by his rival Borromini could crumble against him; in fact, the fountain was completed several years before Borromini began work on the church."
"A legend, common with tour-guides, is that Bernini positioned the cowering Rio de la Plata River as if the sculpture was fearing the facade of the church of Sant'Agnese by his rival Borromini could crumble against him; in fact, the fountain was completed several years before Borromini began work on the church."
Waa waa - I am going to take my Bull and go home . . . (and likely he would if he could).
Fearless Girl takes nothing away from Charging Bull. They actually enhance each other. It is more about Fearless Girl getting the attention she deserves. And temporarily getting perhaps more attention than CB. That is what artists do - make statements about life and changing times. Di Monica seems locked in the past and unable to reconcile his art with a changing world.
Fearless Girl takes nothing away from Charging Bull. They actually enhance each other. It is more about Fearless Girl getting the attention she deserves. And temporarily getting perhaps more attention than CB. That is what artists do - make statements about life and changing times. Di Monica seems locked in the past and unable to reconcile his art with a changing world.
10
How appropriate. Wall Street (bull and bull artists) exploit the vulnerable (little girl) for financial gain (ego satisfaction).
5
On 2nd thought:
Arturo Di Modica's argument is similar to his sculpture's horns: A point here and a point there, and a lot of bull between!
Arturo Di Modica's argument is similar to his sculpture's horns: A point here and a point there, and a lot of bull between!
15
Even before the girl was there, the bull always looked to me like it was going to gore someone, an apt symbol for how Wall has trampled middle class Americans through lying, swindling and so forth. I suppose it might look like a symbol of optimism to the "masters of the universe", but to me it looks more like a threat.
21
I am a feminist, but I hate this defiant-girl statue and its juxtaposition to the bull. The whole concept looks like "Pipi Longstockings takes on Wall St." and the idea of a precocious child, of any gender, standing up to power is just not real. Most importantly, why do we need to depict the quality of strength and competence in a woman like a defiant child 'standing tall'?
I've seen such defiance from a child toward many a well-meaning adult who isn't at that moment giving her or him her way. Their parents may have told them that they are speaking truth to power, but to me it seems like a reflection of our current culture which 'empowers' children beyond their abilities or understanding, much to their detriment, and wrecks any possibility of humility as an adult.
I've seen such defiance from a child toward many a well-meaning adult who isn't at that moment giving her or him her way. Their parents may have told them that they are speaking truth to power, but to me it seems like a reflection of our current culture which 'empowers' children beyond their abilities or understanding, much to their detriment, and wrecks any possibility of humility as an adult.
108
I agree that it makes feminism look cheap, cute and kitschy. Nevermind that a white girl in a ponytail and dress is not the face of feminism in NYC. NYC is 70% non-white and has over 270K LGBTQ residents. This art piece was installed by an out-of-state artist with a corporate background who saw an opportunity with the Women's March. Maybe she meant well, but it completely misrepresents and trivializes us.
1
Pipi Longstocking is exactly who empowered me when I was a young girl. In fact Pipi Longstocking still empowers me today as a old woman. Go Pipi!
4
How do you feel about Malala Yousafzai? I would say that her standing up to power was real! I choose to think of girls and women like her when I look at Fearless Girl.
The sculptor needs to grow up! Art is art and each individual will make his/her own interpretation no matter what the artist meant! And how did Mr. DiModica feel about the scene in the movie 'Hitch' when the Wall Streeter was standing with his head up the Bull's rear end! Was that image consistent with his 'meaning?!?!'
The sculptor needs to grow up! Art is art and each individual will make his/her own interpretation no matter what the artist meant! And how did Mr. DiModica feel about the scene in the movie 'Hitch' when the Wall Streeter was standing with his head up the Bull's rear end! Was that image consistent with his 'meaning?!?!'
4
The global emotion and reflection this girl has stirred, is an artistic achievement in itself
10
"She was warned. She was given an explanation. Nevertheless, she persisted.”
In case memories are fading on the origin of that quote, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said it. He was attempting to defend his & the rest of the Senate GOP's straight-party-line vote to invoke a seldom used, arcane Senate rule to interrupt Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) & force her to sit down. Sen. Warren had been reading a 1986 letter by Coretta Scott King, the wife of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr, re the alleged racism of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL).
The rule (Rule 19) provides that senators may not “directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.” The Senate adopted Rule 19 in response to a 1902 fistfight between 2 Democratic senators, which erupted after one called the other "treacherous" for being too open to the GOP position on certain issues. Aside from a 1979 invocation of the rule (after Sen. Lowell Weicker (R-CT) called Sen. John Heniz (R-PA) an "idiot"), finding other uses of Rule 19 is reportedly a challenge to historians.
See https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/02/08/the-silenc...
Just as Sen. Warren has triumphed on social media, I hope "Fearless Girl," & State Street Global, despite this equally dubious "warning" & "explanation," will similarly "persist."
In case memories are fading on the origin of that quote, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said it. He was attempting to defend his & the rest of the Senate GOP's straight-party-line vote to invoke a seldom used, arcane Senate rule to interrupt Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) & force her to sit down. Sen. Warren had been reading a 1986 letter by Coretta Scott King, the wife of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr, re the alleged racism of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL).
The rule (Rule 19) provides that senators may not “directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.” The Senate adopted Rule 19 in response to a 1902 fistfight between 2 Democratic senators, which erupted after one called the other "treacherous" for being too open to the GOP position on certain issues. Aside from a 1979 invocation of the rule (after Sen. Lowell Weicker (R-CT) called Sen. John Heniz (R-PA) an "idiot"), finding other uses of Rule 19 is reportedly a challenge to historians.
See https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/02/08/the-silenc...
Just as Sen. Warren has triumphed on social media, I hope "Fearless Girl," & State Street Global, despite this equally dubious "warning" & "explanation," will similarly "persist."
18
Senator Warren was pilloried in the media and made laughing stock in the majority of social media postings I saw. As well she might have been trying to capitalize on her slight american indian ancestry. I predict that "Fearless girl" will be quietly moved to a new location sooner rather than later when the mayor hopes the row has faded from the media spotlight
I would move the bull to a museum and put a statue of an actual corrupt banker or something in its place just to make sure we won't have mixed messages.
11
A piece of art and its meaning are subjective to the beholder. Its interesting that Di Monica so concerned about how his creation is perceived - an artist's job is not to bully patrons towards a viewpoint.
22
Au contraire, rjb, artists are coercive by nature. That's Art101!
Both "Charging Bull" and "Fearless Girl" can hardly be called outstanding pieces of art. They should move both statues to some rich person's back yard.
7
The bull is an impressive, even beautiful, sculpture on its own, but it's essentially represented to me a type of obscene wealth and bully corporatists. Have only seen the shorty with it in recent photos.
9
It's public art, times change and the girl should stay. It shows how thin skinned and shallow the sculptor is. He should applaud the company and attention it has brought his "old, tired message" - just give me a break and move on dude.
39
Astonishing that veteran civil liberties lawyer Norman Siegel is on the side of the artist trying to use an apparently bogus claim under the Visual Artists Rights Act (not trademark and not quite copyright) to suppress the free speech rights of the "Fearless Girl" sculptor and of those who chose to place the art work in juxtaposition to DiModica's.
Had the Fearless Girl been placed ON the bull, it seems to me there could have been a claim for violation of the VARA right of integrity. But placing the statue in juxtaposition to another -- does this mean that any time a curator hangs one museum piece near another museum piece to make an statement about the first that its creator does not approve, VARA is violated?
Silly.
Had the Fearless Girl been placed ON the bull, it seems to me there could have been a claim for violation of the VARA right of integrity. But placing the statue in juxtaposition to another -- does this mean that any time a curator hangs one museum piece near another museum piece to make an statement about the first that its creator does not approve, VARA is violated?
Silly.
290
Except that the placement of the girl figure gains it's meaning directly from being close to and opposite the bull, and is clearly intended to be seen as connected in meaning. I admire Di Modica for speaking up in defense of his artwork. Whoever put the girl figure in that spot was asking for a confrontation, and now they're getting it.
2
"Charging Bull" has a meaning without "Fearless Girl"
"Fearless Girl" has meaning only in the context of facing "Charging Bull". With no "Charging Bull", "Fearless Girl" would not have the same meaning. Similarly, "Charging Bull" takes on a different meaning by being opposite "Fearless Girl".
It's derivative and relies on his work for any meaning, so he has a right to be upset. And that doesn't even get to the point that its an advertisement that relies on his work for to generate publicity for State Street.
"Fearless Girl" has meaning only in the context of facing "Charging Bull". With no "Charging Bull", "Fearless Girl" would not have the same meaning. Similarly, "Charging Bull" takes on a different meaning by being opposite "Fearless Girl".
It's derivative and relies on his work for any meaning, so he has a right to be upset. And that doesn't even get to the point that its an advertisement that relies on his work for to generate publicity for State Street.
1
Thank you. You nailed it.
1
"Fearless Girl" has meaning in the context of facing "Charging Bull". Without "Charging Bull", the statue "Fearless Girl" would not have the same power. Likewise "Charging Bull" takes on a different meaning by being opposite "Fearless Girl".
Therefore it makes sense that the creator of "Charging Bull" should feel that his iconic artwork had been appropriated without his permission.
Therefore it makes sense that the creator of "Charging Bull" should feel that his iconic artwork had been appropriated without his permission.
88
Right -- and he should sue to prevent the negative comments too. Since "Charging Bull" takes on a different meaning when it starts looking like bull. Also, I think all construction in NYC should come to a halt now, since the creator of the site-specific piece put it in a New York now long rebuilt.
3
His artwork is in a public space that he does not (and should not) control. How, exactly, has his statue been "appropriated?"
7
He can always take his bull away. Both the bull and the girl have the same right to be where they are.
1
Mr. Di Modica says that Fearless Girl is "there attacking the bull." That is a recognition of her power. I say let the four-foot-tall girl attack the three-and-half-ton Charging Bull.
251
Attacking? Oh pity the poor little bull! Just as we pity the tanks in Tiananmen Square that were attacked by a young boy.
It is ironic. The Fearless Girl is attacking the bull, has echos of Trump saying we (the richest and most powerful nation in the world) are being taken advantage of, economically "raped" by the rest of the world. SAD
1
The lawyers said that “Fearless Girl” had subverted the bull’s meaning,
Right! "Fearless Girl" does exactly that, which is why it may be an effective piece of public art. Mr. Di Modica should know that no artist--or architect--gets the privilege of having his artwork stand with on fixed meaning immutable in perpetuity. Art is a discourse not a monologue. Mr. Di Modica should stop his absurd posturing, which only detracts from the strength of his work.
Right! "Fearless Girl" does exactly that, which is why it may be an effective piece of public art. Mr. Di Modica should know that no artist--or architect--gets the privilege of having his artwork stand with on fixed meaning immutable in perpetuity. Art is a discourse not a monologue. Mr. Di Modica should stop his absurd posturing, which only detracts from the strength of his work.
364
Actually you have undermined your own argument.
The possible interpretations of Mr. DiModica's work are truncated by the addition of another piece that is dependent upon his work to have meaning.
It is not absurd to want to have one's work maintain the intention of the maker. Context in an artwork is not a side issue- it is always considered.
It is silly to say that "the strength of his work" is dependent upon anyone else's appropriation of his work into theirs.
The possible interpretations of Mr. DiModica's work are truncated by the addition of another piece that is dependent upon his work to have meaning.
It is not absurd to want to have one's work maintain the intention of the maker. Context in an artwork is not a side issue- it is always considered.
It is silly to say that "the strength of his work" is dependent upon anyone else's appropriation of his work into theirs.
1
What if Mr. Di Modica turned the bull around and backed it up to the little girl's face, would you still defend "subverting" someone's else's art?
Or do you conveniently do so now only because you happen to agree with the subverted meaning?
Or do you conveniently do so now only because you happen to agree with the subverted meaning?
Unless they copyright it, and he has done exactly that. The fearless girl uses the image of the bull, without which it isn't even close to as powerful an image. Textbook case of infringement.
If this isn't a perfect metaphor for our recent election, I dunno what is.
23
It's time that Wall Street was cut down to size as the useful servant of our society that it was meant to be, not its master. Compelling "Charging Bull" to coexist on the same ground with "Fearless Girl" is a powerful symbol of what should be.
32
How silly. Who do you think Wall Street is and why should they should be "cut down to size"? Why do you feel as if a simple exchange has become your master? Perhaps you need help to resolve these delusions.
As far as the "Fearless Girl"; I think it is cute - at best, nothing more - nothing less.
As far as the "Fearless Girl"; I think it is cute - at best, nothing more - nothing less.
1
Paul, Wall Street represents disproportionate power. It once was a simple exchange, whose function was to provide businesses with a way to raise money, for a reasonable rate of return. Now, it seems, businesses are supposed to provide unreasonably high rates of return for Wall Street - or else......
2
If Mr. Di Modica is so offended and insulted by the little girl, he should be allowed to remove the bull. I would be quite pleased to have this brave girl become he new guardian of Wall St.
33
It's striking how few people understand what State Street intended by the Fearless Girl, or what Di Modica intended by the Charging Bull.
Everyone is welcome to their headcanon, but you might want to briefly Google these statues before piping up.
Everyone is welcome to their headcanon, but you might want to briefly Google these statues before piping up.
3
What's "striking" is how little an artist's intent matters once an artwork is placed on display. The power of art lies in the meaning imparted by the viewers' reactions to it.
1
Sounds strikingly similar to the infamous Claude Monet vs Edourad Manet squabble in the 19th century. Both were French impressionist painters. Monet painted a ton of landscapes and scenes while Manet did a lot of work with people as the main subjects.
Both detested having their works displayed together in the same galleries. Each believed he was better than the other, and they often fought with one another – witnesses attesting to paint brush strikes, Velázquez palette slaps, and easel topplings!
Monet: outdoor scenes, tried to kill himself, married twice, two kids from the first woman, retired to Giverny and finally made some loot in his later days.
Manet: indoor scenes and people, war scenes, shared a girlfriend with his dad, died of some nasty stuff at a relatively early age.
Both detested having their works displayed together in the same galleries. Each believed he was better than the other, and they often fought with one another – witnesses attesting to paint brush strikes, Velázquez palette slaps, and easel topplings!
Monet: outdoor scenes, tried to kill himself, married twice, two kids from the first woman, retired to Giverny and finally made some loot in his later days.
Manet: indoor scenes and people, war scenes, shared a girlfriend with his dad, died of some nasty stuff at a relatively early age.
1
Neither statue is even close to being in the same league as the works of Monet or Manet. The statues are eyesores. It seems that at least the mayor likes them.
8
This situation raises some intriguing questions. Where do one artist's "rights" end and another's begin? Arguably Kristen Visbal ("Fearless Girl" sculptor) co-opted (exploited?) Mr. DiModica's art for her own message, and altered his work in the process.
I'm hard-pressed to think of another art "problem" like this one. If anyone knows of a parallel example, past or present, I'm all ears.
I'm hard-pressed to think of another art "problem" like this one. If anyone knows of a parallel example, past or present, I'm all ears.
7
Musically, artists 'sample' and thus alter our perceptions of the original work – – all the time, right?
4
Are you kidding? Artists of all kinds do this constantly. It's called "talking to" the works of the past.
"Shamela" did it to "Pamela," just as "Spamalot" did it to "Camelot." "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" did it to the "Le Morte d'Arthur." Everything from "Mission: Impossible" to "Get Smart" to "Austin Powers" did it to the James Bond movies (and novels). Every rapper who had sampled the riffs of earlier songs did it, too. Manet's "Déjeuner sur l'herbe" did it to Titian's "Venus of Urbino," Goya's "Maja desnuda" and Ingres's "Grande Odalisque."
Even the New Testament did it to the Old!
"Shamela" did it to "Pamela," just as "Spamalot" did it to "Camelot." "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" did it to the "Le Morte d'Arthur." Everything from "Mission: Impossible" to "Get Smart" to "Austin Powers" did it to the James Bond movies (and novels). Every rapper who had sampled the riffs of earlier songs did it, too. Manet's "Déjeuner sur l'herbe" did it to Titian's "Venus of Urbino," Goya's "Maja desnuda" and Ingres's "Grande Odalisque."
Even the New Testament did it to the Old!
12
Are you kidding? Artists of all kinds do this constantly. It's called "talking to" the works of the past.
"Shamela" did it to "Pamela," just as "Spamalot" did it to "Camelot." "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" did it to the "Le Morte d'Arthur." Everything from "Mission: Impossible" to "Get Smart" to "Austin Powers" did it to the James Bond movies (and novels). Every rapper who had sampled the riffs of earlier songs did it, too. Manet's "Olympia" did it to Titian's "Venus of Urbino," Goya's "Maja desnuda" and Ingres's "Grande Odalisque."
Even the New Testament did it to the Old!
[fixing error]
"Shamela" did it to "Pamela," just as "Spamalot" did it to "Camelot." "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" did it to the "Le Morte d'Arthur." Everything from "Mission: Impossible" to "Get Smart" to "Austin Powers" did it to the James Bond movies (and novels). Every rapper who had sampled the riffs of earlier songs did it, too. Manet's "Olympia" did it to Titian's "Venus of Urbino," Goya's "Maja desnuda" and Ingres's "Grande Odalisque."
Even the New Testament did it to the Old!
[fixing error]
6
Di Modica placed his bull in a public space. It seems that a good share of the public wants to place the bull in a new context that reflects changing times and attitudes - towards Wall Street, machismo and women. I recall not liking the bull when I first saw it. A symbol of love and peace?? C'mon! I saw a tribute to machismo and the power of money. Now I feel better about the bull - there is a girl, standing up to machismo and Wall Street greed - what a great message for little girls and boys around the world who will come by!
If Di Modica wants his bull to be viewed by the public he has to accept how the public wants to view his art.
If Di Modica wants his bull to be viewed by the public he has to accept how the public wants to view his art.
57
This goes as one of the stupidest controversies ever between two mediocre artists and their ugly "works," trying to call attention to their awful works and boost (manipulate, as in SEC lingo) their market prices.
4
Could not agree more, thank nitwit social media and its power to debase anything.
As long as these two creations remain as is, we have an apt symbol and metaphor for the childish, dysfunctional state of public discourse. Thus, the meaning of "art", NYC, 2017 AD..
As long as these two creations remain as is, we have an apt symbol and metaphor for the childish, dysfunctional state of public discourse. Thus, the meaning of "art", NYC, 2017 AD..
1
This guy needs to get his ego in check.
32
How can an artist demand that all people adopt a single interpretation of his work? Is that how he views art? I think most of the art world would disagree.
And who says that on public property there cannot be two works of art near each other?
But maybe they should remove the 4-foot girl. That way, they can replace her with a 14-foot one. That's right, we just added 10 feet to the girl.
And who says that on public property there cannot be two works of art near each other?
But maybe they should remove the 4-foot girl. That way, they can replace her with a 14-foot one. That's right, we just added 10 feet to the girl.
38
Fearless girl makes mister artist mad. Boo hoo.
46
A charging bull as a symbol of peace and love? Someone needs to send Mr. Di Modica to Pamplona.
Keep the girl. Replace the bull.
Keep the girl. Replace the bull.
43
The idea that "Fearless Girl" is "attacking the bull" may be one of the most pointed examples of male privilege and failure to perceive power imbalance imaginable.
189
@DR: Bingo!
1
It's a dance
8
I understand the fearless angle, but what is supposed to be the outcome of the metaphorical confrontation? The girl either stops the bull, metaphorically being the cause of an end to economic success, or she gets trampled (literally or by being washed out betting against the market) and her fearlessness is just foolhardiness. It always seemed a bit like hubris the have a literal golden calf in the place on earth most associated with worshipping money, but the fearless girl seems even less well-thought-out.
5
Naaah. Don't overthink it. Someone is just standing up to it. When someone speaks up with good intent, other people often listen and stand up too. For instance, phone videos of violence to innocent people, or yesterday's United Airlines fiasco....
3
Snap out of it! The work is part of an ever changing urban environment. How about if we start dressing up the bull like they do with the mannaquin pis in Brussels.
18
What if we put giant buttocks over the little girl's head as "part of an ever changing urban environment". Could I then tell you to "snap out of it" if you complained?
Nothing says white male quite like the slings and arrows sufffered by artists threatened by little girls. Will he audition for Blanche DuBois In Strretcar, next?
27
'Fearless Girl' has not changed the meaning of 'The Bull' at all ~ Wall Street has managed to do that all by itself...
43
Sad when an artist is incapable of understanding that art provokes a response, especially in a public space.
38
Dear Mr. DiModica,
You created a work of art. That art is in place and has not been defaced. Your right, I suppose, is for it to stay where it was installed (and I doubt even that; it is very rare for an artist to have a permanent say in where or how their art is installed). But you do NOT have the right to dictate what goes next to your art, or how people interpret your art. As an artist, you of all people should realize that. The ability for a work of art to mean different things and be interpreted different ways is one of the great powers of art. You as an artist should be the LAST person complaining that your art is being reinterpreted in light of another artwork placed next to it. In fact, to the extent that the placement of Fearless Girl where it is has led to a new discussion of what your work means you should be thrilled. Your attempt to stifle speech goes against everything that art stands for. In fact, your attempt to stifle this particular artwork ironically illustrates exactly why it is so important. Sorry, but I am not sympathetic.
You created a work of art. That art is in place and has not been defaced. Your right, I suppose, is for it to stay where it was installed (and I doubt even that; it is very rare for an artist to have a permanent say in where or how their art is installed). But you do NOT have the right to dictate what goes next to your art, or how people interpret your art. As an artist, you of all people should realize that. The ability for a work of art to mean different things and be interpreted different ways is one of the great powers of art. You as an artist should be the LAST person complaining that your art is being reinterpreted in light of another artwork placed next to it. In fact, to the extent that the placement of Fearless Girl where it is has led to a new discussion of what your work means you should be thrilled. Your attempt to stifle speech goes against everything that art stands for. In fact, your attempt to stifle this particular artwork ironically illustrates exactly why it is so important. Sorry, but I am not sympathetic.
127
It should also be noted that "Charging Bull" is a piece of guerrilla art. Mr. Di Modica placed it in the middle of Broad Street under a Christmas tree in 1989 as a "present" to the people of New York. (While he was there handing out fliers about the work.) That it is currently installed in the plaza at Bowling Green was due to its popularity with the public.
So it was acceptable for him place a rather large statue without permits and rely on public goodwill for permanent installation, but it's not okay for State Street to have placed a statue with the permission of New York City?
So it was acceptable for him place a rather large statue without permits and rely on public goodwill for permanent installation, but it's not okay for State Street to have placed a statue with the permission of New York City?
13
Who said it is a work of art? (Personally I think it is an embarrassing cartoon.) Charging Bull ended up where it is today by default. Di Modica dumped it on Wall St. in the middle of the night with no warning and no permission.
4
It's a public space. Mr Modica doesn't have anything to say about what is placed near his statue. If he wants his poor bull to not be challenged by other art he can buy it back, get a truck and move it to his garage. He doesn't own that space.
34
Actually, he never even had permission to put it there. He initially deposited it in the dead of night on Wall St. near the NYSE, without anybody's permission!
NYSE didn't want it--it ended up where it is today by default.
NYSE didn't want it--it ended up where it is today by default.
6
That raging, fire-breathing, monster of a bull represents peace and love? Now I know I don't have to pay any attention to what this guy says.
43
"Fearless Girl" is the only thing that makes "Charging Bull" the least bit interesting. On its own the bull is a silly, trite cartoon of every cliche it purports to represent.
54
Arturo, take your bull and go home. The juxtaposition of the two sculptures creates an inchoate tension that invites viewers to think about issues, to think about more than the bull itself. It's a wonderful example of the role that art can play. You should be grateful for the dynamic tension created by the sculpture of the girl.
51
This guy is right up there with Martin Skhreli in the (how to put this politely?) Grinch Department.
He must be jealous of Shkreli's 2016 "Most Hated Person or the Year" award.
Also, how, exactly, does a charging bull stand for "freedom in the world, peace ... and love"?
Okay, I'm going to make a statue of Ted Bundy and claim its meaning is "respect for others."
He must be jealous of Shkreli's 2016 "Most Hated Person or the Year" award.
Also, how, exactly, does a charging bull stand for "freedom in the world, peace ... and love"?
Okay, I'm going to make a statue of Ted Bundy and claim its meaning is "respect for others."
44
Mr. Seigel and his cabal of lawyers are precisely the reason Fearless Girl needs to stay. I can't believe the umbrage they've raised themselves to over her TEMPORARY placement.
Capitalism now represents the best interests of 1% of Americans. Capitalism is why Dr. Dao was forcibly removed from UAL flight: the bull charging after the almighty dollar, knocking everything meaningful out of it's way in the process.
Literally.
Capitalism now represents the best interests of 1% of Americans. Capitalism is why Dr. Dao was forcibly removed from UAL flight: the bull charging after the almighty dollar, knocking everything meaningful out of it's way in the process.
Literally.
10
We should be glad that Norman Siegel no longer heads the ACLU's New York City chapter. Does he have better cases to defend?
3
Issues of gender aside, Fearless Girl, as it stands, coopts the the autonomy of Charging Bull as a stand alone work of art, effectively turning both pieces into a single statement. Regardless of what the public thinks about the message of the newly conjoined pieces, I totally agree with Modici's right to call out the city's violation of his artistic intent.
9
How is she changing his expression of a booming economy though? His statement still stands unchanged. All she's doing is responding to it. Instead of him giving a lecture, now he's being forced to have a conversation.
3
He's free to move it. It's his work, but it's not his space (it's not the other artist's space either, it belongs to the city. His argument is every bit as self-serving and ridiculous as an older generation of (legal) immigrants making the argument that there should be no new (legal) immigrants because they're somehow infringing on the rights of those who came before.
8
It seems to me he's free to move the sculpture, and not free to dictate how the public space around it is used.
1
What if she had been a grown woman not a child? Would there be so much attention? I am not comfortable with the use of what looks like a white female child, it seems exploitive.
3
Mr. Di Modica- Relax, sir, give it time. Art is a dialogue. Invite the unexpected. The bull and the little girl, they are already friends. Quiet yourself and listen to what they have to say.
22
Would you use the same words to defend a sculpture of giant man's foot just over the little girl's head?
1
Never liked the "charging bull" to begin with. It's the Ronald McDonald of Wall Street. Just how much of the NYC landscape does the artist think he's entitled to? The entire block? If the piece can't stand on its own (which he seems to be admitting) than I guess a decision has already been rendered concerning it's status as authentic art.
If you applied the same logic and standards to the city of Florence you would have to relocate most of the art treasures to other places. That would be absurd.
And, by the way, Mr. Di Modica is nowhere close to the level of Michelangelo or the other Renaissance masters. This is another case of a bruised ego being a genius in his own mind.
If you applied the same logic and standards to the city of Florence you would have to relocate most of the art treasures to other places. That would be absurd.
And, by the way, Mr. Di Modica is nowhere close to the level of Michelangelo or the other Renaissance masters. This is another case of a bruised ego being a genius in his own mind.
18
Maybe Trump will reinstate funding for the arts, now that in Di Modica, America finally has an artist willing to exert pretension, hypocrisy and a total lack of empathy in order to stand up to the oppressive forces of free expression, feminism and anti-corporatism.
11
Love the satire!
Art is at home when it functions as a lens though which we can consider life in its multiplicity of meaning. Art obscures the obvious and clarifies the obvious, ordinary "thing" that we encounter as we go about our lives, business as usual. Art that exists more than for its own sake should be troubling and disruptive of common assumptions. Fearless Girl, ironically, presents no brave, risk-taking disruption to the status quo in her juxtaposition with the Bull. She, a corporate model of the feminine, is good, while the Bull, now a symbol of boys' club chauvinism and sexual power, is bad. Let's liberate them both from this two-dimensional, uninspiring and manipulative fairytale.
1
Remove both sculptures. The Bull was illegally plopped in that space and given a free ride for decades. It's not owned by the city and isn't a permanent work of art. Meanwhile, we are paying to maintain and protect a sculpture that doesn't legally belong to the city. Aside from pleasing tourists, it has no place where it is. The Brave Girl, meanwhile, was meant to be temporary and definitely isn't a shining example of public art.
Remove both and have a competition for local artists to propose a permanent work on the site. Have it reviewed by a panel of artists and by members of the community. This is how permanent works of art are already handled. These two sculptures should be no exception, especially if they're going to be a "permanent" political argument.
Remove both and have a competition for local artists to propose a permanent work on the site. Have it reviewed by a panel of artists and by members of the community. This is how permanent works of art are already handled. These two sculptures should be no exception, especially if they're going to be a "permanent" political argument.
8
Sorry, Mr. Artist, but once your artwork is on public display, you have no control whatsoever over its interpretation. You must be the only person in the world who believes that this massive bull in the street can represent "love". Bulls do make love, but not while they are charging.
21
There are lots of artists in the world, and we can't all just sneak out in the middle of the night, put our art in the middle of one of the busiest and most symbolically important public squares in the world, and then demand to control the space around it so nothing interferes with that piece's message. This dude has one giant pair of entitlements if he thinks he has such a right.
42
In the 1980's, Wall street was well on its way to being the avaristic, self-dealing, America-killer that it is now. That Mr. Di Modica thought he could put up his statue, even then, and have it stand for hope and peace, stretches credulity. And even if it did then, it certainly does not now. He should save his anger for those that have systematically warped and tainted any positivity of Wall Street. Frankly, the statue of the little girl re-contemporizes his sculpture. it makes it part of now. I don't think of the little girl as just a feminist image, per se, but standing in for everyone that feels small and powerless in the US. Which is to say, pretty much everyone not connected to Wall street.
32
Quit complaining and remember where you are, Mr. Di Modica. Your donation has been repaid many times over in the quarter century that Charging Bull has stood as a billboard for your work on one of the most popular corners on the planet. Turn that 'Bull around and you’ll only find another Fearless Girl, waiting across the harbor.
36
If I were this artist, I would recognize that times and the meaning of this bull have changed and would welcome the addition of the fearless girl and the new collaborative art and its interpretation. That's what a true artist would do.
26
Can't think of a single artist who would welcome another artist co-opting their artwork and subverting their work by painting it in a negative,
malicious light.
malicious light.
8
He can always come get it and take it home if he doesn't like it sharing public space with something he doesn't like. He doesn't have exclusive right to the property; it isn't a gallery. The statue may be his creation, but the location belongs to the people of New York.
6
I'm a novelist. I would welcome it -- especially 30 years later! Parody is the second highest form of flattery.
If you can't laugh at yourself, you're too narcissistic to be a decent artist of any kind.
If you can't laugh at yourself, you're too narcissistic to be a decent artist of any kind.
2
Perhaps he should rent a lot in lower Manhattan and install the bull there.
7
While I am trying to be sympathetic to the sculptor's dismay that his message has been reinterpreted, that is just part of art history. I just returned from a trip to Rome where the architectural fabric of the city has been altered over the millennia. Roman temples, like the Pantheon, that were transformed into churches were the buildings lucky enough to not be razed. Or, there are examples where architectural elements are reused out of utility, like Byzantine churches which repurposed Roman corinthian columns. Each subsequent era remade the city in their own image. Thus the sculpture of the fierce little girl helps us reimagine the oncoming bull as a threat, not as a symbol of freedom. To me, that says much about our time, and our current perceptions of the financial industry as a whole.
7
Well you proved Mr. DiModica's point- the meaning of his piece was changed in relation to another person using his work as a foil.
Mr. Di Modica: "Fearless Girl" didn't turn your work into a negative force and a threat; the global capitalism it has come to represent did that all by itself. The world has already ascribed a wildly different meaning to your piece, and all the lawyers in the world can't undo that.
(Speaking of "negative forces and threats" ... lawyers??? really???)
Unclench, dude -- even if you win here, you lose.
(Speaking of "negative forces and threats" ... lawyers??? really???)
Unclench, dude -- even if you win here, you lose.
28
Not "wounded", insulted!
1
I can understand his sentiment, as to him it represented the American people being able to overcome the turmoil caused by the crash. However, when one creates art and chooses to share it with the public, the art becomes something new. It's no longer just what the artist meant it to be, but also what the public believes it is. The bull has been around so long now, it has its own life, and to a newer generation, unaware of the past, it is perceived as the embodiment of that which it was originally meant to mock. Fearless Girl actually stands facing her ideal equal, in a way they reflect each other, they compliment each other. She stands there awaiting the guidance of the bull, being the only one strong enough to try. I wish he would be proud there is a new generation coming in to take up ranks. I hope he changes his mind.
4
I've changed my mind. I love the Fearless Girl as defiant to the mindless destruction of Wall Street and the 1% trampling over the lives of the rest of us over the last decades. And I still think moving the statue behind the bull, watching it run off, would be cool.
But, I've decided my preference would be to have the girl standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the bull, facing in the same direction would be the strongest message. American institutions are not meant to trample anyone, and have been devised to help everyone. It hasn't always worked out that way, but that's been an American ideal.
What if American capitalism could stand by and support the rights of girls and the disadvantaged? What if we demanded that they did? What if we said that if you didn't consider the least of us, you wouldn't get the benefits of the best of us?
THAT would be a significant piece of art!
But, I've decided my preference would be to have the girl standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the bull, facing in the same direction would be the strongest message. American institutions are not meant to trample anyone, and have been devised to help everyone. It hasn't always worked out that way, but that's been an American ideal.
What if American capitalism could stand by and support the rights of girls and the disadvantaged? What if we demanded that they did? What if we said that if you didn't consider the least of us, you wouldn't get the benefits of the best of us?
THAT would be a significant piece of art!
6
Why not just put a matador in front of the bull or a trash can or a mouse? Why not paint a mustache on the portrait of George Washington? How about a 'What Me Worry' poster right next to the Mona Lisa? And the flag raising at Iwo Jima would certainly be enhanced by a funny bunny rabbit on a soldier's head.
Respect an artist's work in this day and age? Hah, political correctness trumps all.
Respect an artist's work in this day and age? Hah, political correctness trumps all.
2
Interesting question: how much right does the artist maintain as to the context in which is art is shown? My own view is that public art, especially sculpture, is frequently denigrated by the very polities that commissioned it in the first place, and that's an outrage. On the other hand, once art is out there, it becomes part of a public discourse that the artist can't control. What's interesting here is that the government and a corporation decided to confront a perceived interpretation of the piece. Is that a public discourse, or is capitalism and the state trying to co-opt the public discourse?
If the placement of "Fearless Girl" were permanent I might side with the artist who created the bull---it does subvert the message of his art and changes the experience of viewing the bull. The message of Fearless Girl DEPENDS UPON the first artist's work and is not truly independent of the other work.
I generally prefer to have more ideas expressed, not less. The exception is when one type of speech is used to prevent another from being heard. If Fearless Girl were permanent it would be similar to shouting down the message of the first artist. Instead, it is just taking its turn to present its message.
I generally prefer to have more ideas expressed, not less. The exception is when one type of speech is used to prevent another from being heard. If Fearless Girl were permanent it would be similar to shouting down the message of the first artist. Instead, it is just taking its turn to present its message.
2
So how much real estate does this guy control? None? If he doesn't like the accompanying artwork, he's free to move his piece. Since he didn't get permission to put his bull there until after the fact anyway, and it was only allowed to remain there due to popular opinion, I'd say irony wins the day.
31
I believe public art on public property stays or goes at the pleasure of the public and the authorities that represent them, not the artist. For example, and I apologize that it’s a negatively charged example but it’s the first to come to mind, the Joe Paterno statue. The sculptor couldn’t insist that it remain in place when the public university decided to move it.
If Di Modica donated “Charging Bull” and the City of New York owns it, it doesn’t seem to me that he retains any right to insist that even his own work remain where it is or be removed, much less whether other public statues which may be placed near it shall remain or be removed. I’m sympathetic to his feeling that the meaning of his work has been changed from his intention, but that’s a risk one takes when one is in the public sphere.
I say give the relationship time. Who knows what it might be in another 30 years? Maybe if their stand-off endures for that long and neither backs down, they will develop a mutual, wary respect for one another and maybe there will be a good story to tell about two works of art that became one, and what that means.
I like “Fearless Girl” but I also think the bull has something going for him in his pose. Though he is immensely more powerful physically than the girl, he's leaning to the side as though trying to see if there’s a way around the situation. Maybe he doesn’t want to trample her after all.
And remember, “Fearless Girl,” you’re in the public realm, too — stay fearless!
If Di Modica donated “Charging Bull” and the City of New York owns it, it doesn’t seem to me that he retains any right to insist that even his own work remain where it is or be removed, much less whether other public statues which may be placed near it shall remain or be removed. I’m sympathetic to his feeling that the meaning of his work has been changed from his intention, but that’s a risk one takes when one is in the public sphere.
I say give the relationship time. Who knows what it might be in another 30 years? Maybe if their stand-off endures for that long and neither backs down, they will develop a mutual, wary respect for one another and maybe there will be a good story to tell about two works of art that became one, and what that means.
I like “Fearless Girl” but I also think the bull has something going for him in his pose. Though he is immensely more powerful physically than the girl, he's leaning to the side as though trying to see if there’s a way around the situation. Maybe he doesn’t want to trample her after all.
And remember, “Fearless Girl,” you’re in the public realm, too — stay fearless!
16
New York City doesn't own it. It's still private guerrilla art on city property and can (and should) be removed along with the girl.
1
I find it strange how people are unsympathetic to the artist’s protest, which I think are reasonable. Clearly there are different interpretations to the bull, despite the artist’s intention. But context matters in art. Once you add other pieces that clearly engage with the artwork, the artwork itself is changed. It’s a slap in the face to the artists’ good faith intentions of public work installation, regardless of what the bull has come to mean on its own.
11
Regardless of the artist's claimed intended meaning, the fact is that the bull doesn't stand in a vacuum. Some of its meaning to those who view it is derived from its location in the heart of NYC's, & the word's, financial district, & that's an intrinsic part of the symbolism attached to it. Would people interpret it the same way if, for the past 30 years, it had been sitting, say, in a rural nature preserve? I presume Mr. Di Modica had something to say about where it was placed. If it bears an absolute artistic message independent of its environment, would it have been OK with him for it to have been placed in a plaza in Central Park, for instance? Mr. Di Modica may own the copyright & trademark to his statue, but he doesn't have any ownership rights on the concept represented by Wall Street, which is what gives the bull the significance most people attach to it. If anyone has "rights" to that concept, it's NYC, which created Wall Street (& whatever it's become, the good & bad aspects), & NYC has the right to suggest modifications to that concept by making adjustments to the environment.
8
Yes to this. As a lowly tourist to NYC 6 years ago, one of my "must sees" was the Wall Street sign and the Bull. Indeed I was a little confused and couldn't find the "Bull", so I asked a security guard outside the NYSE for the location of the "Bull & Bear" statues. Completely straight-faced he pointed and said "The Bull's up there, there is no Bear". Obviously knowing nothing of it's history as a symbol of love, peace, world harmony and so forth, to me it was just about a bull market c.f. a bear one. It made sense that there would be no bear because who likes loss? On the same trip I wondered about a huge yellow teddy bear on the forecourt of a large building. I couldn't find anything about it in my guide. Love NYC art installations!
"Mr. Di Modica said that “Fearless Girl” was an insult to his work, which he created after the stock market crashes in the late 1980s. “She’s there attacking the bull,” he said." Awww she is attacking the bull. How about she is a female standing her ground. Do you see she has no weapons and she is actually quite small compared to the bull. Here is a man who can't stand a woman having an equal place in the world.
28
I think that was the entire point
2
Is this the part where I say Get A Life? This artist who feels he is being undercut has had more press, desired or not, in the past 6 months than most. How many artists in NYC would live to have the commission , the space, the attention? Answer: a gazillion.
This is NY, quit complaining.
This is NY, quit complaining.
9
Put Fearless Girl NEXT to Charging Bull and each would send the same message.
4
Thoughtful and balanced. Kudos.
1
This is absolutely the right response. It allows both statues to convey the message that was intended.
I sympathize with Mr DiModica - His message is positive one and adding the girl changes the message of his statue negative. Putting the girl next to the charging bull allows both two continue to express messages of strength.
I sympathize with Mr DiModica - His message is positive one and adding the girl changes the message of his statue negative. Putting the girl next to the charging bull allows both two continue to express messages of strength.
1
Oh, I had to Laugh Out Loud at DiModica's comment: “She’s there attacking the bull,” he said. What an utterly fantastically ludicrous claim from a 76 year old man! A statue of a young girl has attacked his creation! Next it will be actual young girls attacking his creation. Maying applying lipstick, Barbie clothes, and soccer balls on the horns!
16
Trivial pursuits.
1
He had dropped off his statue in the middle of the night (originally, at a different location), as a piece of street art. The city did not contract for it. It may now be beloved (although not by me), but he has no legal right to complain. Seems he can dish it out, but he can't take it when someone else does the exact same thing.
406
To put it another way, Di Modica cast his statue, and then tried to find a buyer for it, many years ago. Failing to do so, the statue was, indeed, dropped off in the dead of night, where it has stood ever since. Mr. Jay captures the rest of the history of it brilliantly.
1
Sorry, sport, but the First Amendment allows him the legal right to complain.
2
From wikipedia. YOu can't make this up.
"The bull was cast by the Bedi-Makky Art Foundry in Greenpoint, Brooklyn. Di Modica spent some $360,000 to create, cast, and install the sculpture following the 1987 stock market crash as a symbol of the "strength and power of the American people".[2]
The sculpture was the artist's idea, not the city's. In an act of guerrilla art, Bedi Makky Art Foundry, along with Di Modica, trucked it to Lower Manhattan and on December 15, 1989, installed it beneath a 60-foot (18 m) Christmas tree in the middle of Broad Street in front of the New York Stock Exchange as a Christmas gift to the people of New York. That day, crowds came to look at the bull, with hundreds stopping to admire and analyze it as Di Modica handed out copies of a flier about his artwork.[2]
The police seized the sculpture and placed it into an impound lot. The ensuing public outcry led the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation to re-install it two blocks south of the Exchange in the plaza at Bowling Green with a ceremony on December 21, 1989. It faces up towards Broadway.[8]"
"The bull was cast by the Bedi-Makky Art Foundry in Greenpoint, Brooklyn. Di Modica spent some $360,000 to create, cast, and install the sculpture following the 1987 stock market crash as a symbol of the "strength and power of the American people".[2]
The sculpture was the artist's idea, not the city's. In an act of guerrilla art, Bedi Makky Art Foundry, along with Di Modica, trucked it to Lower Manhattan and on December 15, 1989, installed it beneath a 60-foot (18 m) Christmas tree in the middle of Broad Street in front of the New York Stock Exchange as a Christmas gift to the people of New York. That day, crowds came to look at the bull, with hundreds stopping to admire and analyze it as Di Modica handed out copies of a flier about his artwork.[2]
The police seized the sculpture and placed it into an impound lot. The ensuing public outcry led the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation to re-install it two blocks south of the Exchange in the plaza at Bowling Green with a ceremony on December 21, 1989. It faces up towards Broadway.[8]"
Eh, not much sympathy for Aurturo di Modica.
I'm sure the bull did represent at the time a force against the crashes of the 80s, but now we have a different reality. Wall Street now represents a much more powerful force, one that crushes the everyday American under the boot of greed, avarice and power.
Art evokes the times. No sympathy for the bull artist. Change is part of the process.
I'm sure the bull did represent at the time a force against the crashes of the 80s, but now we have a different reality. Wall Street now represents a much more powerful force, one that crushes the everyday American under the boot of greed, avarice and power.
Art evokes the times. No sympathy for the bull artist. Change is part of the process.
19
I'm pretty sure Wall Street was also about greed, avarice, and power in the 80's.
10
You would think Di Monica would be flattered as the girl's presence represents a liberatory forward evolution of his piece. The girl completes his piece, making it profoundly better.
While his original message with the bull back in the 80s may have been “freedom in the world, peace, strength, power and love” (really?), the current message of the threatening Wall Street bull is very different. For many of us the bull has evolved to symbolize, after the "Great Recession" through today (e.g., who needs fiduciary responsibility?), infinite greed, stratospheric executive salaries and arrogance, and corporate predation on the majority of Americans. The girl reminds us all of the "power of one" in standing up to resist the horror that the bull now stands for.
Given that the bull is on public property, Di Monica should join in celebrating the presence of the girl in vastly improving and contemporizing his piece OR take it away, please, and park it on Trump's Mar-a-lago lawn, not that Trump likely needs any additional tax write-offs.
Replacements that would represent improvements could include a pack of several jackals or perhaps maybe a large boa constrictor, or maybe a large shark. These would be more descriptive of Wall Street than the threatening bull regardless.
While his original message with the bull back in the 80s may have been “freedom in the world, peace, strength, power and love” (really?), the current message of the threatening Wall Street bull is very different. For many of us the bull has evolved to symbolize, after the "Great Recession" through today (e.g., who needs fiduciary responsibility?), infinite greed, stratospheric executive salaries and arrogance, and corporate predation on the majority of Americans. The girl reminds us all of the "power of one" in standing up to resist the horror that the bull now stands for.
Given that the bull is on public property, Di Monica should join in celebrating the presence of the girl in vastly improving and contemporizing his piece OR take it away, please, and park it on Trump's Mar-a-lago lawn, not that Trump likely needs any additional tax write-offs.
Replacements that would represent improvements could include a pack of several jackals or perhaps maybe a large boa constrictor, or maybe a large shark. These would be more descriptive of Wall Street than the threatening bull regardless.
15
Go take a look at the back of the statue and you will realize that Mr Di Modica did not have a problem with 30 years of tourists posing for pictures while rubbing the bull's genitalia to the point of it being the most polished part of the statue. The completely undermines any argument he makes about the integrity of his work.
22
His claims are an abuse of copyright law. It doesn't give you the right to control the works of others. Let him take his bull and go home, and refund what he was paid for it.
12
He wasn't paid for it. He dropped it on city property and the city still doesn't own the thing. The city should make him remove it or make him cover the cost to do so. Remove both statues and commission a sculpture by a New York artist and be done with it.
1
Or, like he said, he could just turn it around.
1
This is a Moral Rights issue, though, which is often treated as a subset of Copyright Law. Moral Rights protect an artist's work from derogatory treatment.
I have spent my life dealing with the insecurities of men who could not take powerful or even just intelligent women or even just women.
NYC was warned. They were given an explanation.
...Nevertheless, she persisted
NYC was warned. They were given an explanation.
...Nevertheless, she persisted
43
Nevertheless...
2
Mr. Di Modica said that “Fearless Girl” was an insult to his work, which he created after the stock market crashes in the late 1980s. “She’s there attacking the bull,” he said.
Would that be his sculpture or his argument?
Would that be his sculpture or his argument?
15
I think the girl is fantastic and symbolizes what financial markets are ultimately supposed to be about - the generation of wealth to benefit all society. Or do I misunderstand what Wall Street actually does? Surely not.
6
There are plenty of other places the Girl could be placed. She subverts the message of the Charging Bull and should be moved. Given DeBlasio's animosity to capitalism and his need to show obeisance to the radical womens movement the girl will likely be there for a long, long while.
4
Auguste Rodin. Camille Claudel anyone?
2
I don't know what the law is on copyright and the appropriation of the meaning of public sculptures, but it shouldn't be such that artists have a legal claim against someone who wants to appropriate the meaning of their work in some way. It's fine if he wants to remove a sculpture, but he shouldn't have the right that we all view his sculpture in the way that he intended or that the surroundings accommodate this desire. That's just absurd.
15
The bull symbolizes the greed and avarice of Wall Street. The girl symbolizes the middle class of America- which needs to put a stake in the heart of this monster if we are to continue to have a middle class.
88
That's your interpretation, which is irrelevant because you did not make that art work. Did the artist of the sculpture fearless girl read up on the history of the Charging Bull?
3
The Fearless Girl symbolizes the need to have more women on corporate boards. She was commissioned by a Wall Street bank.
There's no homage to Main Street here.
There's no homage to Main Street here.
3
The bull is proactive. The girl is reactive. Enough said
1
Well, really not enough said. I don't understand your comment. Another word for reactive is responsive. Responsiveness is a positive quality implying a measured consideration of a situation followed by a necessary and appropriate stance. And what you deem proactive, others can call aggressive, threatening etc. Not sure reduction so far as you imply says as much as you hoped.
6
So sad you don't understand. The girl derives her entire meaning from the bull. Without the bull,...she does not exist. Defiant girl. Defiant to anyone.
While I sympathize and actually do believe that "Charging Bull" was never meant to represent the role it plays across from "Fearless Girl," Mr. Di Modica is extraordinarily tone deaf and headed for a PR nightmare if he wants to threaten litigation against "Fearless Girl." That statue is not about him, it's not about his work, but it means a whole lot to millions now.
The admiration for "Fearless Girl" was not hate for "Charging Bull." I don't think anyone was thinking much about the bull besides its creator, the girl was the focus. But build up a fight between a statue celebrating the markets against one celebrating feminism and equal opportunity in 2017? You're not going to get love
The admiration for "Fearless Girl" was not hate for "Charging Bull." I don't think anyone was thinking much about the bull besides its creator, the girl was the focus. But build up a fight between a statue celebrating the markets against one celebrating feminism and equal opportunity in 2017? You're not going to get love
56
Fearless girl would have had a lot less press without Ferdinand. She was very strategically placed.
3
Ferdinand the Fierce should welcome little Ms Fearless and the media attention that she's drawn to both herself and to him. I suspect he's not attracted many interested onlookers or photographers in a good long time. Besides, his complaints just emphasize the strength of Ms Fearless's message: Oh yeah??? Sez who! Was Vincent's "Starry Night" diminished or enriched when "Olive Trees" moved in?
9
Easy solution: we commission Di Modica to do a corresponding "Fearless Man" statue.
Oh wait; where are we going to find a model?
Never mind.
Oh wait; where are we going to find a model?
Never mind.
10
How about having the Fearless Girl face the entrance to the Goldman Sachs building?
73
Now THAT works.
It is a statue of a child that's supposed to send a message about women in leadership and "greater gender diversity on corporate boards"? Sounds like the only kind of "feminism" South Street Global can hack is "girl power." Infantilizing.
12
I think the goal of South Street Global wasn't to infantilize but to inspire the next generation. Maybe it is a question of realizing that progress for women is always unfolding for another generation of women. Of course, that kind of thinking argues for a slower change on issues instead of supporting women who want better lives now. But it does seem children are used to stand in for women as a means shining a spotlight on women's value and viewpoint in a less threatening way. I don't know enough about who instigated with commission or why to suppose more. But in any public campaign, kids are a safe bet.
Whatever Mr. Di Modica meant the Bull to mean 30 years ago, today it stands a symbol of the corruption, greed and implacable immensity of a destructive financial sector. It now exists in a world that watched Wall Street greed create the 2008 financial crisis, the subsequent bailout of banks without accountability, the massive increase in income inequality, the reaction of Occupy Wall Street, and the continuing impoverishment of millions of people even as parasitical bankers and hedge fund managers make themselves filthy rich. The Bull now represents something that is fundamentally evil. The Girl is a response to that, a necessary response and counter. It presents the idea that the ruthlessness of Wall Street can be opposed, must be opposed, and that even a small girl can do it. Yes this all changes the original meaning of the Bull. But its meaning had already changed. The Girl is a reply to that new meaning and an inspiration to the many who have been crushed by the rampaging bull of Wall Street.
662
There needs to be a plaque beside Charging Bull to give it context.
1
It's my understanding that the girl is only meant to convey that women can be just as corrupt, greedy, and destructive as their male counterparts on Wall Street. In fact, the sculpture was funded by State Street Global Advisors.
'EVEN' a small girl. I don't think that is the message here. I think the message is that women and girls - the main victims of the evilness of Wall street are stronger and more powerful than people think
The bull is a work of art. Once you put it out there for the public to view, you can't get angry when, 30 years later, people interpret your art differently than you intended. The statue sits on Wall Street. Maybe it was intended to commemorate the crashes of the 80s but now it is also synonymous with the Wall Street where women and minorities are underrepresented. Fearless Girl isn't just a sign of the times or a passing surge in feminism as the artist implies. As a lawyer, woman, and minority, I believe that no matter what the outcome, demanding that Fearless Girl be removed (and threatening a lawsuit if it isn't) is a losing battle. If Fearless Girl is removed, the bull will become even more representative of men trying to stop women from achieving equality.
217
The intention of the artist doesn't change over the years. People's interpretation does. Is there a plaque explaining the artist intentions for Charging Bull? If not maybe there should be since 99% of people make assumptions rather than do the leg work to learn the facts.
Solution: Remove both.
Replace both with a work of art commissioned by the city and created by a New Yorker whose work was reviewed by a panel of artists and community members.
Replace both with a work of art commissioned by the city and created by a New Yorker whose work was reviewed by a panel of artists and community members.
People's interpretations of artist's work can and do change over time. But that's not the issue here. The question is one of the right of another artist to take exploit another artist's work to her own advantage and (arguably) to the detriment of the other artist.
As a woman, I have found "Fearless Girl" confusing from the start--probably because I understand (and appreciate) the complex meanings of the Bull. The metaphors that people are extrapolating from her make little sense, given what the Bull is and isn't.
As a woman, I have found "Fearless Girl" confusing from the start--probably because I understand (and appreciate) the complex meanings of the Bull. The metaphors that people are extrapolating from her make little sense, given what the Bull is and isn't.
3
I understand that the statue's great for representing fearlessness, but placing it in front of another art piece that's not meant to representing an enemy is definitely stepping over a line. The bull is a piece of art and the artist doesn't want it to be some awful symbol of oppression or the patriarchy - that's what it's turned into with this opposing sculpture. "Fearless Girl" needs to move somewhere else. Maybe outside the White House with President Misogynist.
30
When public art is created, it becomes part of the public discussion. The artist needs to conquer his ego and let the conversation proceed.
The defiant girl improves and deepens the conversation. She should be perminant.
The defiant girl improves and deepens the conversation. She should be perminant.
6
Inasmuch as "Charging Bull" has become a symbol of Wall Street, it represents oppression.
14
Exactly!
1
The bull is definitely masculine and intense energy. "Bullying". I believe the girl is the other half. Feminine and upright. Good contrast. Too bad Mr Siegel is upset. Sometimes it takes two sides to show "the way".
40
The counterpart of the Bull is the Bear -- not an inherently gendered animal symbol. The "animal spirits" of the market are not a reflection on masculinity/femininity, but rather optimism/pessimism.
2
Yes - you are right it often takes two sides to show the way, but the two sides do not always have to be opposed. There is value in both sides. The two statues should face the same direction and be side by side to express the value of both halves.
I am sympathetic to the message of an artist's work being undermined. But the message that this larger-than-life sized, charging steer, set on Wall Street, sponsored by a global financial organization could not possibly be “freedom in the world, peace, strength, power and love.”
It's about the money - and that's no bull.
Let the little girl have her day. Then relocate her to D.C. to face down the pussy-grabber-in-chief.
It's about the money - and that's no bull.
Let the little girl have her day. Then relocate her to D.C. to face down the pussy-grabber-in-chief.
298
Oh ho ho, did not see that coming. Thanks for a much needed laugh.
4
So the artist intended his work to represent
"freedom in the world, peace, strength, power and love.”
Freedom in the world, strength and power in a male-dominated financial sector, sure. But peace and love? That's crazy talk.
"freedom in the world, peace, strength, power and love.”
Freedom in the world, strength and power in a male-dominated financial sector, sure. But peace and love? That's crazy talk.
16
The girl derives all her meaning from the presence of the bull. No question the bull's meaning is changed into being something negative that must be opposed and suppressed.
How would we like it if other works of art were subjected to similar treatment. I can imagine any number of juxtapositions that would be jarring to anyone viewing the original work. Would a statue of a man in a raincoat standing and leering at Michelangelo's David's private parts leave the feeling you have looking at the original work unchanged?
Do works of art deserve to be protected from subversions of their meaning? In this case, the charm of the girl depends entirely on subverting the work of another artist. I'm not comfortable with that.
Where does it end? Will you leap to the defense of the girl when that man in the raincoat statue appears behind her? If so, why?
How would we like it if other works of art were subjected to similar treatment. I can imagine any number of juxtapositions that would be jarring to anyone viewing the original work. Would a statue of a man in a raincoat standing and leering at Michelangelo's David's private parts leave the feeling you have looking at the original work unchanged?
Do works of art deserve to be protected from subversions of their meaning? In this case, the charm of the girl depends entirely on subverting the work of another artist. I'm not comfortable with that.
Where does it end? Will you leap to the defense of the girl when that man in the raincoat statue appears behind her? If so, why?
9
The statue of the bull was placed there three decades ago as a forward, positive Wall Street symbol. It was not placed there waiting for its meaning to be changed, changed to the negative, as a bully, as a danger.
5
I like the statue, and I personally don't see the issue with copyright infringement. I do think it's ironic, however, that we've instilled so much value in this statue of a girl, as if it will magically put more women in board rooms and equalize pay for women. Feel good moment, anyone?
3
Lefty liberalism is all about posturing and taking stands, and protesting, and whinging, but not actually accomplishing ANYTHING.
1
Why does the article fail to name the artist who sculpted "Fearless Girl"?
HER name is Kristen Visbal.
HER name is Kristen Visbal.
272
Especially given that she expressed sympathy towards Di Modica.
4
I might be time to take down the bull...
6
Like the Bull Market, that Bull stands for profit above all, and at any cost. The idea that it has ever had anything to do with Love, as opposed to Greed is not something he ever saw worth standing up for before.
He's in it for the Money - it's what the Bull has always been about.
He's in it for the Money - it's what the Bull has always been about.
12
Is there a Fearless Girl Defense Fund we can all contribute to?
19
No.
2
I've been an ardent supporter of women's rights for decades. But I also support artistic expression, and the right of artists not to have their work subverted by political expression, no matter how well-meaning such expression might be.
15
Artists don't have a right to not have their work "subverted." Copyright is a grant of a temporary exclusive right to an expression fixed in some medium. Artists' feelings are not cpoyrightable.
6
Do you think this would have attracted so much attention if a grown woman had been made instead of a child?
Maybe she should saunter down to Liberty Island to run interference for “Liberty Enlightening the World.” Lady Liberty could use this brave girl's help.
2
This guy needs to think about the cultural significance the bull statue has taken on, which may be different from what he intended. Welcome to the real world.
For many people, the bull now stands for the excesses of the stock market, not to mention male agression and dominance. What's wrong with providing a foil to that through Fearless Girl? They work together in a balanced way; they stand apart, but connected; opposed, but not entangled. Each are important and together they create a picture of our society today.
Dude should be grateful someone updated his stale bull idea. Grrrrr
For many people, the bull now stands for the excesses of the stock market, not to mention male agression and dominance. What's wrong with providing a foil to that through Fearless Girl? They work together in a balanced way; they stand apart, but connected; opposed, but not entangled. Each are important and together they create a picture of our society today.
Dude should be grateful someone updated his stale bull idea. Grrrrr
25
Just like Richard Serra--another artist whining about his unappreciated intent.
I'm with the girl.
I'm with the girl.
26
The artist thinks his bull statue stands for "freedom in the world, peace, strength, power and love"? Does anyone else see that? I've always seen it as the rampaging power of Wall Street that threatens to trample anyone and anything in its path.
It's been a pretty good metaphor for Wall Street in the decades since it was installed. Bull markets benefit Wall Street and the stock market, but trample all the rest of us.
THAT'S why Fearless Girl resonates with real people. We're sick of being trampled by the 1 percent.
It's been a pretty good metaphor for Wall Street in the decades since it was installed. Bull markets benefit Wall Street and the stock market, but trample all the rest of us.
THAT'S why Fearless Girl resonates with real people. We're sick of being trampled by the 1 percent.
207
Some small irony that in order to send a message about "the power of women in leadership" a statue should take the form of a juvenile female. feminism with a small f, I guess. I can understand that Di Modica is disconcerted that his work is pulled into a larger dialogue. But isn't that an intention of art. Isn't art subject to willful use by those who view it, feel it's impact, or reinterpret it for their own purpose? The artist has no control over what someone does in their art in their mind. His response could have been less confrontational, but I understand it. That "Fearless Girl" somehow taints the optimism of "Charging Bull" can be argued. But, he missed the opportunity to embrace the dance of these two, in the streets of one of the world's greatest cities, as elevating his work to a vital and current message of optimism. I certainly do not think that his intended message of freedom, peace, strength, power and love is best served by the Wall Street environs where "Charging Bull" resides. I would argue that adding "Fearless Girl" actually helps Di Modica meet these goals in a way that the bull, alone, and especially because it's Wall Street habitat, did not. I so love this bull, and I like to subtext created by adding this young heroine, but I do wish we could approach the value of women in culture without images of children or superheroes, which suggests that we are still forced to use the least threatening or realistic images to convey women's value and viewpoint.
7
I was never comfortable with the use of a child in this way. it seems manipulative. Would a grown woman have had less impact?
2
Art is always manipulative on some level. Any artist knows this and the audience is often well aware that they have give themselves over to the vision of another when they experience art, so it's generally a consensual engagement. I have no idea what impact a grown women may have had, but I can guess that it would have received a more negative reaction than this has and that would be a barometer of the level of hostility towards women culturally. On the other hand, a child conveys a purity of ideal, determinism and lack of cynicism most closely associated with youth. So, I personally don't feel manipulated by the choice of a girl, just somewhat disappointed that we lack the visual vocabulary to have alternative images convey these things successfully.
1
It makes perfect sense that Kristen Visbal chose a girl of age 10-11 to represent female fearlessness. As psychologist Carol Gilligan pointed out 20 years ago in her book "Making Connections" (& nothing has changed since), American girls tend to be confident, outspoken, fearless & defiant at age 11, but by 16, they've "gone underground."
That is, thanks to the pressure of trying to be attractive to boys, as well as meeting the rigid, mutually contradictory & often "damned-either-way" standards American culture imposes on females (e.g., "don't be a prude," "don't be a slut"), by their mid-teens girls lose their confidence. They constantly doubt & second-guess themselves, obsess about their clothes & appearance (especially the imperfections, real or imagined, in the latter), adopt annoying affectations meant to make them look less threatening, become overly concerned with social acceptance & popularity, retreat within themselves & become inhibited, especially in co-ed groups like classes at school. They "can't even," as 2015's teen slang had it.
Fearless *Girl* represents the confident 11-year-old that still resides within teenage & adult women, often hidden from the rest of the world, but still there.
Something similar to "going underground" happens to boys as well, altho for them it may not hit unless they become employees, who these days have little power or leverage. Part of the 99%. Fearless Girl, finding the universal in the particular, represents men as well.
That is, thanks to the pressure of trying to be attractive to boys, as well as meeting the rigid, mutually contradictory & often "damned-either-way" standards American culture imposes on females (e.g., "don't be a prude," "don't be a slut"), by their mid-teens girls lose their confidence. They constantly doubt & second-guess themselves, obsess about their clothes & appearance (especially the imperfections, real or imagined, in the latter), adopt annoying affectations meant to make them look less threatening, become overly concerned with social acceptance & popularity, retreat within themselves & become inhibited, especially in co-ed groups like classes at school. They "can't even," as 2015's teen slang had it.
Fearless *Girl* represents the confident 11-year-old that still resides within teenage & adult women, often hidden from the rest of the world, but still there.
Something similar to "going underground" happens to boys as well, altho for them it may not hit unless they become employees, who these days have little power or leverage. Part of the 99%. Fearless Girl, finding the universal in the particular, represents men as well.
EXACTLY -- the charging bull is a universal symbol of strength, world peace, and love -- that's the first image that comes to my mind whenever these concepts are mentioned. In Spain, they associate the bull so closely with the values of peace and world harmony that they've built an entire entertainment industry around the animal. Nobody, least of all those passing this statue daily in New York, associate a charging bull with the masculine financial power of Wall Street -- obliterating all in its path.
Bull indeed.
Bull indeed.
19
Tess, in Spain during the entertainment, the bull dies. What is your point?
Di Modica is correct. Fearless girl only has power when she stand opposite the bull. Remove the bull and what does she stand for? What is her statement to the world? Let the girl stay. Remove the bull. Let her stand alone.
10
It's not correct and that's the mistake being made at this time. Fearless Girl's "only" power is now beyond just standing opposite the physical bull. "Remove the bull and what does she stand for"? Our power has now been lifted beyond the physical thing in front of us. "What is her statement to the world?" We are here, not backing down, and never, ever going back!! "Let the girl stay. Remove the bull. Let her stand alone." We are all Fearless Girl. She/We are never standing alone!! It's symbolism has been cast and can't be broken. Women Are Here To Stay!
3
She stands for confidence and the courage to stand her ground, bull or no bull. How can you not see that?
1
That's a lot of power you have to a very basic, sloppy statue plopped on a street corner as a publicity stunt. How about we remove both statues (both are temporary and not owned by the city) and commission an original work by a NYC artist to be reviewed and approved by local artists and community members (and not obsessed tourists who want it there for their Instagram posts later)?
Whomever thought to underwrite "Fearless Girl" for State Street Global Advisers struck public-relations gold. However, Di Modica may be right.
This scenario reminds me of how hip-hop/rap music infringed on artists' copyrights. Some welcomed the reinterpretation of their music; others balked.
All eventually claimed the right to be compensated.
The issue is does New York City have the right to assign art in an adjacent public space without prejudice. I suppose the City should be able to do so without being held liable for compensating an artist as long. I would also think Di Modica has the right to demand that his bull be moved to a new location under threat of repossession. Even a "fearless girl" could be just as fearless staring at some other capitalist monument. No bull.
This scenario reminds me of how hip-hop/rap music infringed on artists' copyrights. Some welcomed the reinterpretation of their music; others balked.
All eventually claimed the right to be compensated.
The issue is does New York City have the right to assign art in an adjacent public space without prejudice. I suppose the City should be able to do so without being held liable for compensating an artist as long. I would also think Di Modica has the right to demand that his bull be moved to a new location under threat of repossession. Even a "fearless girl" could be just as fearless staring at some other capitalist monument. No bull.
12
If you were an artist, you'd understand his position. If you're not an artist, you'll never get it. His work was created with a specific sense of it's meaning and impact on viewers. The little girl completely distorts his original intent. Don't waste your precious keystrokes trolling me. If you're not an artist, you'll never get it.
35
OK, but then we shouldn't assign people expansive property rights against public space appropriation of the meanings of their works on the basis of elusive feelings they might have about their art that aren't accessible (according to you) to anyone else.
7
Who cares what he meant? Once he puts his art in a public space, he loses control of it.
8
Doesn't matter, he doesn't have a *copyright* interest in its perception.
2
So what! This is not news and Wall Street is a corrupt cesspool.
2
Mr. Di Modica is tone deaf and is hurting his cause in a lasting way. The bull is wonderful a brilliant design and it captures a mindset everyone understands. Fearless Girl embraces the bull and the notion of real ambition, she does not take anything away but ads a positive touch to a cultural idea. By itself the bull is raw ambition mostly male. This young girl shows a maturing society realizing that ambition is for girls and women as well. Without meaning to do so, Mr. Di Modica comes across as a sexist. Opportunity and financial ambition belongs to all of us, not just a few energized boys or men!
14
What a whiner. Did he or did he not donate his statue? If yes, then he no longer owns the statue.
If no, take it home and put it in your backyard.
End of story.
That little girl is not hurting the bull whatsoever.
If no, take it home and put it in your backyard.
End of story.
That little girl is not hurting the bull whatsoever.
22
How is a little girl standing in front of a charging bull considered a symbol of " standing up to fear, standing up to power, being able to do what's right.", how?
1
We're talking more about stubborn children and their stand and animals that make more money (acting) than human beings. How sad is this world!