Sculptor of Wall Street's bull wants 'Fearless Girl' moved

[TexasTowelie]

NEW YORK (AP) — The sculptor of Wall Street's "Charging Bull" statue on Wednesday demanded the removal of the "Fearless Girl" statue that's faced off against the bull since last month.

Arturo Di Modica said his 11-foot-tall bull is supposed to represent "freedom in the world, peace, strength, power and love" but "Fearless Girl" has turned his work's message into something negative.

"The girl is right in front doing this, 'Now I'm here, what are you going to do?'" Di Modica complained.

An attorney for Di Modica, Norman Siegel, said the 4-foot-tall bronze girl was created as part of an advertising campaign for Boston-based investment firm State Street Global Advisors and its placement opposite the bull exploits the earlier sculpture for commercial gain and negates its positive message.

Read more: http://www.heraldandnews.com/ap_news/us/sculptor-of-wall-street-s-bull-wants-fearless-girl-moved/article_52c06bdc-a52f-5f21-be38-0a7964f57716.html

[ProudLib72]

1. Remove the bull and commision an elephant

Simple solution.

[Warpy]

2. Yeah, god forbid that hypermasculine atrocity be faced down

by a mere female.

And that, dear people, is what I strongly suspect is at the hart of his hissy fit.

[Hekate]

3. Bingo

[WomenRising2017]

4. Not just a female.

But a young, strong female.

I have to laugh at his reaction.

You can't make this stuff up.

[snooper2]

31. initially from the back I thought fearless girl looked like Smurfette

LOL

[Starry Messenger]

5. This isn't going to be a popular opinion, but he might have a case.

Kevlar drawers on. Art law is funny.

(I like the Fearless Girl, and if I were the bull artist I'd probably make a temporary concession to public sentiment in this case.)

[jberryhill]

8. 17 USC 106A

The law in the US on the right of artistic integrity is less well developed than elsewhere because it wasn't part of US law until the Berne Convention.

But, yes, a sculptor in Canada won a case involving a shopping mall which put Christmas decorations on his work.

The integrity rights are not assignable and do not go with ownership of the work.

There is a non-frivolous argument here.

There is also astounding hypocrisy at DU on the subject. Every election season we hear from recording artists who long ago signed away their licensing rights, but who object to use of their licensed works by political campaigns.

When that happens, a few DU scholars will pull out the 106A claim.

But in this situation, the artist who objects to his work being used in a political statement is full of shit because we agree with the political statement.

[Starry Messenger]

9. He has a couple of drawbacks:

He also installed his piece without a permit back in the day.

He installed it a year before the law protecting art went into effect.

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure how much those two things will hinder him. But yes, there are restrictions on altering public art, that people genuinely might not be aware of.

[jberryhill]

12. The circumstances of the installation aren't relevant

The later agreement with the city might be of some relevance.

But, correct me if I'm wrong... Was the Fearless Girl specifically designed to interact with and recontextualize the bull?

While everyone rips this guy a new one, I wonder how many people would feel if their best known life work were modified to make it into a symbol of something evil.

[Starry Messenger]

15. Apparently she was.

I'm a sculptor, and people messing with your work to recontextualize it is the biggest headache, if that wasn't part of your artistic intent.

People probably don't know that art has a lot of restrictions on what even a private owner of a piece can do with a work. "Remixing" without the creators' permission is not allowed.

Unfortunately this artist is going to have some heavy sledding and is going to look like the bad guy. He should have been reached out to before all this came to pass.

[HoneyBadger]

16. It depends on how dynamic you see art as being

Someone like Christo exists to recontextualize

[Starry Messenger]

17. And that is part of his intent in his work.

Apparently not so with the bull artist. Here is part of the law where he's probably within his rights:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/martin/art_law/esworthy

"Preservation legislation recognizes society's interest in preserving its architectural treasures, despite private ownership. Similarly, moral rights legislation recognizes that art ownership is not an absolute property right.

The term moral right itself comes from the French le droit moral, an 18th century French concept referring to rights of a non-economic but spiritual or personal nature, existing independently of an artist's copyright. Such rights are based on what the court in Carter v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc. explained as "a belief that an artist in the process of creation injects his spirit into the work and that the artist's personality as well as the integrity of the work, should therefore be protected and preserved."

The addition of a piece that changes the spirit of his work as he intended it, placed there without his permission, can be viewed as a violation of his rights as the creator of the original piece.

[brooklynite]

41. I'd say every tourist taking a selfie with the bull's nether regions is recontextualizing his art.

[Doreen]

18. Isn't it different to put decorations ON a piece of art than

to put another piece of art several feet away or does the law see it as the same?

[jberryhill]

25. Let me ask you this...

This enormous sculpture of Crazy Horse is under construction (shown here next to a model):



Now, let's say that after it gets completed, I somehow acquire a plot of land next to it, and put up a billboard saying "Don't be Crazy, Take Exit 43, for JimBob's Souixvenirs" and I position it so that Crazy Horse is pointing right at it.

Is there a problem?

[Doreen]

32. OK, that image is making me laugh my ass off.

The difference is that a billboard is not art and would look gaudy. The little girl is true art and she is not pointing at the bull. If the bull was my art I would be proud to have the girl there because of the meaning behind it and face it people my be coming to see the girl but they will be seeing my art also. I think that the girl enhances the bull. But of course that is just my opinion.

[brooklynite]

40. Question: who owns the property where the sign is?

[Warpy]

11. They are both there on temporary permits

The only difference is that "Fearless Girl's" permit is actually current.

[oasis]

6. Hey, Di Modica, how about letting the "market forces" settle this one?

[Me.]

7. Mayor DeBlasio Says She Stays

[Warpy]

10. Great decision

She's got even more right to be there, her temporary permit is current.

She's also a much better sculpture, IMO.

[PoliticAverse]

13. I await the kerfuffle when the next statue appears. n/t

[HoneyBadger]

14. Test case

Put a moustache on the Mona Lisa

[TeamPooka]

20. What if a corporation paid an artist to paint the words "Abusive Mother" and an arrow on a canvas

then paid to hang it next to the Mona Lisa?
That is more like what this situation is.

[JHan]

39. Not the same, the Mona Lisa is in the Louvre.

In private exhibitions, ridiculous attention is paid to how art is viewed and positioned. No corporation can do what you describe in those circumstances, it's not possible. Di Modica's art is in a public space, where all you need is a permit - and in his case he didn't bother to get one originally..

[TeamPooka]

19. Fearless Girl has more in common with the Pillsbury Doughboy than the work of art the Bull is.

She is a corporation appropriating a civil rights movement for marketing purposes.
It is also derivative as art goes if it can only stand there against the Bull.
I like the idea of moving it to face the Stock Exchange.
Let it stand on its own, not in the shadow of another piece of art.

[flamingdem]

21. I agree, Modica is right

The commentary is sullied by it being a corporate symbol

[Warren DeMontague]

22. You want to really fuck with Wall St., put a big ass statue of a bronze bear in there.

[WinkyDink]

23. ..."freedom in the world, peace, strength, power and love..." That's a lot of bull about the bull.

[VOX]

24. Exactly! A charging bull means love, peace and freedom???

In what universe? Total bull****.

[jberryhill]

26. It means a big dinner for someone

[LeftInTX]

33. Yeah, I don't believe this why Di Modica put his bull sculpture there

[nikibatts]

27. F him!

[MontanaMama]

28. How does a bull represent

Peace and love? That's a stretch. I'm with the commenter above that wonders about Featless Girl being a girl being the problem. Bullies don't like upity women, generally.

[TheBlackAdder]

29. Perhaps they should replace the bull with The Golden Calf!

.





.

[WinkyDink]

36. Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

[AgadorSparticus]

30. He is upset b/c in his feeble mind, he relates to the bull & is emasculated by a little girl statue

Pathetic.....

[petronius]

34. I think what they need to do is remove both statues, and then open up

a kiosk renting VR goggles, allowing people to experience the space with Bull only, Girl only, both, or neither. Or a bear, or a dinosaur. Problem solved!

[Iggo]

35. Clearly this is the only option left.

[WinkyDink]

37. You're quite the arbiter. ;-)

[JHan]

38. I'm with Epictetus on this: Can't expect control in a public space.

and I'm revisiting this thread because of this awesome pic of Senator Warren:

Link to tweet

I think living artists should get a say in how their art is depicted and in this case the girl changes the original context of the bull but the bull itself has changed in meaning. It once represented strength and resilience but is now a symbol of capitalist aggression . Di Modica had no control over the changed meaning of his art, as he has no control over the public space he chose to exhibit.

The only body with a measure of control is the government through permits. The problem here is that Di Modica seems to think it is art that gives public spaces meaning, when it is people who give public spaces meaning. He just needs to live with that fact - in a private exhibition he would have a case, but not in the public space.