AmandaA
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,502 
|
Post by AmandaA on Apr 12, 2017 21:50:26 GMT
This story about the artist of the famous bull pitching a fit about fearless girl made our local news tonight. Way to prove the point of why the statue was created.... and why the public support led to her staying for the year. I love that he argues the city didn't follow the permit procedure when his statue has apparently never had a permit.  |
|
|
|
Post by refugeepea on Apr 12, 2017 22:00:56 GMT
Mayor de Blasio responded on Twitter on Wednesday, writing: "Men who don't like women taking up space are exactly why we need the Fearless Girl."  |
|
|
|
Post by compeateropeator on Apr 12, 2017 22:36:31 GMT
Ha I knew exactly what you were talking about as I had just read a bit on it. I kind of like how both statues were playing off one another. I would have never thought to criticize his bull because it was charging a little girl. Makes me wonder how this came to his attention and made him feel like he had to file a lawsuit (that people would think that his bull was charging a child)? Did people really send him messages about this? ETA: I did like the Mayor's response.  |
|
|
|
Post by bc2ca on Apr 12, 2017 22:45:38 GMT
Mayor de Blasio responded on Twitter on Wednesday, writing: "Men who don't like women taking up space are exactly why we need the Fearless Girl."  Makes me happy to see de Blasio in charge and does make me wonder how former Mayor Giuliani might have responded. Given that the Charging Bull was moved to it's current location by the city not placed there by the artist, I can't see the claim of "copyright violation" having any validity. I love Fearless Girl and hope she is there permanently.  |
|
AmandaA
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,502
|
Post by AmandaA on Apr 12, 2017 23:28:37 GMT
Really... politics? I didn't post this as a political subject and other than the mayor being quoted above, I don't see how this is about politics. It is about a man being an ass when it comes to a statement about women's rights.
|
|
AmandaA
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,502
|
Post by AmandaA on Apr 12, 2017 23:30:19 GMT
Mayor de Blasio responded on Twitter on Wednesday, writing: "Men who don't like women taking up space are exactly why we need the Fearless Girl." I loved his response as well and I think it is actually even more powerful when stated by a man (who must get it). |
|
|
|
Post by annabella on Apr 12, 2017 23:32:31 GMT
I've seen pictures of that statue on social media but had no idea it was so political! I never knew about that bull statue which has been there since 1987, the sculptor should be happy its getting press. Curious how the girl statue is glued down to the ground since it wasn't officially put there?
|
|
artbabe
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,844
|
Post by artbabe on Apr 13, 2017 0:29:30 GMT
As an art history major and an art teacher I'm kind of shocked by these comments. The bull was built to represent a particular idea. Putting the girl statue there absolutely changes the meaning of the first statue. I love the girl statue but putting it there changes the meaning of the art. I think the original sculptor is absolutely correct that the new sculptor devalues his original piece.
The bull went from being the hero to being the villain. The juxtaposition of the girl with the bull absolutely destroys the meaning of the bull.
I totally understand the statement the girl statue makes, and support it. At the same time, that statue ruins the meaning behind the original bull, and that is not right.
From the artist's perspective, I totally understand what his problem is. I would hate for the meaning of my work to be destroyed by some other artist's addition.
|
|
AmandaA
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,502
|
Post by AmandaA on Apr 13, 2017 3:26:37 GMT
I wonder how many people who view the statue could articulate what the artist's meaning is/was. I think there is much in the eye of the beholder, and that it can change within the context of time and place... of which the artist has zero control. I don't know if people universally identify it as a symbol of the "can-do spirit of America and especially New York, where people from all other the world could come regardless of their origin or circumstances, and through determination and hard work overcome every obstacle to become successful." as the artist intended. I wonder if the artist is also upset that his statue has become a destination for people to rub its testicles and have their pictures taken with them? Does that diminish or alter the piece as he intended it? Not that installation of the girl is an equivalent, but I hope you see my point that he doesn't ultimately control how people choose to view his work. It wasn't installed with shiny balls and horns either... people have done that to his original work of art just like people have placed the girl down the sidewalk from it. His art isn't sealed in a perpetual vacuum when in a public space.
I personally don't interpret the addition of the girl to mean that the bull is a "villain". Wether he intended it or not, the bull has become synonymous with Wall Street which has been male dominated for its entire being. To me, the girl is just a symbol of the growing power of women in this country. Now I get that it wasn't his vision, but my beef with it all is that he thinks he deserves financial compensation for this and that he couldn't better articulate his point. I have little sympathy for someone who illegally dumped the statue on public property (and then allowed its continued public display) and doesn't like what has resulted nearly 30 years later. So that was my point of maybe he should take his statue back if he isn't happy about this and doesn't like the de facto symbol that it has become. He can display it on his private property and do whatever the hell he does or does not want to do with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by brina on Apr 13, 2017 11:30:59 GMT
I remember when the Bull was originally placed - it was in the middle of the Broad St, just south of Wall, in front of the New York Stock Exchange. It was shortly after Black Monday - the day the dow fell 500+ points. At the time i was working just down the street at Drexel Burnham. Interesting times.
If the bull is supposed to be the hero, well, I think we have learned in the intervening years that the stock market is not a hero, or at the very least that it is a hero with feet of clay. The bull is a fairy tale, the girl is reality.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 21:44:30 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2017 11:44:35 GMT
I never thought of the Bull as a hero. He always looked just like the dick bros he represented to me.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 21:44:30 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2017 13:33:26 GMT
As an art history major and an art teacher I'm kind of shocked by these comments. The bull was built to represent a particular idea. Putting the girl statue there absolutely changes the meaning of the first statue. I love the girl statue but putting it there changes the meaning of the art. I think the original sculptor is absolutely correct that the new sculptor devalues his original piece. The bull went from being the hero to being the villain. The juxtaposition of the girl with the bull absolutely destroys the meaning of the bull. I totally understand the statement the girl statue makes, and support it. At the same time, that statue ruins the meaning behind the original bull, and that is not right. From the artist's perspective, I totally understand what his problem is. I would hate for the meaning of my work to be destroyed by some other artist's addition. I'm also an artist, and I get what you are saying. But to me, in this case, his work is like a HUGE piece of art abandonment, installed in the cover of dark. (Think of Banksy, et al) After an artist abandons his art, does he have any say in what happens next? |
|
oh yvonne
Prolific Pea
Posts: 8,111
Jun 26, 2014 0:45:23 GMT
|
Post by oh yvonne on Apr 13, 2017 13:51:16 GMT
As an art history major and an art teacher I'm kind of shocked by these comments. The bull was built to represent a particular idea. Putting the girl statue there absolutely changes the meaning of the first statue. I love the girl statue but putting it there changes the meaning of the art. I think the original sculptor is absolutely correct that the new sculptor devalues his original piece. The bull went from being the hero to being the villain. The juxtaposition of the girl with the bull absolutely destroys the meaning of the bull. I totally understand the statement the girl statue makes, and support it. At the same time, that statue ruins the meaning behind the original bull, and that is not right. From the artist's perspective, I totally understand what his problem is. I would hate for the meaning of my work to be destroyed by some other artist's addition. Thank you, I was reading the thread thinking the same thing. You are absolutely right, it does change the meaning of the bull and if I were the artist, I'd be upset too. |
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Apr 13, 2017 14:00:56 GMT
My understanding is that he has asked for the girl to be moved to a different place (not destroyed, just to a different location). The lawsuit is because that hasn't happened. I agree that the statue of the girl does change the meaning and interpretation of the bull and understand why he would be upset.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 21:44:30 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2017 14:35:04 GMT
I remember when the Bull was originally placed - it was in the middle of the Broad St, just south of Wall, in front of the New York Stock Exchange. It was shortly after Black Monday - the day the dow fell 500+ points. At the time i was working just down the street at Drexel Burnham. Interesting times. If the bull is supposed to be the hero, well, I think we have learned in the intervening years that the stock market is not a hero, or at the very least that it is a hero with feet of clay. The bull is a fairy tale, the girl is reality. Black Monday Oct. 19, 1987? The bull was placed on December 15, 1989. Save |
|
AmandaA
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,502
|
Post by AmandaA on Apr 13, 2017 15:11:39 GMT
But to me, in this case, his work is like a HUGE piece of art abandonment, installed in the cover of dark. (Think of Banksy, et al) After an artist abandons his art, does he have any say in what happens next? That is a much more concise summary of my point and issue with him taking issue. I think he has some unrealistic expectations of control of how people view the art he put out into the world. Had they installed the girl holding the bull by his balls, okay maybe she is interfering with his statue. Had they put a statue of someone riding the bull physically on it, I could be more sympathetic. But in this case, I am just not. Where does he get to draw the line... do they construct a new building that puts a particular shadow on his work and he gets to sue because it changes his vision? Sounds absurd but really who gets to decide where the line is drawn? (Really just thinking out loud here and not looking to fight about that  ) |
|
|
|
Post by pondrunner on Apr 13, 2017 15:15:10 GMT
I guess my thought is if you want to control what gets put around your art, then put your art in a place where you have control over what goes on around it.
|
|
|
|
Post by brina on Apr 13, 2017 15:29:44 GMT
I remember when the Bull was originally placed - it was in the middle of the Broad St, just south of Wall, in front of the New York Stock Exchange. It was shortly after Black Monday - the day the dow fell 500+ points. At the time i was working just down the street at Drexel Burnham. Interesting times. If the bull is supposed to be the hero, well, I think we have learned in the intervening years that the stock market is not a hero, or at the very least that it is a hero with feet of clay. The bull is a fairy tale, the girl is reality. Black Monday Oct. 19, 1987? The bull was placed on December 15, 1989. Savethought the two were closer than that. What's the line from the song - "the perspective distance lends to these things". It was created in response to the crash according to the artist, but you are right, not placed until 12/89. SaveSave |
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,927
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Apr 13, 2017 15:56:35 GMT
de Balsio just went up several points in my book. What an awesome response!
|
|
Dalai Mama
Drama Llama
La Pea Boheme
Posts: 6,985
Jun 26, 2014 0:31:31 GMT
|
Post by Dalai Mama on Apr 13, 2017 16:02:10 GMT
As an art history major and an art teacher I'm kind of shocked by these comments. The bull was built to represent a particular idea. Putting the girl statue there absolutely changes the meaning of the first statue. I love the girl statue but putting it there changes the meaning of the art. I think the original sculptor is absolutely correct that the new sculptor devalues his original piece. The bull went from being the hero to being the villain. The juxtaposition of the girl with the bull absolutely destroys the meaning of the bull. I totally understand the statement the girl statue makes, and support it. At the same time, that statue ruins the meaning behind the original bull, and that is not right. From the artist's perspective, I totally understand what his problem is. I would hate for the meaning of my work to be destroyed by some other artist's addition. Absolutely it does. And, as such, he should feel free to remove his sculpture, which was placed there without permission, and install it in another location. |
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Apr 13, 2017 16:14:37 GMT
As an art history major and an art teacher I'm kind of shocked by these comments. The bull was built to represent a particular idea. Putting the girl statue there absolutely changes the meaning of the first statue. I love the girl statue but putting it there changes the meaning of the art. I think the original sculptor is absolutely correct that the new sculptor devalues his original piece. The bull went from being the hero to being the villain. The juxtaposition of the girl with the bull absolutely destroys the meaning of the bull. I totally understand the statement the girl statue makes, and support it. At the same time, that statue ruins the meaning behind the original bull, and that is not right. From the artist's perspective, I totally understand what his problem is. I would hate for the meaning of my work to be destroyed by some other artist's addition. Then you don't 'dump' your art without permit in a public place if it's placement and surroundings are so critical to its meaning. Honestly, placing art in the street without a permit can induce a fine. Frankly he's lucky they decided for whatever reason that they liked his piece and they found a place for it. It could have easily been carted to the landfill. He could easily have been fined for placing it without a permit and he could have gotten a ticket for obstructing the street. I wonder what the fines plus interest would be all these years later? Imho the artist is a bit of a jerk to think he has any rights to something he dumped without permit in the middle of the night 28 ish years ago. Tough crap. Just think what the city would have to deal with if every artist plopped a piece down in the street in the night and left it there. Trust me there are a lot of artists in and around NYC it could be horrific. I never understood why he was not fined. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 21:44:30 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2017 16:16:54 GMT
The bull DOES NOT currently reside where it is without permission. People keep repeating that but it's not true. Where it was originally dropped off was illegal, and it was removed that same day. Where it is now, at Bowling Green, is its legal, permanent home.
|
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Apr 13, 2017 16:21:58 GMT
The bull DOES NOT currently reside where it is without permission. People keep repeating that but it's not true. Where it was originally dropped off was illegal, and it was removed that same day. Where it is now, at Bowling Green, is its legal, permanent home. only because the city was nice enough to find it a permanent legal home after he dumped it obstructing a street. |
|
Dalai Mama
Drama Llama
La Pea Boheme
Posts: 6,985
Jun 26, 2014 0:31:31 GMT
|
Post by Dalai Mama on Apr 13, 2017 16:25:22 GMT
The bull DOES NOT currently reside where it is without permission. People keep repeating that but it's not true. Where it was originally dropped off was illegal, and it was removed that same day. Where it is now, at Bowling Green, is its legal, permanent home. Yes, it was placed there by Parks & Rec. after it was impounded, not because the artist arranged for permits. The city granted a temporary permit for its Bowling Green home, but that permit is arbitrary and at the city's discretion.
The artist still owns the statue (he placed it for sale in 2004) so, again, if he doesn't like the current location, he should feel free to move it.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 21:44:30 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2017 16:27:47 GMT
The bull DOES NOT currently reside where it is without permission. People keep repeating that but it's not true. Where it was originally dropped off was illegal, and it was removed that same day. Where it is now, at Bowling Green, is its legal, permanent home. only because the city was nice enough to find it a permanent legal home after he dumped it obstructing a street. Yes, which is why I posted what I did  Save |
|
|
|
Post by brina on Apr 13, 2017 17:03:52 GMT
The bull DOES NOT currently reside where it is without permission. People keep repeating that but it's not true. Where it was originally dropped off was illegal, and it was removed that same day. Where it is now, at Bowling Green, is its legal, permanent home. only because the city was nice enough to find it a permanent legal home after he dumped it obstructing a street. technically it was not obstructing the street - the Christmas tree was obstructing the street and the bull was placed next to the tree. SaveSave |
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Apr 13, 2017 18:52:23 GMT
I think this is an interesting case. Art and artists has always had more expansive rights to their works than a typical "business." I could certainly see his argument that the subsequent statue infringes on his protected work. Although I have to say, I really like fearless girl and think he's making a mistake as the derivative is actually better than the original - IMO. I'll be curious how it plays out in court.
|
|
|
|
Post by melanell on Apr 13, 2017 18:59:48 GMT
The bull DOES NOT currently reside where it is without permission. People keep repeating that but it's not true. Where it was originally dropped off was illegal, and it was removed that same day. Where it is now, at Bowling Green, is its legal, permanent home. I thought people were referring to its original placement by the artist. That's the point I kept thinking people were making over & over---that he is ironically causing a legal fuss over the placement of the new statue when he placed his statue illegally in the first place. Save |
|
perumbula
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,439
Location: Idaho
|
Post by perumbula on Apr 13, 2017 19:08:14 GMT
I do get the idea that the Fearless Girl changes the meaning of the Bull. I understand why that could bother the original artist. However, the point of art is how people interact with it and our interpretations and view of art shifts over time. The artist can not put his Bull in a bubble where everyone can only interpret the way he wants. It's as laughable as when an author gets mad because people start reading new meaning into their work the author didn't originally intend. When you put art into the world, no matter it's form, you open it up for the world to interact with it however they will.
When a director takes a Shakespearean play and re-cuts it and stages it in a new century, that changes the work.
When someone writes a fan fiction book based on Jane Austen it can change how people see her original characters.
And when someone puts a statue in a public place that's near yours (in the public place the city was kind enough to allow it after you dumped it on them,) yes, it can change how your work is interpreted.
It's the nature of art. Get over it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Apr 13, 2017 19:16:10 GMT
I do get the idea that the Fearless Girl changes the meaning of the Bull. I understand why that could bother the original artist. However, the point of art is how people interact with it and our interpretations and view of art shifts over time. The artist can not put his Bull in a bubble where everyone can only interpret the way he wants. It's as laughable as when an author gets mad because people start reading new meaning into their work the author didn't originally intend. When you put art into the world, no matter it's form, you open it up for the world to interact with it however they will. When a director takes a Shakespearean play and re-cuts it and stages it in a new century, that changes the work. When someone writes a fan fiction book based on Jane Austen it can change how people see her original characters. And when someone puts a statue in a public place that's near yours (in the public place the city was kind enough to allow it after you dumped it on them,) yes, it can change how your work is interpreted. It's the nature of art. Get over it. You're completely ignoring the extensive copyright laws protecting artists. Sure most copyrights expire in 100 years and they're part of the public domain for people to do with them what the like. But before that time - you are not free to take an artists work and do what you like with it. |
|
Makes me happy to see de Blasio in charge and does make me wonder how former Mayor Giuliani might have responded.
)
