- Apr 5, 2010
- 80,490
- 32,453
- 2,300
His main point is that the other work takes his sculpture from his positive intent into a negative. I know people who don't like capitalism don't see the bull as positive, but that is a person's own interpretation of the work. Here another work was placed and it changes the context of the original work without the artist's permission. One would say that without the original work (the bull) the 2nd work (fearless girl" would not have the same meaning it currently has.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/12/nyregion/charging-bull-sculpture-wall-street-fearless-girl.html
Of course DiBlasio disregards the artist's statements out of hand...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/12/nyregion/charging-bull-sculpture-wall-street-fearless-girl.html
For his part, Mr. Di Modica became emotional, explaining later that when he had heard about “Fearless Girl,” his reaction was to go to the site in Lower Manhattan and try to do something to end the face-off between the two statues. “I said, ‘Now I’m going to turn around the bull myself,’” he recalled.
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.”
Because of “Fearless Girl,” Mr. Siegel said, “‘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.”
Of course DiBlasio disregards the artist's statements out of hand...
Mayor Bill de Blasio, who spoke out in support of “Fearless Girl” last month, reiterated its importance on Twitter on Wednesday: “Men who don’t like women taking up space are exactly why we need the Fearless Girl.”