Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Scaggsville

Does BS Need an Art Forum?

19 posts in this topic

I found myself looking for one and saw Music, Movies, but no Art.

 

Anyway, I thought this story was interesting.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/12/charging-bull-new-york-fearless-girl-statue-copyright-claim

 

 

'Charging Bull' sculptor says New York's 'Fearless Girl' statue violates his rights

Arturo Di Modica says ‘advertising trick’ placed in Wall Street before international women’s day infringed artistic copyright.

 

Do you think Mr Di Modica has a point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The girl was placed there temporarily to make a point. Fine.

But her presence completely changes the message of Di Modica's original art.

Now the two scuptures appear as one installation and tells an entirely different story.

I'm with Di Modica on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say, I agree with him.  The girl, as a stand alone sculpture, would have little impact without it's current positioning.  It's impact comes from Di Modica's work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of opens up a can of worms. Mr Di Modica doesn't own Wall St. He can't dictate how an observer chooses to interpret his work.

 

The bull looks just as fierce to me. And the girl looks pretty darn fearless on her own without the context of the bull.

 

There is talk of making the girl permanent after the extention to 2018.

 

What about a buildings architectural style. Can newer buildings nearby become targets of legal action because an architect takes issue with its design?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of opens up a can of worms. Mr Di Modica doesn't own Wall St. He can't dictate how an observer chooses to interpret his work.

 

The bull looks just as fierce to me. And the girl looks pretty darn fearless on her own without the context of the bull.

 

There is talk of making the girl permanent after the extention to 2018.

 

What about a buildings architectural style. Can newer buildings nearby become targets of legal action because an architect takes issue with its design?

According to your link, the bull is supposed to say "freedom in the world, peace, strength, power and love,"

The girl reduces it to only "fierce," (your own words)

 

Imagine that girl statue being placed in front of the statue of David. Whole different scene! (lol)

 

I'm sure architects would love to have control of the surrounding buildings, but I believe it's a given that that isn't feasible.

 

This could become a big legal battle. Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering DiModica's sculpture of the bull was also installed there in the middle of the night in the 1980s I don't see where he has much room to complain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering DiModica's sculpture of the bull was also installed there in the middle of the night in the 1980s I don't see where he has much room to complain.

That makes no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That makes no sense.

What part?

 

Deposited in front of the New York Stock Exchange under cover of night—it was meant as a symbol of American resilience following the 1987 market crash—the guerrilla artwork was originally unwelcome in Lower Manhattan. It was carted away to Queens, and might have been lost to obscurity had Piccolo not stepped in, working with the Parks Department and then-Mayor Ed Koch to give Charging Bull a permanent home at Bowling Green.

 

 

https://news.artnet.com/exhibitions/fearless-bull-charging-girl-copyright-907208

 

Edited by zenwalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What part?

 

Deposited in front of the New York Stock Exchange under cover of night—it was meant as a symbol of American resilience following the 1987 market crash—the guerrilla artwork was originally unwelcome in Lower Manhattan. It was carted away to Queens, and might have been lost to obscurity had Piccolo not stepped in, working with the Parks Department and then-Mayor Ed Koch to give Charging Bull a permanent home at Bowling Green.

 

 

https://news.artnet.com/exhibitions/fearless-bull-charging-girl-copyright-907208

 

That's all water under the bridge. The fact is, it's been there, and accepted, for 28 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's all water under the bridge. The fact is, it's been there, and accepted, for 28 years.

Thought the kid statue was only there temporarily? It's not that good but if it irks Wall Street then my vote is to let it stay. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought the kid statue was only there temporarily? It's not that good but if it irks Wall Street then my vote is to let it stay.

As Scaggs mentioned above, there's talk of extending her stay.

The issue isn't about irking WS. It's about changing the original message of the original artwork.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/13/2017 at 8:14 AM, PinkFlamingo said:

The girl was placed there temporarily to make a point. Fine.

But her presence completely changes the message of Di Modica's original art.

Now the two scuptures appear as one installation and tells an entirely different story.

I'm with Di Modica on this.

I'll grant you the little girl statue is hideous (her head is about twice the natural size) and that the dog looks like a cat. But the grounds for removal should be aesthetic since the bull statue was placed there illegally as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, zenwalk said:

I'll grant you the little girl statue is hideous (her head is about twice the natural size) and that the dog looks like a cat. But the grounds for removal should be aesthetic since the bull statue was placed there illegally as well. 

My comments are about the aesthetics. 

The girl changed the bull, and now the dog ruins the whole thing.  Geez, what's next, a rat? 

Smh

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, PinkFlamingo said:

My comments are about the aesthetics. 

The girl changed the bull, and now the dog ruins the whole thing.  Geez, what's next, a rat? 

Smh

 

 

 

A rat would probably be more appropriate than all three statues put together. A family of rats trying to get a huge chunk of cheese through the mouse hole would be one idea.

Edited by zenwalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, zenwalk said:

A rat would probably be more appropriate than all three statues put together. A family of rats trying to get a huge chunk of cheese through the mouse hole would be one idea.

:D:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

This is starting to test the limits of absurdity. Tomorrow they will add a statue of a dogcatcher and maybe later they will add a mugger...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mugger sounds like a good fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Can't put Pics on here so any exchange about Art seems pointless. I'd like some of these covering my whole walls.

http://www.peterelson.co.uk/

Edited by Bartman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0