You might as well as installed a giant penis in place of the bull.

The girl adds some sanity to the whole place.

Fuck the bull. I'm with the little girl.

The original artist apparently placed the bull there as a monument to his own ego and the collective ego of Wall Street. I'd hardly even consider it art. In fact, the little girl brings it much closer to being art by involving it in a real juxtaposition, a meaningful conflict.

And what Question said. (Y)

I'm with the unimpressed pigeon.

OK, you win. I'm still going to hate on Wall Street every chance I get though.

lol.

Political art tends to leave me cold; it's usually just a preaching to the choir. Sure, this piece is in the Financial District, so it doesn't preach to the choir in that respect. From a purely artistic standpoint, it's interesting. From a practical standpoint, I don't think it's going to change the minds of any Wall Street employees, or anyone sympathetic with Wall Street. These sorts of moves are generally just opportunities for the progressive left to get riled up for their cause. But political art like this doesn't tend to lead to actual change, which is what I would assume would be the purpose. Part of this is because the conservative right doesn't tend to place the same significance on art anyway. The major metropolitan areas where the forefront of art is cultivated are generally filled with politically liberal people who place a high value on art (obviously with the exception of Wall Street, but NYC is still largely a democratic city). This is why it tends to be a preaching to the choir, because using art as a language to express a political message tends to be a one-sided conversation.

You also win. This isn't good political art. It's more of a sop to liberalism. So, yes, it won't change anyone's mind. The pigeon triumphs. That doesn't mean you can't have good political art though...

using art as a language to express a political message tends to be a one-sided conversation. — Noble Dust

If your name's Banksy, that's because it is unanswerable, but in this case, it looks as if a political art work has been answered with another. The first artist seems to have conceded the point by resorting to lawyers.

I don't live in NYC, so I never have to look at this. In that respect, I just don't care. On the other hand...

There are a batch of bronze sculptures in Minneapolis that I do like and see frequently. They were thoughtfully placed in a particular context, and the sculpture and its surroundings are unified. The meaning and cultural value of a given work could be "defaced" by placing something inappropriate or deliberately contrary to the sculpture.

What can legally be done, what should be done, what ought not be done, what is tasteful, what is tasteless, and so on are all too complicated to be settled quickly. I tend toward thinking that a sculpture that has been in place for at least a few years has priority.

The Bull should stand alone. The little girl should clear the hell out and stand somewhere else.

Cities tend to jumble things together, and the results are often unfortunate. Architects design buildings that are an affront to every building surrounding them--not because they are so good, of course, but because they are so bad. The design shouldn't have been accepted, and once built there is nothing that can be done about it. That's why sensitivity, taste, aesthetic skill, and such are important in public works.

Any sculpture, save that of a rampant bear, would be inappropriate in the vicinity of The Bull.

I have enough laws to deal with, thank you, and so will decline to read and comment on this one, which seems rather silly according to the blurb appearing in the OP. "[P]rotection to moral rights", forsooth. It seems simply to benefit artists to the detriment of those foolish enough to acquire, or accept, their onanistic output.

"Let others bend the breathing bronze to forms more fair..."

That's pretty funny, but I'm not sure how the humor makes it better political art. I'm still not sure it's impacting anyone's opinion. It reminds me of political cartoons; clever, prescient, but ultimately just an artful form of complaining.

in this case, it looks as if a political art work has been answered with another. The first artist seems to have conceded the point by resorting to lawyers — unenlightened

That's true. But it's unclear to me what, if anything, the bull was originally supposed to suggest. And it's still unclear to me whether any actual changes will take place in wall street thanks to either piece.

I like the Charging Bull, its massive form, and the power and danger it expresses.. The Bull's dynamic stance suggest its uncertainty for all that pass. It ideologically links up with power and force of Wall St., which it reifies on a massive scale. But beyond any critical interpretation, which are apparently not lacking, it is something the City and its visitors enjoy and Society determines the value of art, this work's commodification lies in its enjoyment by the many.

Adrian Benepe, the New York City parks commissioner, said in 2004, "It's become one of the most visited, most photographed and perhaps most loved and recognized statues in the city of New York. I would say it's right up there with the Statue of Liberty."

In fact some tourists give its presence as their reason some for visiting NYC.

The "Fearless Girl" was commissioned by State Street Global Advisers, its stock symbol is SHE, and this creation was the idea of McCann Erickson one of the largest marketing/advertising companies in the world.

The Bull artist

Di Modica states the statue corrupts Charging Bull's artistic integrity by distorting the intent of his statue from "a symbol of prosperity and for strength" into a villain, and does so for SSgA's commercial gain. Siegel[Attorney] said a lawsuit had not been filed as of yet]

I think he's right.

I also like the pigeon, at least it knows which target is easier to hit.

I think he's right. — Cavacava

I agree.

(Y)

Boom and busts. If only the bull dominated all the time, wishes the CEO of some Wall Street firm.

But it's unclear to me what, if anything, the bull was originally supposed to suggest. — Noble Dust

What do you think a horny, powerful, pawing, snorting, twisting bull would represent--little girl sisterhood and apple strudel? Cream cheese? Got Milk? No. it's clearly a symbol of aggressive financial optimism and prosperity. Bulls have balls, like the big-bad American Economy, so look out little girl, or you-know-what will happen to you.

I thought they ALL wished for the perpetual bull market.

Wet dream.

See Cavacava's post above.

Ok, let's subtract the humor. Guernica. Good political art?

I can see the artist's point of view. If he sees the juxtaposition of the additional sculpture as detracting from his art work, it is reasonable for him to be upset about that. Whether the additional sculpture improves or degrades the artwork is subjective and can certainly be debated. But I think it reasonable for the artist to complain, and to make use of whatever laws may be available to assist him in that regard.

BTW I did not know of the existence of those laws, but I can understand their motivation. Imagine how da Vinci might feel if the Mona Lisa were permanently displayed with a moustache attached to it, even if the moustache were removable without damaging the painting.

I wonder whether the law would prevent (or render vulnerable to litigation) somebody making copies of the Mona Lisa with moustaches on them though. Or - in the case of the bull, a similar bull sculpture being installed somewhere else accompanied by the girl.

I was also unaware of these laws. Regarding its application:

VARA covers only limited, fine art categories of "works of visual art": paintings, sculptures, drawings, prints, still photographs produced for exhibition. Within this group, only single copies or signed and numbered limited editions of 200 or less are actually protected. VARA does not apply to any of the following: works made for hire, posters, maps, globes or charts, technical drawings, diagrams, models, applied art, motion pictures, books and other publications, electronic publications, merchandising items or advertising, promotional, descriptive, covering, packaging material or container, nor does it cover any work not subject to general copyright protection.

Here

So let me get this straight:

A man vandalizes a public space, and the public subsequently decides they like the aesthetics of said vandalism, so they elect not to destroy/remove it.

Some years later, someone else vandalizes that vandalism, to the aesthetic appeal of the public, and now the original vandal thinks he has rights in this situation?

He has no authority to curate a public space, regardless of whether or not his art exists there. The moral rights he has to his artwork were reasonably forfeit when he discarded it in a public space, ostensibly abandoning it as refuse. We give artists such rights because they work hard on and love their art, but this artist stuffed this particular piece of work into a political cannon and fired it into no-mans-land. He lost all rights over it when he chose to illegally inflict it upon the public, in my view.

Even if he wanted to have the bull removed (to protect it) at his own expense, he should be denied that right. It belongs to the public, morals and all. It's theirs to mutilate.

Sure the fearless girl destroys the original message, but since the public owns the bull, message included, it's theirs to destroy.

Sure the original artist ought to be pissed. He got beat at his own game.

Precisely, he has not a hoof to stand on.

Yes, a really interesting facet of this jewel is the artist still owns the work, the City has only permitted its use at this location. I think it can be argued that the public has taken it over by kinda of eminent domain. Similar to some of the arguments I have read about citizens complaining when a building owner carved a Bansky off the side of a building he owned to sell it at a gallery. The citizens arguing that it was owned by the community (shipped it to Miami of course).

For me, although it was a little reminiscent of the Reichskulturkammer, I was really impressed by this sculpture after I saw it in person. Pictures don't capture it that well. I have to agree with the artist, I am sad to say, that the girl statue is nothing at all to do with his expression, so I can understand why he wants it removed.

But like most public statues in the USA, it still makes me think of the Reichskulturkammer. Of course it doesn't compare to the horrifying turning of Lincoln into an idol god (the government insisted the artist change it so the soles of Lincoln's shoes are above any onlooker's head)

Then there is the statue of liberty, which is mistakenly called 'she' because the word for statue in French is feminine. It's actually Helios, the god of the sun, and modeled on a version of Helios which is said to have been modeled itself on the Colossus of Rhodes. That's why his crown looks like sun rays. The fact Americans think of the statue as a she rather says it for me. Reichskulturkammer.

I hope someone puts a statue of Sanders depicting him having a big ax looming over the bulls head.

No, sorry even better.

Have Sanders hold hand with the fearless girl in front of the bull with him holding a big axe in the other hand.

Yeah, take that you fucking ugly fucking bull.

So if the SOL is actually a male god, why did the sculpture supposedly use his mother as the model? Maybe either she / he is actually transgender?