• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'Charging Bull' creator says 'Fearless Girl' statue violated his rights

danarhea said:
No, according to the creator, the girl represents women being just as capable as men in business.
Click to expand...

And it does so, in large part, through the use of someone elses artwork. From the artist herself:

"She’s not angry at the bull — she’s confident, she knows what she’s capable of, and she’s wanting the bull to take note.”

"Fearless Girl" uses "Charging Bull" to make it's point, and in doing so it not only is wrongfully utilizing someone elses work but it's also significantly changing the meaning and message of that original piece of art as well.

My wife is pretty much apolitical, but she is an artist. I took my cue on this largely with her. The anger and frustration on the part of the original artist makes perfect sense, and has nothing to do with any kind of dislike for feminism or feeling that "women shouldn't be allowed". He created a piece of art and another person has not only usurped it for their own purposes, but turned his original positive message into a negative one. His anger is absolutely reasonable, and so long as the law supports it, I'll be cheering for him to succeed here.

I'd have no issue with Fearless Girl being moved elsewhere in the city. Hell, I'd be fine with Fearless Girl being moved simply to the OTHER SIDE of "charging bull". But the very fact people would scoff at that goes back to the initial point....that the presence of the Charging Bull artwork is instrumental into the larger meaning that Fearless Girl is presenting, thus establishing the notion that it is attempting to wrongfully use Charging Bull as a derivative piece within the overall piece of art.

The original statue was something, if my understanding is right, that he funded on his own and invested two years of work into creating simply for the purpose of providing an apolitical message of the "strength of the american people". To then see it subverted into a negative sign due a company hiring an ad agency to commission an artist to create an advertisement piggy backing off his work? Yeah, I get the frustration and anger on his part. If he ends up not having any standing under the law, I still feel for him but ultimately he's helpless. But I'll be cheering him on, not because of some idiotic notion of politics, but out of empathy to him as an artist.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
And the charging bull, sitting right in front of the New York Stock Exchange, isn't an advertising trick? Bear in mind that this was placed after a recession, when people were dumping their stocks, and was a message that the stock market rocks.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you're aware of something I've not seen anywhere. Do you have any factual evidence to suggest that the original artist was paid or commissioned to erect Charging Bull as some sort of advertisement? Because, in the case of "Fearless Girl", there is actual factual evidence here. Are you just making idle speculation about something that you could easily google, and presenting that idle speculation as an argument while throwing out comments about "pretzel logic"?
 
Whats odd is the "fearless girl" only enhances both statues x1000 yet the original bull creator rather be dramatic about it. Obviously it means some sorta symbolism that he is against now.


If I made a giant scary snowman and someone came by and plunked down a little robot hero aiming at the scary snowman i would be like..... COOL!


I dont think that he paid for exclusive art zone around that whole area so its his fault. If you make a painting of some dark tunnel some other artist may hang a painting of Zeus shooting an 8ball towards your tunnel.
 
Last edited:
dirtpoorchris said:
Whats odd is the "fearless girl" only enhances both statues x1000...
Click to expand...

Your opinion.

I dont think that he paid for exclusive art zone around that whole area...
Click to expand...

That's irrelevant. His complaint is not that the Girl takes up space near his work.

... so its his fault.
Click to expand...

Not really. He didn't ask someone to co-opt his work for their own financial gain.

If you make a painting of some dark tunnel some other artist may hang a painting of Zeus shooting an 8ball towards your tunnel.
Click to expand...

Have any relevant laws or cases to back up that assertion?
 
https://www.yahoo.com/news/artist-protests-apos-fearless-girl-152837865.html


Bulls are terrifying. A big giant bull representing wallstreet is a token for sharks pissing on our heads with impunity. The girl changed the art into childlike fantasy bravery, fantasy because in reality that bull would murder the girl. But the idea of the girl standing up to it instantly insinuates "rebellion". And the pissing dog is a legitamite 100% troll. The original bull art obviously had no honor behind its meaning to degrade the whole situation into dogs peeing on little girls.

The bull wasnt art anyways, it was just a symbolism trophy meant to passively taunt commoners.

Did the bull artist have an exclusive agreement to have control of the courtyard for his art piece only? If he doesnt believe in people sharing areas that dont even belong to him then he should move his bull somewhere else.
 
My Wife linked me the article about the peeing dog this morning. Looks like I won the bet we had. We discussed the issue when the girl statue went up and I said it's only a matter of time before someone takes the indirect action route to try and prove a point on how the new statue affects the other despite the distance between them.

She thought someone would vandalize the statue. I said that an artist, who was upset about the way the new art changed the impact of the old art, would put up a statue around fearless girl to change the perception of the people viewing the piece.

I must admit that I'm a little disappointed in the dog though. I was hoping they would have some destitute children looking towards the fearless girl with their hands out to make it look like fearless girl was disregarding those less fortunate than herself or something. Something to narrow the perspective circle to omit the bull and bring the focus towards a small area near the girl.

I was really hoping this would turn into a misrepresentative art war with people adding fun works to the area that kept changing the focus and interpretation of all the art involved. That would have been entertaining.

-TTB
 
JasperL said:
Well, no, it cannot affect my impression of the work that I formed without knowledge of the piece's location except "Wall Street." I had thought it was simply an image of a girl standing up to __________ and each person viewing the piece could imagine any number of threats or challenges, something unique to them or their lives.

If you want to assert the author's vision trumps mine, that's fine I guess.
Click to expand...

I just did a quick google search on "New York City Charging Bull" and then another search on "New York City Fearless Girl" looking for pictures. Know what the very first picture in each was?

Charging Bull:

chargingbull.jpg

Fearless Girl:

Fearless Girl.jpg

Without that bull it'd be more like "Girl Looking into the Future" or "Girl Loving New York" or "Girl Proud of New York" or "Girl Standing in the Wind".

Besides, no matter what you say, the people that put the girl up has already stated the reason that they put it up in front of the bull and did so purposefully. So anything that either of us could come up with is moot. Those that put the girl there are intentionally using the bull in their artwork. Legally that is a nono going by the law that has already been cited in this thread.
 

Attachments

  • Fearless Girl 2.jpg
    Fearless Girl 2.jpg
    81.3 KB · Views: 21
Classic. Ascribing hate to your opponent excuses you from hating them in the first place. :roll:
 
Firstly, the artist of the bull was not simply whining about the other statue. He was, through his lawyers, making a legal argument concerning financial damages and artistic ownership. Are people claiming that he does not have a right to defend the integrity of his work? He was correct on two counts. One: The other statue was derivative and relied on his work. It was an advertising campaign and he was not compensated. Two: His art had, in essence, been vandalized as the original meaning was altered. Should he not be able to voice opposition to having his art piece transformed into something totally different than what he intended?

The accusation that he was crying or whining???? Come on. That is just trying to shift the focus here.
 
danarhea said:
this is freakin' ridiculous

1) First of all, it's not his private property that "charging bull is on", so what violation of rights are we talking about? None.

2) First Amendment, folks. He has the right to place whatever represents his belief on the property it's on, as long as the property owners agree to it. By the same token, so does the other artist.

If he is so upset that he needs a tampon and a crying towel, there is a simple solution to this. He can move his statue to his own property, where nobody else will be able to do things that make him cry.

'Charging Bull' creator says 'Fearless Girl' statue violated his rights | khou.com
Click to expand...





Someone added a urinating dog to the fearless girl...
DBFa6BmU0AEKnur.jpg
 
ibelsd said:
Firstly, the artist of the bull was not simply whining about the other statue. He was, through his lawyers, making a legal argument concerning financial damages and artistic ownership. Are people claiming that he does not have a right to defend the integrity of his work? He was correct on two counts. One: The other statue was derivative and relied on his work. It was an advertising campaign and he was not compensated. Two: His art had, in essence, been vandalized as the original meaning was altered. Should he not be able to voice opposition to having his art piece transformed into something totally different than what he intended?

The accusation that he was crying or whining???? Come on. That is just trying to shift the focus here.
Click to expand...




well reasoned.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I just did a quick google search on "New York City Charging Bull" and then another search on "New York City Fearless Girl" looking for pictures. Know what the very first picture in each was?

Charging Bull:

View attachment 67218232

Fearless Girl:

View attachment 67218233

Without that bull it'd be more like "Girl Looking into the Future" or "Girl Loving New York" or "Girl Proud of New York" or "Girl Standing in the Wind".

Besides, no matter what you say, the people that put the girl up has already stated the reason that they put it up in front of the bull and did so purposefully. So anything that either of us could come up with is moot. Those that put the girl there are intentionally using the bull in their artwork. Legally that is a nono going by the law that has already been cited in this thread.
Click to expand...





People can't see the communist message here, a little girl defiantly staring down the bull that represents capitalist growth.......
 
dirtpoorchris said:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/artist-protests-apos-fearless-girl-152837865.html


Bulls are terrifying. A big giant bull representing wallstreet is a token for sharks pissing on our heads with impunity. The girl changed the art into childlike fantasy bravery, fantasy because in reality that bull would murder the girl. But the idea of the girl standing up to it instantly insinuates "rebellion". And the pissing dog is a legitamite 100% troll. The original bull art obviously had no honor behind its meaning to degrade the whole situation into dogs peeing on little girls.

The bull wasnt art anyways, it was just a symbolism trophy meant to passively taunt commoners.

Did the bull artist have an exclusive agreement to have control of the courtyard for his art piece only? If he doesnt believe in people sharing areas that dont even belong to him then he should move his bull somewhere else.
Click to expand...




the bull represents capitalist growth by investments into companies to share in thier profit.


Why would this girl stare that down?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
the bull represents capitalist growth by investments into companies to share in thier profit.


Why would this girl stare that down?
Click to expand...

My wife said someone added a new piece of art to the exhibit.

fearless-girl.jpg


Oh...I see this has already been covered. My bad.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
the bull represents capitalist growth by investments into companies to share in thier profit.


Why would this girl stare that down?
Click to expand...

Just look at the bull... Its rampaging and enraged. It obviously means something beastly and has nothing to do with the spirit of "growth". Its obviously much more attuned to running of the bull festivals with humans getting dominated. If it was strictly about growth why would they get mad at a little girl rebelling?
 
Taylor said:
And I'm sure she'd be totally fine with someone erecting a couple of statues of sobbing minority schoolgirls in front of "defiant girl" and a statue of a schoolhouse door behind her. Wouldn't change the meaning at all.
Click to expand...

Well maybe he should put his art in a more private place where he owns the property rights or move his bull. He shouldnt have sold it to them if he wants it to be frozen in time exactly how he wants it.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
The "Charging Bull" is intended as a message of hope and optimism. The "Fearless Girl" makes it something else. He has a point.
Click to expand...

You drank the koolaid man. How is some charging bull with a nefarious troll smile on its face in the middle of a mass pedestrian area portraying hope and optimism? I would think a charging rampaging bull in a pedestrian area means... you know... "Our power can trample you"
 
dirtpoorchris said:
You drank the koolaid man. How is some charging bull with a nefarious troll smile on its face in the middle of a mass pedestrian area portraying hope and optimism? I would think a charging rampaging bull in a pedestrian area means... you know... "Our power can trample you"
Click to expand...

Do you know the meaning of "bull market?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom