Seriously? She is in the formative years of her life, and she deserves love an acceptance for who she is.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it's a duck...she doesn't walk or talk like a Mormon, so again...why does she care?
Seriously? She is in the formative years of her life, and she deserves love an acceptance for who she is.
I'm actually glad the artist is getting sued. The bull was a symbol of strength, not a symbol of male oppression. The douchebag artist that made the girl statue deserves what he gets.
Obviously not...she's not going to change their beliefs any more than they will change hers...
LOL! Oh, you mean that candy-ass artist who created that statue and installed it in the dark of night w/out ever getting permission? That one?
And the little girl statue that's going to be there for at least another year? That one?
It's quite obvious which statue I was talking about. The statue changes the meaning of the other artists work against his permission. He had no right to do such a thing and he is rightfully going to pay for it. I also doubt it will be there for another year since the artist should lose.
Oh, you're actually upset about art. With no relation to the topic of the thread. Did you get mad when Lynryd Skynryd dissed Neil Young in "Sweet Home Alabama?"
True...change begins with yourself...not with changing others...best for her to move on and stop calling herself a Mormon because she's not...her beliefs are not the same...
Who the hell cares? The artist of the bull put it there under cover of darkness illegally, so if his 'meaning' is altered, that's just too goddamned bad. The orignial artist had no permission.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...rl-statue-wall-street-charging-bull/99687078/
Mormons can believe what they want.
We will see if the courts agree. Generally the courts don't side with artists that change the meanings of other peoples works of art against their permission.
yup...
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it's a duck...she doesn't walk or talk like a Mormon, so again...why does she care?
Keep dreaming.
Judging by your signature, I assume you are a Christian? If so, do you not believe in loving thy neighbor as thyself? Particularly the young among you. Or is your religion's way to throw her to the wolves?
You're not making sense. This was her very publicly excommunicating herself and possibly her parents doing the same thing.
she's not?
I beg to differ, people have their minds and opinion and belief system changed all of the time...ask any evangelist why they preach
Finally, Josh Lamel of the Re:Create Coalition, argues Di Modica's legal challenge could fall afoul of the First Amendment. In the view of Lamel, who is a lawyer, judges would conclude VARA violates free speech by forbids artists displaying their work near existing pieces—and he says many artists would agree.
lol. It's not just near the other statue, but was made part of an extension of the other piece of art. Fail Fortune.
Let her answer for herself, Jay.
Ha! Thankfully that one didn't last as long as she did.
Sorry, the law says otherwise. Bummer, man.
You're not making sense. This was her very publicly excommunicating herself and possibly her parents doing the same thing.
The law does not say otherwise. Pieces of art near another piece of art are vastly different than pieces of art made as extensions of existing art.