We share good ideas and conversation here.   Login, Join Us, or Take a Tour!
comment by someguyfromcanada
someguyfromcanada  ·  161 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Seriously, the guy has a point

Interesting. I had not heard that the artist still owns the Bull. I would assume that he did not waive his moral rights in the loan agreement so it seems to me that he has a plausible basis to make a claim.

As State Street has essentially admitted as much, it also seems like there may be a solid argument that SHE does distort, mutilate, or modify the Bull in a way that prejudices the author's honor or reputation. under the Visual Artists Rights Act. I have not read the claim but I guess it is against the NYC department that granted them the permit to place it there which might force them to cancel that permit, if it is not expired by that time.

But even if he wins, State Street has still pulled off a huge marketing coup.




cgod  ·  161 days ago  ·  link  ·  

The fact that he dropped it off on Christmas makes it look a lot like a present to me, but WTE.

"I loan you this bull as a Christmas loan!"

Guy should just take his bull and his thin skin and go home.

kleinbl00  ·  160 days ago  ·  link  ·  

He dropped it under a Christmas tree, not on Christmas. It landed December 15. It was then impounded, removed, and relocated two blocks away.

Be that as it may, he's said it's for sale since 2004 on the condition that the artwork doesn't move. If Wikipedia knows this, a hedge fund knows this. Could they have bought the sculpture and avoided all controversy? Yep. Did they have to? Nope. So here we are.

cgod  ·  160 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    He dropped it under a Christmas tree, not on Christmas.

Oh, that's way different?

I don't know why anyone would care to avoid this enormously important controversy of an snitty artist whining about the fact that he can't control how people perceive a piece of art that he decided to leave in a public place.

kleinbl00  ·  160 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Maybe because you're not going to transmogrify a positive symbol of capitalism into a negative symbol of male oppression without hurting a few feelings?

Don't get up in my grille, yo. You're absolutely right - he could take his ball and go home. I'll bet you'd be shitty about that, too.

cgod  ·  160 days ago  ·  link  ·  

The guy has two good options.

First and best, be magnanimous and not sweat the girl. Gives the best chance for people to appreciate his work in the way he intended it, yea the girl will be fucking with the bull but oh well. He comes off as gracious and open minded. He can see the privately but he doesn't come off as a dick and people can choose to enjoy his work for the reasons he made it or not.

Second is take his bull and go home. He no longer has to withstand the hideous indignity of his work being mocked by a girl or people interpreting his art in a way he didn't intend. He looks like a cranky old asshole but at the same time, the pain is over.

He's taking a third path. Threatening to sue, raging against a little girl and all that she stands for, enhancing the add campaign, making his bull look like an even greater aggressor than he did all ready, making capital look like a bully and he's going to lose this fight. The longer it goes on the worse he will look and the more sullied the image of the bull will become.

It's a fantastic bull statue, powerful and awesome. The girl statue is cleaver an charming. No matter what happens, the little girl is going to win the day. Tim for Di Modica to decide how he wants himself and his work to be remembered.

katakowsj  ·  159 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Agree that the bull is fantastic. Better now with the little girl. One could see that she represents the folks that can get mowed down by our unbridled capitalism.

The whole deal is improved with her there as I see it.

Take an angle grinder,remove the words on the advertising placard, and enjoy some cool art.

Bull dude can do what he likes.

kleinbl00  ·  160 days ago  ·  link  ·  

See, and I don't see those as good options.

People aren't appreciating the work the way he intended it - he intended it to represent the indomitable spirit of American capitalism. It's now been subverted to represent male dominance. More than that, he put it up out of his own pocket, and the city of New York has been profiting from it as a tourist draw with no royalties to him. On the other hand, the subversion is being done by a corporation whose entire modus operandi was profit, yet they're making an end-run around the requirements for corporate sponsorship or support of the arts.

    “We were focusing on making a statement about the future of Wall Street,” Visbal told CNN Money last month. “We wanted this wonderful contrast.”

And he still can take the bull home - but by making a statement as to why he's unhappy with the repurposing he gets the discussion above. And - really - if he did want some money out of it? This is the way to get it. When was the last time you thought about that bull before an investment firm threw a girl in front of it?

The guy spent $360,000 on public art in 1989. If he'd put that in a Vanguard fund tracking the Dow he'd have $3.2m by now. All the rest of it? That's you projecting.

You know the Fremont Troll? How do you think the fine folx of Fremont would feel if Nintendo (good, local company that provides a lot of jobs) decided to throw up a statue of Link to "empower dreamers" or some shit? On a date that happened to coincide with the release of Breath of the Wild?

I'ma reckon everyone, from the artists to the mayor to the people driving by, would lose their collective shit. The difference here is "girl power." That's it. And when you see it in quotes, hear it said by Gerri Hallowell. For a bank.

There are more than three paths, and all of them have hazards you are discounting.

user-inactivated  ·  161 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Interesting. "Thin skin". Why?

cgod  ·  160 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Every artist has the message and merit of their work challenged. He should take his bull back or deal with the fact that he doesn't like one spin on his work.

user-inactivated  ·  160 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    He should take his bull back or deal with the fact that he doesn't like one spin on his work.

It's not his work anymore. Though I recognize the vast difference in scale, you can't ask the architect to take done Empire State Building simply because it's not used for zeppelins as originally intended.

kleinbl00  ·  160 days ago  ·  link  ·  

This is not the case.

1) It is his work. He still possesses title to the work, as well as licensing rights. It is on indeterminate loan to the city of New York.

2) It's entirely movable. It was moved to its original location, then it was removed, then it was moved to its current location. It weighs 7000 lbs - less than a lorry.

user-inactivated  ·  160 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Licensing, rights - sure. His possession, for him to rule over however he wants.

It has, however, also become a symbol, whether the owner recognizes it or not. It's a symbol for NYC and a symbol for Wall Street.

If he takes the bull out, he'll take away a bit of culture - of the city, of the nation and of the world. I doubt there's a replacement he can do that will have as much weight, culturally.