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.