HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Charging Bull sculptor sa...

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 11:26 AM

Charging Bull sculptor says Fearless Girl distorts his art. Hes fighting back.

Source: Washington Post

With hopes of dispensing the “perfect antidote” to the stock market crash of 1987, Italian-born sculptor Arturo Di Modica spent two years welding a 7,000 pound bronze bull statue designed to capture the resilience of the American people.

Under the cover of night and without a permit, he installed his massive “Charging Bull” directly before the New York Stock Exchange, a gift New Yorkers loved but New York City initially hated. Authorities removed it, but later reinstalled it under pressure at a small public park in the financial district.

<SNIP>

Then last month, on International Women’s Day, a new statue of a symbolically brave “Fearless Girl” stole its spotlight — and, Di Modica says, fundamentally corrupted the artistic integrity of his “Charging Bull.”

<SNIP>

The artist will hold a news conference Wednesday with attorney Norman Siegel, the former director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, to explain his plans to challenge the city officials who let “Fearless Girl” happen without asking his permission.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/12/charging-bull-sculptor-says-fearless-girl-distorts-his-art-hes-fighting-back/



A little historical context:
Charging Bull
History
Construction and installation

The bull was cast by the Bedi-Makky Art Foundry in Greenpoint, Brooklyn. Di Modica spent some $360,000 to create, cast, and install the sculpture following the 1987 stock market crash as a symbol of the "strength and power of the American people".[2] The sculpture was the artist's idea, not the city's. In an act of guerrilla art, Bedi Makky Art Foundry, along with Di Modica, trucked it to Lower Manhattan and on December 15, 1989, installed it beneath a 60-foot (18 m) Christmas tree in the middle of Broad Street in front of the New York Stock Exchange as a Christmas gift to the people of New York. That day, crowds came to look at the bull, with hundreds stopping to admire and analyze the gift as Di Modica handed out copies of a flier about his artwork.[2]

The police seized the sculpture and placed it into an impound lot. The ensuing public outcry led the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation to re-install it two blocks south of the Exchange in the plaza at Bowling Green with a ceremony on December 21, 1989. It faces up towards Broadway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charging_Bull#Construction_and_installation


The Charging Bull was installed on Wall Street without permission, was impounded for a while before being relocated. It has been at its present location with a technically temporary permit since 1989. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charging_Bull#Ownership)

The Fearless Girl was installed with permission: "The sculpture's installation is temporary; it was initially expected to stay in place at least several weeks,[8] given a New York City Hall permit for one week that was later extended to 30 days.[9] On March 27, it was announced that the statue would remain in place through February, 2018." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fearless_Girl#History

Frankly in my opinion, the Fearless Girl gives the Charging Bull even more relevance for today. While the Bull stands for American Power, the Girl stands for the power of the individual in American society, no matter how small they are, standing up to the most powerful forces in the land.

If Di Modica does not like the juxtaposition of the Fearless Girl to his statue, he is perfectly within his rights to remove the Charging Bull and to reinstall it wherever he likes. I'm sure people would be happy to give him some suggestions.

23 replies, 7551 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 23 replies Author Time Post
Reply Charging Bull sculptor says Fearless Girl distorts his art. Hes fighting back. (Original post)
csziggy Apr 2017 OP
ehrnst Apr 2017 #1
csziggy Apr 2017 #5
christx30 Apr 2017 #2
JustABozoOnThisBus Apr 2017 #3
Warpy Apr 2017 #4
csziggy Apr 2017 #7
Warpy Apr 2017 #8
bucolic_frolic Apr 2017 #6
LuckyLib Apr 2017 #9
csziggy Apr 2017 #11
elleng Apr 2017 #10
truthisfreedom Apr 2017 #12
The empressof all Apr 2017 #13
genxlib Apr 2017 #14
csziggy Apr 2017 #17
JHan Apr 2017 #15
billpolonsky Apr 2017 #16
Vinca Apr 2017 #18
mr_lebowski Apr 2017 #21
George II Apr 2017 #19
pansypoo53219 Apr 2017 #20
Nitram Apr 2017 #22
csziggy Apr 2017 #23

Response to csziggy (Original post)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 11:32 AM

1. Being on the street brings the constant risk of "distortion"

People climbing on it, people taking selfies, snow....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #1)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 11:41 AM

5. People have done lots of things to the Bull

In addition to having their pictures taken at the front end of the bull, many tourists pose at the back of the bull, near the large testicles "for snapshots under an unmistakable symbol of its virility."[16] According to a Washington Post article in 2002, "People on The Street say you've got to rub the nose, horns and testicles of the bull for good luck, tour guide Wayne McLeod would tell the group on the Baltimore bus, who would giddily oblige."[17] According to a 2004 New York Times article, "Passers-by have rubbed—to a bright gleam—its nose, horns and a part of its anatomy that, as Mr. Benepe put it gingerly, 'separates the bull from the steer.'"[1]

A 2007 newspaper account agreed that a "peculiar ritual" of handling the "shining orbs" of the statue's scrotum seems to have developed into a tradition. One visitor, from Mississippi, told the Tribeca Trib she did it "for good luck", and because "there's a kind of primal response when you see something like that. You just have to engage it."[3] The enthusiastic reaction to the sculpture continues into the darker hours. "I've seen people do some crazy things to that bull", said a souvenir vendor, "At night sometimes, when people have been drinking, I’ve seen them do stuff to that bull that you couldn’t print in a newspaper."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charging_Bull#Use_as_a_tourist_attraction



Di Modica should reconsider challenging a legally permitted sculpture versus his dubiously allowed statue. The artist that created the Fearless Girl said this: “The bull is beautiful, it’s a stunning piece of art,” Visbal told the Post. “But the world changes and we are now running with this bull.” (From the article linked in the OP)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Original post)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 11:33 AM

2. Irony:

Guy that installs art without permit, angry that his work was distorted without his permission.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Original post)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 11:35 AM

3. "... in the plaza at Bowling Green .."

The bull commemorates the Bowling Green massacre!

Who knew?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Original post)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 11:37 AM

4. Arthur needs to get a grip

He's just outraged at the idea some uppity woman is facing down his hypernasculine dumb sculpture.

FWIW, I've always hated that thing. If Wall Street loves it, why don't they get together and buy some land to put it on?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #4)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 11:42 AM

7. It's been for sale since 1989

But why buy the cow when the milk is free, to quote an old saying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Reply #7)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 11:44 AM

8. It's also a great critical comment on that thing

that even Merrill Lynch isn't interested.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Original post)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 11:42 AM

6. His art extends beyond his art?

No. He has no right to suppress other works of art that conflict with his idea of the
zone of influence of his art. Boundaries once again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Original post)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 11:44 AM

9. The real distortion in that end of Manhattan is the obscene salaries raked in by

Wall Street bankers and hedge fund executives. His bull sculpture is an appropriate metaphor for the whole mess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LuckyLib (Reply #9)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 11:47 AM

11. Remember this image?



Di Modica didn't sue over that - probably because there were no deep pockets to go after.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Original post)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 11:46 AM

10. Bull sculptor loses this one, imo.

Bull was installed on Wall Street without permission, temporary permit since 1989. Girl was installed with permission.

Sorry, bull. And WITH you, Fearless Girl gives the Charging Bull even more relevance for today. While the Bull stands for American Power, the Girl stands for the power of the individual in American society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Original post)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 11:49 AM

12. Sounds like the two statues deserve each other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Original post)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 11:52 AM

13. Although I understand his position

His assumption that he could control the space around his installation is unrealistic and frankly a wee bit over the top.... The city controls the public square and could put a "Honey Bucket" right in that bulls face if they so desired. So this little snit fit in my opinion is all about the artist and publicity and really not about the art. I'm sure he probably is a little grateful to that "little girl" He has a wider public forum to get his name out there...Too bad most folks who will even remember him in a few years will remember him as a bit of an Ass. The little girl makes his bull even better! He should be extremely excited that his public art is being used so publically to make an even more current statement. ... Inspiring others is a good thing....Too bad he can't recognize that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Original post)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 11:59 AM

14. Am I the only one..

that wants the girl to be permanent now?

I was happy that it was there for an extended period but didn't really have an opinion otherwise.

But now, this asshole has made me want it to stay. I figure if it upsets the hyper masculine theme then it must be working.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to genxlib (Reply #14)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 12:58 PM

17. No, There have been a lot of requests for the Fearless Girl to stay

I think the decision will be up to the sculptor - the city does not buy art works. Art must be donated by the artist or by a donor who has purchased it. The only reason the Charging Bull is still there is that the artist has not been able to sell it and it is popular enough that the city has allowed it to stay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Original post)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 12:01 PM

15. an artist who couldn't appreciate irony even if it slapped him in the face /SAD

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Original post)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 12:21 PM

16. Art Fight!

Cue the music...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Original post)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 01:02 PM

18. I have to side with the artist. The meaning of his piece is now not what he intended.

I also like the Fearless Girl statue and it deserves a place to be appreciated on its own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #18)

Thu Apr 13, 2017, 03:35 AM

21. I side with his right to complain, and his right to move the statue if he wants ...

I don't stand with his right to insist that Fearless Girl be removed simply because he doesn't like it.

Had the piece been commissioned and had he been promised by the city to have it be 'maintained' in some sense as part of a contract, OR if it was in a museum somewhere, I'd see him having a right to demand change to the situation.

As it stands, though ... his piece is 'squatting' on park-land, and he's got it up for sale anyway. Fearless Girl is commissioned by the City.

However, without the bull there in the first place, nobody would know the significance of the Fearless Girl statue. And the FG statue maker may well have actually got 'paid'. If not for FG, then on his/her next one, due to the publicity gained by FG.

How much you want to bet this really comes down the Bull builder ... wanting to get himself a pay-out, since the FG creator did (or will likely) get paid ... in some part due to their leveraging his work ... in building the bull?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Original post)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 01:22 PM

19. Sounds like a lot of bull to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Original post)

Wed Apr 12, 2017, 01:46 PM

20. what a snowflake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Original post)

Thu Apr 13, 2017, 10:27 AM

22. I love the girl facing down the Wall Street bull.

The only way it "distorts" Di Modica's sculpture is that it undermines a macho symbol of Capitalism's power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nitram (Reply #22)

Thu Apr 13, 2017, 10:34 AM

23. Yes, I think the Fearless Girl is a brilliant piece of art

Yes, she does need the Charging Bull to make the artist's point, but so did the ballerina on the bull that was an iconic image for the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Di Modica should be proud that his art has become such an important symbol of American capitalism that other artist want to use it to make complementary and/or opposing statements. By trying to block the display of the Fearless Girl he is showing the worst traits of capitalism - which just emphasizes the impact of the Fearless Girl.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread