4 ms·

I have no idea how you could make that comparison. The original artwork was neither destroyed, changed, or touched in any way. It's not in any way like "paintin

• diamonis 10y ago
  Mashups are fine and I support them, fwiw. But putting 'her' in front of the charging bull is a deliberate attempt to change the meaning of his art. It is the attempt of a second rate artist to ride the coat tails of a superior artist. She gets instant notoriety for her work by, not so coincidentally, trashing somebody elses.
  • anigbrowl 10y ago
    Changing the meaning of an existing piece of art isn't vandalism, it is pure art. As an artist myself I reject your claim that Di Modica is somehow a 'superior artist' just because he happened to have his work there first. Kristen Visbal came up with something everyone who sees it reacts to without needing an intermediaries to draw attention to or explain the semantics of her artistic statement, which is precisely the goal of art.
    • Chris2048 10y ago
      > Kristen Visbal came up with something everyone who sees it reacts to without needing an intermediaries to draw attention to or explain the semantics of her artistic statement, which is precisely the goal of art. So a swastika on a war memorial is also "art"?
• daveguy 10y ago
  It's as if someone hung a picture of a moustache next to a picture of the Mona Lisa. No copyrights remotely violated.