3 ms·

I'm not normally one for Schadenfreude, but I sincerely hope he loses this case. It's okay for him to stick his sculpture in the square without a permit, but no

I'm not normally one for Schadenfreude, but I sincerely hope he loses this case. It's okay for him to stick his sculpture in the square without a permit, but no one else can, even with a permit? He doesn't own the street, and he needs to learn that firmly and promptly.

rz2k 10y ago
"firmly and promptly"?? However it goes, I hope it doesn't involve one side or the other saying the other had no business even having their opinion on the matter. Both artists seem to have had positive intents, yet the two together are incompatible with the first artist's intent. While satire typically allows both works to exist in their original contexts, the Charging Bull becomes a menace here, no longer able to be interpreted as a symbol of economic optimism. The Fearless Girl has value, too, but it is not without critics either, so there is at least a valid discussion to be had.
- morganvachon 10y ago
  > "The Fearless Girl has value, too, but it is not without critics either, so there is at least a valid discussion to be had." I'm all for discussion, but from what little information we have to go on, it appears the bull's sculptor is seeking to stifle discussion and simply have the girl removed despite a valid permit and public interest. That's what I take issue with; he doesn't get to dictate what is placed on a public street any more than the girl's sculptor does (which she isn't).