4 ms·

No. It is like hanging a painting of a mustache next to the Mona Lisa. This does not damage or physically modify the original art. You don't even know the na

• smsm42 10y ago
  > This does not damage or physically modify the original art. Surely, but we're not talking about tort lawsuit here. We're talking about art. From art point of view, it doesn't really matter if you drew it on original or on a reproduction. Well, if you are into performance art it kinda does, but that's not relevant here. > You don't even know the name of the investment fund that paid for this statement. Ah, but now I do. That's the point. > The main point obviously wasn't to push the fund Or was it? And why would I care what the intent was - it's the result that is interesting. When Homer performed his rendering of Iliad, he probably didn't intend to create timeless classic to be studies thousands of years since. He probably was just trying to earn his evening meal. Who cares? The point is not what they wanted to do, the point is what they did. At least to me.
  • daveguy 10y ago
    With your analogy of drawing on the mona lisa you imply that they literally attached one sculpture to another. It's just a poor analogy. If they had welded the noses of the bull and the girl together then it would be an accurate analogy. I also had never heard of Di Modica. I'm sure recognition/advertising had nothing to do with his original work or current speaking out.