Di Modica does not have a monopoly on the meaning of his work. If he doesn't like the Fearless Girl, he can take his statue away or try to bring suit or whateve

Di Modica does not have a monopoly on the meaning of his work. If he doesn't like the Fearless Girl, he can take his statue away or try to bring suit or whatever, but it's actually irrelevant to the meaning of his work. Nothing he can do can affix such meaning. The meaning he ascribed to it is but one of many meanings, all equally valid, none preferred. When I first took note of the bull, to me it represented everything that was wrong with Wall St. and America. It was a symbol of what Wall St. was doing to America: charging it down and trampling it to death. This is pretty much the opposite of what Di Modica meant but it's just as right an interpretation as his. After reading this and other articles and knowing the history of the piece, I still prefer my own interpretation and think Di Modica's quite lame. The girl even adds to that. The fact that she represents SHE just adds to the irony. Anyway, my interpretation is not important either, just like Di Modica's isn't. As far as relevance and meaningfulness, they are equal. Di Modica, as an artist, should understand that the best. Too bad he doesn't. The rest are just boring legal issues surrounding a confused artist.