Artist Offended By “Fearless Girl”

0

Enjoyed the video ladies check these swimsuits out

The male who shaped "Charging Bull" for Wall surface Road is mad that "Brave Girl" alters the definition of his art. Ana Kasparian, Brett Erlich, and Aida Rodriguez, the hosts of The Young Turks, discuss if he has a factor or is panicing. Inform us exactly what you think in the comment section below.

"" Charging Bull" had a message for "Courageous Girl" on Wednesday, as well as it was much more "Leave my space" than "Here's taking a look at you, child."

The message actually originated from Arturo Di Modica, the sculptor that developed "Charging Bull" virtually 30 years back. He likewise copyrighted and trademarked the three-and-a-half-ton sculpture that stands near Wall surface Street. Since March 7, "Charging Bull" has actually taken on versus "Fearless Woman," a sculpture of a woman presented with her hands on her hips that was appointed by State Road Global Advisors, a financial company based in Boston.

Mr. Di Modica stated that "Courageous Lady" was a disrespect to his work, which he created after the securities market collisions in the late 1980s. "She's there assaulting the bull," he said.

Also as Mr. Di Modica was denouncing "Fearless Woman" at a news conference in Midtown Manhattan, State Street Global's web page highlighted the statue for its message concerning "the power of women in leadership" and prompted "higher sex variety on corporate boards."

Mr. Di Modica as well as his legal representatives did not disagree with that said idea at a press conference– "None people here remain in any type of way not proponents of gender equality," stated one of Mr. Di Modica's attorneys, Norman Siegel, a previous exec supervisor of the New york city Civil Liberties Union. They required that "Courageous Girl" be relocated elsewhere."

Find out more here:

Hosts: Ana Kasparian, Brett Erlich, Aida Rodriguez

Cast: Ana Kasparian, Brett Erlich, Aida Rodriguez

***

The Largest Online Information Program in the World. Hosted by Cenk Uygur as well as Ana Kasparian. LIVE STREAMING weekdays 6-8pm ET.

Youthful Turk (n), 1. Youthful modern or insurgent participant of an establishment, motion, or political celebration. 2. A young person who rebels versus authority or societal expectations.( American Heritage Thesaurus).

Download and install audio as well as video clip of the complete two hr program on-demand + the members-only blog post game program by becoming a participant at. Your membership sustains the everyday procedures and is essential for our continued success as well as development.

Get The Young Turks Mobile Application Today!

Download the iOS version below:.

Download and install the Android version below:.

Share Your Comments

78 comments

  1. Posted by Wew Lad, at Reply

    More feminist bullshit. The Wall Street bull stands for financial investment, does that mean that Fearless Girl is standing against economic growth?

    • Posted by Gustav The Mad, at Reply

      +Hannah Smith Femnism isn’t needed in the Western world.

    • Posted by KJ Lynch, at Reply

      And I’d pay to use you as the bait.

    • Posted by loftyz47, at Reply

      Yes ok, Mr. “objectivity doesn’t exist” marxist. Go back to where you came from.

    • Posted by kharnak crux, at Reply

      the bull stands for Hyper aggressive exploitation under a brainless shiny veneer

  2. Posted by DonaldoTrumpez Trump, at Reply

    In the battle between the charging bull and the fearless girl, always bet on the charging bull.

    • Posted by Cancer Cell, at Reply

      DonaldoTrumpez Trump even if it was a man I would still bet on the bull

    • Posted by futurestoryteller, at Reply

      That little girl is waiting on her happy meal.

    • Posted by C Wilson, at Reply

      I always bet on black

  3. Posted by Jack Napier, at Reply

    the sculptor has a point

    • Posted by Martin Speed, at Reply

      After Maya Lin won the competition for the Vietnam Memorial she had to battle subcontractors who wanted to sponge off her work for their gain, exploiting her achievement by adding tacky do-dads that would have reduced a solemn war memorial to a circus attraction. Had the chiselers prevailed her integrity as an artist would have been destroyed.

    • Posted by Martin Speed, at Reply

      +matan ken By definition “street art” is unauthorized, non-commissioned expression done at the artist’s initiative, done without permission, usually anonymously. A street artist has no expectation that their expression will be respected or left undisturbed. Altering the work of a street artist does not damage the professional reputation of the creator.

  4. Posted by Spencer Noseworthy, at Reply

    The girl isn’t the problem, the problem is that the addition of the girl (or anything) is deliberately changing the meaning of the art. Politics aside, I’m with the bull

    • Posted by Spencer Noseworthy, at Reply

      Hiponakte it doesn’t matter what it represents, the fact is the same

    • Posted by Monkey Phoenix, at Reply

      Spencer Noseworthy I’m with the bull

    • Posted by TCN8202, at Reply

      The girl isn’t the problem. The girl is the new meaning ! The 21st century meaning. Cavemen just can’t stand that.
      Old cavemen remember the old days where they charged into the labour market like they would into a China shop.
      Young cavemen dream that they will grow up to put a golden ring around the bull’s hoof and live happily ever after.
      And caveman shaman Modica laments that the stock market, bulls and gender roles ain’t what they used to be.

    • Posted by David S, at Reply

      holycow343 – the real substance of interest should be that your name is holyCOW343 and you are commenting about bulls. This brings to the table your possible bias in this matter.

  5. Posted by ReasoningTurtle, at Reply

    yeah the bull sculptor is totally right. his bull does not stand for what everyone will now see it as standing for. the girls sculptor has ruined the meaning of his work so that people who see it from now on will see it in a completely different light, and not because the world has changed but because a new element has been added that changes the whole meaning. no one will see that and think that they are not part of the same piece. his art has been hijacked and if i was him i would try to get either the bull or the girl removed.

    • Posted by dangerouslytalented, at Reply

      The meaning changed all on its own. The Holy Markets have torn society apart.

    • Posted by hj kn, at Reply

      ReasoningTurtle if he wanted his work appreciated and protected then he shouldn’t have put it there illegally.

    • Posted by mangalores-x_x, at Reply

      While I understand the artist’s feeling the bull was contract work he did for someone else so he really didn’t create his artistic vision but catered to that of his customer. Now the customer wanted his lawn redecorated. An art piece in a public space has to accept it being part of the public discourse. Sorry, that’s also an artist’s life.

      In this case there is jarring disconnect between the artist’s orginal idea of the bull and what it stands for now which kind of makes this girl stand off much more poignant today than it might have in the 80s. Be it meant as feminism or simply the small guy or girl standing up to big money.

      Again, I get why the artist might be complaining, however I think his art work does not sit in a museum without context solely standing for its own but in a public space with political loaded context of several decades.

  6. Posted by Joe Scirrotto, at Reply

    honestly, this woman should have confirmed with the artist before she did this.

    picture a statue of a man kneeling facing a temple/church/mosque in prayer, then someone put a statue of Stalin between him and the building, now it’s gone from a religious symbol of faith to a sign of weakness

    • Posted by Edvin Kuric, at Reply

      +Phoebe M Once you bring a helpless character on its own in front of a powerful one, you flip the meaning of the powerful one. Imagine if there was a statue of a US Marine, and someone did this in front of it. It would change the Marine from a positive and protective force, to a negative, imposing, and threatening one.

    • Posted by Larry Gopnik, at Reply

      Edvin Kuric, you really like to repeat yourself. Jesus Christ. Aren’t you busy rebuilding Sarajevo or something?

  7. Posted by James Black, at Reply

    wholly disagree. it’s defacing a piece of art.

    the message of the fearless girl could have been represented without using another artists piece without their consent.

    • Posted by Tino J, at Reply

      as long as she is not riding the bull like in a rodeo i don’t see the problem. maybe she will creep up on him one of these days. from the back. with a pair of siccors maybe? that would be a whole new meaning.

    • Posted by Fiona Corliss, at Reply

      do you know the meaning of the word ‘deface”?

    • Posted by Eusunt Dac, at Reply

      You are missing the point. You can do what You want in one spot and then, I can come and do what I want ten feet away from what You did. Is that a hard concept to understand? It’s called freedom to do as we wish without physically disturbing what others do.

  8. Posted by Snoop Dogg, at Reply

    Just because you guys see bigotry in everything doesn’t mean that everyone else does. I always thought the bull stood for economic prosperity, but now people will assume it’s a symbol of oppression because it’s charging at a little girl. I would be upset if my masterpiece was warped like that too.

    • Posted by Snoop Dogg, at Reply

      Hippy Killer Jeez Leweez, you keep assuming that everyone sees the bull as a symbol of the greed of Wall Street. For the millionth time, some people interpret the bull differently. Yes, some people see the bull as a symbol of hope for economic prosperity (which is actually what the creator intended) and others see it as representing the slime of the crop. You keep assuming that everyone sees it the same way as you do and then assume that I’m trying to suggest that people see hope in the evil of Wall Street. That’s rather egocentric if you ask me. (if you’re response isn’t in all caps then I will be very disappointed)

    • Posted by Snoop Dogg, at Reply

      Hippy Killer I don’t know why you think that the opinion on this bull is so one-sided. I grew up in Pennsylvania and most of the people who said what they saw the bull as described it in a positive light. Did you conduct a nationwide poll to find everyone’s opinion? If so, could you forward that to me? Appreciate ya

  9. Posted by Panagiotis Skartsilas, at Reply

    That’s his art it’s his right and statement. It’s like someone coming around and drawing mustache on and the Mona Lisa and saying it’s about gender identity. Plus some art is designed for interpretation ie lord of the rings and some is not like Animal Farm .

    • Posted by playgrrrr, at Reply

      Bullshit. You can make a copy of the Mona Lisa and then add a mustache to it. Much better example. Both pieces can still be evaluated separately, especially if one knows the history of the artist and the time period and context the pieces were made in (which I encourage anyone to do about works of art anyways), and they can also be enjoyed together as an ensemble. This kind of free expression is fantastic, and it’s everything art is about.

    • Posted by ollehkacb, at Reply

      +playgrrrr not on the orginal genius.

  10. Posted by Andy mercer, at Reply

    feminist logic in real life, the fearless girl would end up in a fearless wheelchair, drinking liquified meals from fearless straw.

    • Posted by NoneOfTheAbove, at Reply

      Take it for an anti-Feminist to cheer on the corruption of Wall Street and demonize the symbolism of anti-corporate corruption.

    • Posted by futurestoryteller, at Reply

      Jor Hard

      I’m sure you know what you’re talking about….

    • Posted by futurestoryteller, at Reply

      NoneOfTheAbove

      Yeah… like you would know, You remind me of someone who reads the _back of a book_ on astronomy and suddenly takes yourself for an expert.

  11. Posted by Aisha Abdikarim, at Reply

    as someone who appreciates art, I think this changes his artwork.

    • Posted by Scott100W, at Reply

      +David M – You’re making no point at all, hypothetical examples are used when someone doesn’t appreciate the scope of a situation so you proceed to give other similar scenarios that they may be able to relate to easier than the initial instance. You’re trying so hard to sound clever but really you’re just a blatant bully that had the urge to call people snowflakes for talking about hypothetical situations(relevant to the topic)…. Are you really that sad and pathetic? Or are you actually that stupid that you’re deciding talking about hypothetical scenarios never has a positive?

    • Posted by David M, at Reply

      +Scott100W – I have no objections to hypotheticals. I think my criticism was perfectly clear in my initial comment – Aisha Abdikarim, Michael Thor, and uriel005 were implying that putting a piece of art near another one is equivalent to actually modifying it. Like repainting the Sistine Chapel or sticking arms on the Venus de Milo (an amusing example, since, as has been pointed out, she originally had arms).

      There is definitely an interesting conversation to be had about one art piece riffing off another, and whether it crosses some sort of line (though I’d expect that thinking more from PC types). But equating placing a statue near the bull to PHYSICALLY MODIFYING the bull is foolish.

      Get it now?

    • Posted by Anaid Oe, at Reply

      Aisha Abdikarim True, it changes it. But I think it make it better (ofc, in my humble opinion). I’m no expert in art, but the bull by itself didn’t convey (to me) what its author intended to convey (and I doubt that there is many people to whom it did). Adding the girl at least give the whole composition a clear meaning, and a more powerful one in my opinion.

    • Posted by Knight of Gascogne, at Reply

      +Martin Speed yeah, you do that, keyboard warrior xD

  12. Posted by dem gutts, at Reply

    I’m usually on you guys side but as an artist I would be upset if somebody decided to add their art work on my picture. Make your own bull and place it away from his work

    • Posted by Rose J., at Reply

      +wilsonroo16 — I’m glad that YOUR interpretation of feminism is what it is. Does not mean it’s the same for everyone else and your attempt at speaking for everyone is insulting. Standing with arms akimbo does not mean the same thing all over the world. Hell, it doesn’t mean the same thing all over my neighborhood. You need context. People interpret the context in different ways. Just take a look at this thread and all the different interpretations.

      “I don’t like feminism to look confrontational because that is not it’s true origins”
      Terrific. You don’t like feminism to look that way. LEARN ITS ORIGINS! Feminism has always been confrontational. The right to vote. The right to serve in the armed forces. The right for co-ed opportunities. The right to make the same money as a man doing the same work. And so on and so on and so on. Breaking status quo is always confrontational. And confrontation is not always comfortable

    • Posted by David S, at Reply

      Rose J. – I like the idea of “just added another voice to the discussion”. Though before the Fearless Girl was placed, there was only one static voice and the discussion existed solely within the observer or group of observers. In this situation, possibly the static voice of the artwork only becomes dynamic through the observer(s)’ unfolding awareness of the subject? This idea brings to the table the importance of history in the matter of art appreciation. You pose an intriguing complex question “what becomes the Bull’s framework?”. Its true framework would be its own history, wouldn’t it? Without knowledge of its NYSE history you would have a much shallower, less submersive experience.
      Now add the Fearless Girl. Without the context of history, the Girl & Bull most likely will be viewed as one voice. She only becomes an added voice through the awareness of the observer that she is a separate installation. Now a discussion is partly being had externally amongst the subjects, separate from the observer that didn’t exist before Fearless Girl spoke up! If the observer recognises this discussion, their separate frameworks are merged, but only in the mind of the observer. I’m sure you can continue to unfold this idea into endless direction. 😉
      Fearless Girl has brought renewed interest to the Bull. Di Modica could take this as an artistic challenge and opportunity to expand the conversation further or just simply provide updated history to his placard. Or he could choose to do nothing but voice his frustration through the media.
      I think that the ultimate responsibility lies with the viewer.
      “What is it about fearless girl that causes so much discourse?”. Being misunderstood? Not being recognized as an individual? Being underestimated? Intolerance? IDK, again, it’s dependant on the observer right?
      imo, by taking art only at face value and choosing not to dive deeper, the observer is greatly limiting the potential of their experience.

    • Posted by wilsonroo16, at Reply

      Rose J trying reading the comment again….are you dense? this is what I said “I looked at the images of it and just did not see what you are seeing but that is my perception of what should be shown from a feminist stand point……do you understand what the words “my perception means”…well since you can;t read let me tell you what it means….it means MY…..not everyone else….the one who is insulting here is you because you can’t read and don’t have context because you did not read the full conversation I was having with someone else. And in my opinion feminism’s true origin are not confrontational and breaking status quo is not always confrontational and nor does it have to be….but I suppose YOUR interpretation of it’s origins is what is right and here your are lecturing me for speaking other’s behalves? Really I suggest you eat a piece of your pie before you comment again.

    • Posted by Rose J., at Reply

      +David S — I have no words except you rock!

    • Posted by Rose J., at Reply

      +Lu — I started writing this and then attempted to look at another page and lost it. Sorry this is late. I really like your view on the girl and the bull as compadres like superheroes. The visual of Batman & Robin is cool in that I typically think of them looking at each other right before an adventure. Not side by side, but acknowledging each other before beginning. Buffy/Scoobies. Angel/Spike. Buffy/Faith. Sorry…I sort of love Joss Whedon.
      Anyway, I’ve really enjoyed your contribution to the discussion.

  13. Posted by Rubben Delgado, at Reply

    Are you serious?! This has nothing to do with feminism vs male ego, it’s just insulting if someone creates a work of art to stand for something and then someone comes along and flips it on its head to serve as a negative connotation to embellish someone else’s work.

    • Posted by ollehkacb, at Reply

      futurestoryteller i dont care. would you draw on the mona lisa to complete what divinci couldn’t?

    • Posted by Jaime Fernandez, at Reply

      yeah we need to get someone to paint a moustache on the mona lisa,so it will represent diferently gendered people,and if you think that wrong,you are a biggot!

    • Posted by Roberto Blake, at Reply

      YOu mean like everyone who has ever made a meme from someone’s work? Like Pepe?

    • Posted by Atty's Thoughts, at Reply

      people can put a mustache on a picture of the mona lisa, but it isn’t the same as putting a mustache on a the real mona lisa.

    • Posted by ollehkacb, at Reply

      +Roberto Blake the didn’t use the orginal pepe.

  14. Posted by jim james, at Reply

    Can I put a moustache on the Mona Lisa since they are enforcing female gender upon it? Stuff what it used to mean I want to appropriate it for my own personal political cause.

    • Posted by Smaakjeks K, at Reply

      +Bob Nub
      As long as people have an unobstructed view of the Mona Lisa, I say sculpt as many dicks as you like.

    • Posted by Jolly Cocks, at Reply

      jim james not the same

  15. Posted by Yemen Krrs, at Reply

    Yea, I like TYT but I don’t agree with you on this one. I would be pissed too if my Art Work was diminished like that

    • Posted by BlackLabelSlushie, at Reply

      Yemen Krrs perhaps unconsciously, TYT embodies the mentality of cultural marxism. Anything that tears down existing ideas are praised.

    • Posted by futurestoryteller, at Reply

      “It would be like putting a statue of a bunch of dead Vietnamese
      civilians in front of the statue of the 3 US soldiers at the Vietnam War
      Memorial in DC”

      I heard that’s how your mom described your birth. – Seriously though, no it wouldn’t — isn’t, no it isn’t.

    • Posted by futurestoryteller, at Reply

      “bull has been the symbol of the stock market for years… Are we saying a little girl wants to beat up stock market prosperity?”

      I’m sorry, but if Wall Street represents “prosperity” to you, then you’re just a straight up moron.

  16. Posted by Faysal N, at Reply

    He must celebrate it and accept it because its a woman?! and then you accuse him of his manhood being triggered? and then make fun of him being sensitive and emotional because hes an artist? its crazy how small minded and shallow minded are liberals? I used to be a Liberal but I cant identify with them anymore.

    • Posted by Faysal N, at Reply

      +Larry Gopnik I did not say every liberal, im talking generally. Its not the norm for a Liberal to say feminism is cancer! Watch the Rubin Report he talks alot of about this, he used to be a Young Turks member and left now he has his own show.

    • Posted by Faysal N, at Reply

      +Lemmiwinks I never said I changed my principles, my principles are exactly the same but Liberals changed and the meaning of what a Liberal is in todays society is completely different from what its originally is and thats why I call myself a classical Liberal / Libertarian.

    • Posted by Lemmiwinks, at Reply

      But the meaning of libertarian never changed. How come you just became a libertarian, if your principles never changed?

    • Posted by Faysal N, at Reply

      +Lemmiwinks Libertarian and classical Liberal are almost exactly the same.

  17. Posted by Vincent Di Nicola, at Reply

    It completely changes the message of his scuplture and how people view his work. It’s not about fighting feminism or sexism, it’s about art. The artist should have the right to decide the message his statue sends. How would you feel if you drew a painting that was displayed in public for years and then someone came over and added their own stuff to it? That guy has a point.

    • Posted by run away pacman!, at Reply

      Yea i agree

    • Posted by futurestoryteller, at Reply

      By putting him at the table you’d be defacing the original statue because it occupies the *_same_* space – are people really so stupid they can’t tell the difference?

    • Posted by ASEC Mimosas, at Reply

      Firstly, you’ve never seen the monument have you? It’s three separate pieces meant to look lifelike on a typical concrete walkway. Better yet, I could have a Trump statue standing 12 feet tall, presiding over them from a short distance in a patronizing manner. The example could always be changed, whatever is needed to fit my argument. Your true idiocy lies in the fact that you attack an example, not a principle. There are thousands of civil rights monuments who could be thoroughly insulted with other monuments, trying to focus on any single example is incredibly childish. Debates on legality or morality come down to principle, if you are too stupid to comprehend this then you should fear to show your opinions in any public forum.

    • Posted by futurestoryteller, at Reply

      Internet debate tactics 101: In a nutshell: “The example could always be changed, whatever is needed to fit my argument.”

    • Posted by ASEC Mimosas, at Reply

      You really are that dim witted are you? Antonin Scalia’s argument concerning Roe v. Wade, women come to regret abortions, because the plaintiff in the case came to regret her abortion, abortion rights are not necessary. Chechnyan argument for why gay rights are not necessary, zero cases of gay men can be found, there are zero applicable “examples” in Chechnya. This is what happens when you make an argument about examples and not principle.

      You didn’t disprove my example at all, you made an idiot of yourself for not even researching the monument itself. But even if you did, trying to argue an example is the height of idiocy, because morality is determined by principle. When it is made about examples, all that is necessary is to eliminate all examples that are burdensome to power.

  18. Posted by gzipper33, at Reply

    Fearless girl should have been put in front of Trump tower.

    • Posted by run away pacman!, at Reply

      Right

    • Posted by da da, at Reply

      ‘CAN’T RAPE ME’

    • Posted by Hello Juliana, at Reply

      or between cenk and sandwich.

    • Posted by User Root, at Reply

      You can’t rape dat!