It is hard not to see the bull-sculptor's complaint. The (unpermitted) bull sends a very powerful message -- the kind of message that Wall Street winners might like but not always attain. The "Sez who" stance of the girl may in fact dent the testosterone-laden charge of the bull that no one apparently questioned in the first place (is it promoting the social good to encourage people to make a living by gambling?) In fact, to my mind, the girl gives the bull a much-needed reality check ... didn't we have a financial downturn in 2008 that no one dared to call a "Depression" because that name had already been used?The sculptor that [sic] erected Wall Street's Charging Bull statue is complaining about New York City's decision to allow a nearby statue to remain in place.Italian-born sculptor Arturo Di Modica says the Fearless Girl statue, which was placed nearby during International Women's Day, is a copyright violation.
His lawyers argue that the new sculpture's presence changes the artistic meaning of his famous statue.
Mr Di Modica's statute was installed in 1987, without any city permits.
I do hope Mr. Modica finds the commissions he seems to be seeking by filing a suit against the little girl.
PS. Here's Reuters' somewhat more careful story.