Posted on 04/15/2017 10:45:18 PM PDT by BenLurkin
A day after Mayor de Blasio criticized Wall Street’s Charging Bull statue as an ode to “unfettered capitalism,” Gov. Cuomo said “I never found it particularly offensive.”
“I’ve gone past it many times,” Cuomo told reporters at the governor’s mansion, where he hosted an Easter egg roll Saturday.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
Among other things, failure to get the artist’s consent is a violation of the Visual Artists Rights Act.
I can’t see how the charge has any standing (pun, pun). The two statues are separated and anyone who wants to view the bull alone can do so. It’s a freedom of speech issue.
De Blasio is the ultimate in irony - a socialist/communist Mayor, whose social schemes depend on the taxes and earnings of crony-capitalist Wall Street, who claims to hate Wall Street, yet supports those very statist/progressive policies that give increasing power and influence to those few at the top trading in America’s debt.
Lefties cut their noses off to spite their faces.
Accepting all that, the message is very telling. A little girl is unafraid of a massive, snorting, charging bull. How is this going to turn out?
Either she is going to get gored, or she has some supernatural thing up her sleeve.
>De Blasio is the ultimate in irony - a socialist/communist Mayor, whose social schemes depend on the taxes and earnings of crony-capitalist Wall Street, who claims to hate Wall Street, yet supports those very statist/progressive policies that give increasing power and influence to those few at the top trading in America’s debt.
Oddly it’s not all that unusual in history. The majority of outside funding for the Bolsheviks came from wall street banks.
Well that sure was a lousy bet in the end.
What a dope he is... but then again, would-be Statist Central Planners like him really do not believe in markets in the first place.
Well. I guess it's metaphysical. The little girl is calling a bluff. The bull is not real, but she is. So slink back to your caves, cavemen! ( "Oh, OK." )
Well basically, the supernatural thing.
Unless she’s going to shoot the bull... but with what? That’s too close for a pistol to be of much use.
Actually I could kind of envision a scenario where she grabs the bull’s horns and vaults onto his back and they go riding off into the sunset...
Let me give you an example of why this is an unlawful appropriation of the artist’s work.
Take Michelangelo’s David, and assume Michelangelo is still around.
The Florence museum in which it is displayed, for really big bucks, lets McDonalds put up a plastic full color statue of Ronald McDonald standing right next to David. The plastic Ronald McDonald is pointing at David and the caption below Ronald McDonald says, “David looks like that because he eats Big Macs!”
Do you think Michelangelo would have a right to be upset with what has happened to his statue of David?
The situation here is identical. Just as McDonalds is using the statue of David to promote themselves and their product, the “little girl” folks are using the statue of the bull to give their statue meaning. The proof is if you put the little girl anywhere else, people will just ignore it. It is the interplay of that stature with the bull that gives it value. It is just as much a theft as if you were to take a copyrighted photo and use it on your website without permission.
One might take umbrage, but that doesn’t trump all aspects of American law, in which freedom of speech is highly esteemed.
Part of the invalid comparison may be the idea that the museum would ever let McDonalds do that, or what it would mean for the museum to house both items.
We have a public street here, best as I can tell. There isn’t a common curator. Free speech on a public street would fare better in a court than a gimmick in a museum.
Just saying.
I.e. “Here’s what I think of your bull” is free speech. Generally this is considered fair use in many contexts.
The sculptor may want to think hard before asking anything else than to move the bull.
In your opinion, how much space in that public park does the Charging Bull’s artist control?
Does he control the entire park or perhaps the entire city block or even more space than that?
If the fearless girl statue were placed fifty feet away, would it still violate the Charging Bull’s artistic expression or what about if it were 500 feet away?
>Well that sure was a lousy bet in the end.
For the most part it’s really not clear why they funded it. Some Jewish bankers helped fund it because the leadership of the Bolsheviks was overwhelming Jewish and they had a lot of sympathy due how the Czars had treated the Jews of Russia. However the biggest backers was Rockefeller and his motives are entirely unclear. But what is clear with without wall-street funding they wouldn’t have won the civil war against the whites and without financing and American engineers building their factories they never would have become a world power.
When the Soviet Union fell we astonished to find that a huge chunk of their factories where basically carbon copies of American factories from the 1930s. We built for the Soviets never really advanced and built better ones in anything besides Military factories. And a lot of those Military factories had gear or copies of machines from 1940s Germany. The soviets sucked at machine tool making.
In fact the excellent T34 and KV1 tanks only reached mass production after Nazi German traded them the high quality machine tools in exchange for raw materials to get around the British blockade in 1940. Germany sold the Russians the very tools that the Russia needed to defeat Nazi Germany.
The Bull represents Capitalism.
The Girl represents Socialism.
History show who always wins.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.