Your Mona Lisa example is different in that you are talking about a physical alteration of an…

Yes I know that my Mona Lisa example is not right, because there would be legal implications on it. What I wanted to point out was the change in the meaning of the bull, from “A symbol of prosperity” (as stated by the author) to a “the patriarchal image that the girl challenges”. I may be exaggerating in that later explanation, but there is clearly a change in the meaning of the statue.

So if I go and put a statue of a “Scolding Mother” right in front of this “Fearless Girl” it will probably change the meaning of this girl to something more like a “disrespectful or disobedient girl” which is not something that the original author wants right? Yet is public so it’s fine to do so right?… I think that this would be disrespectful, and so is the placement of the “Fearless Girl” in front of the “Charging Bull”.

I think that right now they have given the author the right to leave the Bull there so I don’t see all those complains, about it being there without authorization, as valid. Yes the author can take the statue somewhere else, and so can the author of the “Fearless Girl”.

I also find the arguments about advertising not really related to the issue, lets just talk about the artistic aspect of it. We all know that both of them have some kind of advertising meaning.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Pablo A. Mayobre’s story.