3) Was it wrong of Kristen to modify Arturo's work in this way? While the Charging Bull itself has not been changed, the addition of a new statue converts a standalone work into a tableau, and the overall interaction of the two pieces sends a message not conveyed by the original statue. So the meaning and intent of the art has been changed. Is this a wrong thing? If it isn't, could someone add , say, a statue of a war orphan or a childless beggar to the Iwo Jima Memorial as a rebuke to the idea of war?
Times change, and interpretation of art changes. Let me give you an example, and I will deliberately make it ... probably more provocative then it should be.

Let's say you have a film like Triumph of the Will. You know, a Nazi propaganda movie. In 1930's Germany, when such movie is shown in a theater, it is preceded by a revering explanation from the management, about how we're going to watch a movie about superiority of the Aryan race, etc.

In modern days, when a professor plays this movie to his students, he will most likely explain that the film is an artistic achievement, but it also shows how deluded and degenerate the Nazis were. There is no mention of the "superiority of the Aryan race". It's now no longer a movie about how 1930's Germany is superior, it's a movie about how 1930's Germany is deluded.

So, a change in this pre-film narration completely changes the context of the film. It is now not at all what the author intended. Was the modern-day professor wrong in appending his own narration to the film? Was he wrong in subverting the original author intent?