New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 85 of 85
  1. - Top - End - #61
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2010

    Default Re: Charging Bulls, Fearless Girls, Dead Authors, and Art

    Quote Originally Posted by pendell View Post
    The weakness of any lawsuit is that the city gave them a permit to put Fearless Girl there -- something Charging Bull didn't get for years -- so whattaya gonna sue them on? That they put their statue exactly where the city gave them permission to put it? The fact that it completely changes the meaning of the original statue is on the city that gave the permit, isn't it?

    Respectfully,

    Brian P.
    You sue them for using your copyrighted and trademarked property as part of their advertising campaign. That has zero to do with whether or not the city gave them a permit to put a statue up.

  2. - Top - End - #62
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Charging Bulls, Fearless Girls, Dead Authors, and Art

    Quote Originally Posted by Chen View Post
    You sue them for using your copyrighted and trademarked property as part of their advertising campaign. That has zero to do with whether or not the city gave them a permit to put a statue up.
    Although if you claim your art was proclaiming the glory of pursuing profit, then suing them for pursuing profit is a tad ironic.

  3. - Top - End - #63
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Charging Bulls, Fearless Girls, Dead Authors, and Art

    So, what is the minimum, safe, lawsuit-proof distance at which someone can place another sculpture?

    By allowing any lawsuit to proceed, a court is implicitly granting Charging Bull's copyright holder creative control over the surrounding landscape.

  4. - Top - End - #64
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Legato Endless's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Twin Cities, Minnesota

    Default Re: Charging Bulls, Fearless Girls, Dead Authors, and Art

    Quote Originally Posted by Leewei View Post
    So, what is the minimum, safe, lawsuit-proof distance at which someone can place another sculpture?

    By allowing any lawsuit to proceed, a court is implicitly granting Charging Bull's copyright holder creative control over the surrounding landscape.
    No no it would not. While moral rights of artists are more nebulous in the US than Europe or Canada it wouldn't translate to something that reductionist. You could easily put up a tinsel tree 5 feet to the right of the bull and argue attribution and distortion aren't occurring as they are with the girl.

  5. - Top - End - #65
    Titan in the Playground
     
    DruidGirl

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Charging Bulls, Fearless Girls, Dead Authors, and Art

    Quote Originally Posted by Leewei View Post
    So, what is the minimum, safe, lawsuit-proof distance at which someone can place another sculpture?

    By allowing any lawsuit to proceed, a court is implicitly granting Charging Bull's copyright holder creative control over the surrounding landscape.
    I think there's a surprisingly straightforward standard here. Can I move your statue? Like, can I move it ten feet to the right, or over behind the other statue, or into another room, and everyone is totally cool with that because it's a different statue? If so, then your statue is fine where it is. Or fine somewhere else. It could be moved a bit, or not moved at all, and it's all good because we have two discrete pieces of art. If I can't move the statue, then clearly it is part of the work of art in question, because a work of art cannot be linked at the hip to another and still be a totally distinct work of art.

    Is it a perfect standard? No, we could easily imagine scenarios where a work modifies another by simple proximity. For example, we could put a big bear statue anywhere within 50-100 feet of the bull, and it would cement the bear/bull market interpretation even more than it's already cemented (not that that would change much of anything to anyone), regardless of specific positioning and orientation. But still, it's definitely a different work of art. I can move it next to the bull, or opposed to the bull, or back to back with the bull, or on the opposing sidewalk from the bull, or in really any position, and the bear artist would presumably be fine with it. I think any artist would have to be fine with that, legally speaking. At that point, we're not talking about appropriation, or changing art, but about simple curation. An exhibit called, "Statues that are also economic metaphors," in a museum would have the same impact.

    I like the standard for at least one major reason. In particular, it's easier to apply than a lot of the less quantitative legal standards. This is nowhere near as bad as some of the crazy multi-pronged and generally subjective tests the legal system has to work through. Because you can ask. You can straight up say, "Hey, can we move your statue a little?" Or even, "Hey, I'm going to move my statue a little. Can you not move your statue also?" Because, of course, there could be other reasons a person doesn't want to move their statue.

    Maybe it's not trivial to apply. But it's trivial here. I mean, just imagine someone rotating Charging Bull 90 degrees. No need for a third statue to modify Fearless Girl, the bull can stay where it is, and everyone's fine with it. And, if someone's not fine with it, particularly people in support of Fearless Girl, then we have our answer right there. If they move the girl to a new position in front of the bull, then the answer becomes incredibly clear cut.

  6. - Top - End - #66
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2010

    Default Re: Charging Bulls, Fearless Girls, Dead Authors, and Art

    Quote Originally Posted by Legato Endless View Post
    No no it would not. While moral rights of artists are more nebulous in the US than Europe or Canada it wouldn't translate to something that reductionist. You could easily put up a tinsel tree 5 feet to the right of the bull and argue attribution and distortion aren't occurring as they are with the girl.
    Exactly. The fearless girl statue does not work without standing up to the bull. If she was just put on another corner somewhere the message would be completely different (and far less effective advertising).

  7. - Top - End - #67
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Charging Bulls, Fearless Girls, Dead Authors, and Art

    Quote Originally Posted by eggynack View Post
    I think there's a surprisingly straightforward standard here. Can I move your statue? Like, can I move it ten feet to the right, or over behind the other statue, or into another room, and everyone is totally cool with that because it's a different statue? If so, then your statue is fine where it is. Or fine somewhere else. It could be moved a bit, or not moved at all, and it's all good because we have two discrete pieces of art. If I can't move the statue, then clearly it is part of the work of art in question, because a work of art cannot be linked at the hip to another and still be a totally distinct work of art.
    Good thinking!

  8. - Top - End - #68
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Scarlet Knight's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hudson Valley, NY
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Charging Bulls, Fearless Girls, Dead Authors, and Art

    The shame is that the Fearless Girl statue and all it's fuss is not needed, since female empowerment is a foregone conclusion.

    The majority of households have women as the primary breadwinner ( thanks to the Great Recession), and since more women graduate college than men now and today women under thirty out earn their male colleagues, this trend will likely grow unchecked in time. How long until we have a third statue of a woman executive putting a nose ring in the Bull?
    "We are the people our parents warned us about!" - J.Buffett

    Avatar by Tannhaeuser

  9. - Top - End - #69
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Charging Bulls, Fearless Girls, Dead Authors, and Art

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlet Knight View Post
    The shame is that the Fearless Girl statue and all it's fuss is not needed, since female empowerment is a foregone conclusion.

    The majority of households have women as the primary breadwinner ( thanks to the Great Recession), and since more women graduate college than men now and today women under thirty out earn their male colleagues, this trend will likely grow unchecked in time. How long until we have a third statue of a woman executive putting a nose ring in the Bull?
    The wage gap is still around, isn't it? Also, I'd like to see some relatively current links to support your points.

  10. - Top - End - #70
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2015

    Default Re: Charging Bulls, Fearless Girls, Dead Authors, and Art

    There are other places Fearless Girl could work, like in front of and facing the NYSE. That probably isn't the message the people who commissioned her want to send though...

  11. - Top - End - #71
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Charging Bulls, Fearless Girls, Dead Authors, and Art

    Quote Originally Posted by Leewei View Post
    The wage gap is still around, isn't it? Also, I'd like to see some relatively current links to support your points.
    I can't speak to all his points, but I was curious so I looked and found This article in the New York Times.

    Quote Originally Posted by NYT
    Women are not only more likely to be the primary caregivers in a family. Increasingly, they are primary breadwinners, too.

    Four in 10 American households with children under age 18 now include a mother who is either the sole or primary earner for her family, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of Census and polling data released Wednesday. This share, the highest on record, has quadrupled since 1960.

    ...

    The recession may have played a role in pushing women into primary earning roles, as men are disproportionately employed in industries like construction and manufacturing that bore the brunt of the layoffs during the downturn. Women, though, have benefited from a smaller share of the job gains during the recovery; the public sector, which employs a large number of women, is still laying off workers.
    So it doesn't look like the majority of homes have the woman as the primary breadwinner. However, *in this one study*, 40% of the homes with children under 18 are indeed in that situation. 40% is not the majority, but it's a significant number even so.

    And the Great Recession is one theory as to why this is so, since it was male-dominated industries that took the brunt of the layoffs.

    Respectfully,

    Brian P.
    "Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later, that debt is paid."

    -Valery Legasov in Chernobyl

  12. - Top - End - #72
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2010

    Default Re: Charging Bulls, Fearless Girls, Dead Authors, and Art

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlet Knight View Post
    The majority of households have women as the primary breadwinner ( thanks to the Great Recession), and since more women graduate college than men now and today women under thirty out earn their male colleagues, this trend will likely grow unchecked in time. How long until we have a third statue of a woman executive putting a nose ring in the Bull?
    I'd like to see a source about the breadwinner bit. Quick googling still had men as the primary breadwinner for most families, though women's share was definitely increasing. More women graduating college has been the norm since the mid-70s though it is continuing to increase as an average, though there is still dramatic skewing (one way or another) depending on what type of degree you're looking at. I'm not sure you can draw a good conclusion from the women under 30 earning more than men point though since that trend dramatically reverses itself over 30. Considering career lengths, that above 30 part has far more weight than the under 30 part.

  13. - Top - End - #73
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Charging Bulls, Fearless Girls, Dead Authors, and Art

    I also wonder to what degree the women who are the breadwinners are single parents.

  14. - Top - End - #74
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2010

    Default Re: Charging Bulls, Fearless Girls, Dead Authors, and Art

    Quote Originally Posted by Leewei View Post
    I also wonder to what degree the women who are the breadwinners are single parents.
    Most studies where you're talking breadwinners and making comparisons are only looking at married couples. It's not terribly relevant to compare single people since by definition they are the ones paying for themselves (barring some exceptions of course).

  15. - Top - End - #75
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Charging Bulls, Fearless Girls, Dead Authors, and Art

    Quote Originally Posted by Chen View Post
    Most studies where you're talking breadwinners and making comparisons are only looking at married couples. It's not terribly relevant to compare single people since by definition they are the ones paying for themselves (barring some exceptions of course).
    Most studies that exclude a portion of the population will have that exclusion indicated.

    Quote Originally Posted by NYT
    Four in 10 American households with children under age 18 now include a mother who is either the sole or primary earner for her family, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of Census and polling data released Wednesday. This share, the highest on record, has quadrupled since 1960.
    I see no indication that these households are strictly two parent families. The entirety of "American households with children under 18" certainly will include a significant percentage of single mother families. Where is your evidence that these households were excluded?

    Quote Originally Posted by US Census Bureau
    The majority of America's 73.7 million children under age 18 live in families with two parents (69 percent), according to new statistics released today from the U.S. Census Bureau. ... The second most common family arrangement is children living with a single mother, at 23 percent.
    That's nearly 1 in 4 households with single mothers, all of which would fit the description of a household with a woman as the primary earner. It'd account for over half of the 40% of households in which a woman is the principle breadwinner. Households with same-sex women parents would probably account for a bit more on top of this.

    In short, that 40% breadwinner statistic looks very shaky as evidence of gender pay equality.
    Last edited by Leewei; 2017-04-20 at 11:28 AM.

  16. - Top - End - #76
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    San Jose, California
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Charging Bulls, Fearless Girls, Dead Authors, and Art

    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?

  17. - Top - End - #77
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2010

    Default Re: Charging Bulls, Fearless Girls, Dead Authors, and Art

    Quote Originally Posted by Leewei View Post
    Most studies that exclude a portion of the population will have that exclusion indicated.
    I hadn't actually seen that article posted between mine and the one I was responding to. When I googled "women breadwinner compared to men" the most recent articles were looking at married couples specifically. The posted article's source poll actually shows that as you said single mothers account for most of the women breadwinners when everyone is taken into account (63% single mothers).

  18. - Top - End - #78
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Charging Bulls, Fearless Girls, Dead Authors, and Art

    Quote Originally Posted by Ruslan View Post
    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?
    I would say the professor is right to do what he was doing provided he links back to the original meaning and intent . Think of it as "chain of custody". The prof should be able to tell 1) What the original meaning and intent were (without endorsing it) 2) Adding his own interpretation afterwards, making it clear this is not that of the original author.

    The reason I say this is that it's important that we not lose sight of what that movie actually meant, both to its author and to its audience. As much as we would like to flush that movie and everything associated with it down the memory hole forever, we can't afford to forget the mistakes we made and why we made them. Hopefully, we can avoid making them again.

    It's similar to reviewing ancient works of history or mythology; while we may attach Marxist or other meanings and interpretations to them today, we should still make a point of retaining, to the best of our ability, the knowledge and interpretation originally given to the work. We are not infallible, after all. I would want to distinguish between the original work and our interpretation so that succeeding generations can examine both critically. And, if necessary, discard our interpretation in light of new evidence, re-view the work from ground zero, and come up with a fresh one.

    Respectfully,

    Brian P.
    "Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later, that debt is paid."

    -Valery Legasov in Chernobyl

  19. - Top - End - #79
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    San Jose, California
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Charging Bulls, Fearless Girls, Dead Authors, and Art

    Quote Originally Posted by NYT
    Women are not only more likely to be the primary caregivers in a family. Increasingly, they are primary breadwinners, too.

    Four in 10 American households with children under age 18 now include a mother who is either the sole or primary earner for her family, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of Census and polling data released Wednesday. This share, the highest on record, has quadrupled since 1960.
    Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

    There is indeed a rise in women-as-primary-breadwinners, but that's mostly because there's a rise in women-as-only-breadwinners! The percentage of single-mother household has grown significantly, and that account for most of the increase. Actual step toward pay equality? I'm unconvinced.
    Last edited by Ruslan; 2017-04-20 at 07:15 PM.

  20. - Top - End - #80
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Scarlet Knight's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hudson Valley, NY
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Charging Bulls, Fearless Girls, Dead Authors, and Art

    Here's one that lists it as 53%

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1668140.html


    + or - a few points either way , with the higher graduation rate, it won't be long before women will be the top execs and the wage difference will cease. The only question is speed.
    "We are the people our parents warned us about!" - J.Buffett

    Avatar by Tannhaeuser

  21. - Top - End - #81
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Elder Tsofu's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    At work
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Charging Bulls, Fearless Girls, Dead Authors, and Art

    I felt that the statue was okay as a temporary thing, a month or two doesn't really hurt anyone. It gets your point across while maximizing ad revenue on the investment while also "promoting" the original piece.
    Artistically it feels bland since it is a very "safe" statue to put down to annoy people while letting yourself ecstatically ride the moral high horse whipping anyone who dares to disagree. It is almost like it was designed by committee.

    As a side note, I disagree with both artists original interpretations of their work. The Bull I give the benefit of the doubt though since I became aware of it long after it was originally placed, in an other era of time.

    Quote Originally Posted by eggynack View Post
    I think there's a surprisingly straightforward standard here. Can I move your statue? Like, can I move it ten feet to the right, or over behind the other statue, or into another room, and everyone is totally cool with that because it's a different statue? If so, then your statue is fine where it is. Or fine somewhere else. It could be moved a bit, or not moved at all, and it's all good because we have two discrete pieces of art. If I can't move the statue, then clearly it is part of the work of art in question, because a work of art cannot be linked at the hip to another and still be a totally distinct work of art.
    A very sensible and level-headed standard indeed.

  22. - Top - End - #82
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    San Jose, California
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Charging Bulls, Fearless Girls, Dead Authors, and Art

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlet Knight View Post
    Here's the actual quote:
    Of the more than 1,400 women surveyed — 40 percent of whom were single or divorced — 53 percent were the breadwinners in their households. Nearly a quarter of married women surveyed said they earned more money than their husbands.
    Sure, women are primary breadwinners in a household ... without a man! Breaking down the numbers, we get:

    40% single or divorced: all of them are primary breadwinners in their household (duh!)
    The remaining 13% (53-40) come from the other 60% of women. 13%/60% = 21.7%

    So, to put it differently: only 21.7% of women who are in a household with a man earn more than the man. Make of that information what you will.
    it won't be long before women will be the top execs and the wage difference will cease. The only question is speed
    Oh, I think we are getting there. There are definitely some steps made. I just don't agree with those claiming we're already there and should stop looking at this problem

  23. - Top - End - #83
    Titan in the Playground
     
    DruidGirl

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Charging Bulls, Fearless Girls, Dead Authors, and Art

    Quote Originally Posted by Ruslan View Post
    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?
    That's not what's happening here though. The equivalent to that film example would be, like, some tour guide showing off the statue and saying, "This statue is about female empowerment," or something. It might get some guff for being an incredibly stupid interpretation of what is clearly not a statue about female empowerment (this is assumed to be before Fearless Girl), but I doubt anyone would consider it immoral, unethical, or illegal.

    A superior analogy to what's happening here would be if I magically transformed every copy of Triumph of the Will in existence into a version where I give that lecture at the front. Without the permission of the, in this hypothetical very much alive, creator of the film, or that of the film's distribution company. Every Youtube clip, every original copy, now has my lecture, and, because we're making it as analogous to the bull situation as possible, the lecture needs to fundamentally change the meaning of the film, even to modern audiences, somehow.

    I would consider that bad. It's bad for the public because they don't get to have the original meaning of the film, and it's bad for the creators, which matters given that the real scenario features a non-Nazi artist. As was noted way back, we care a ton about George Lucas altering Star Wars, and that's the original artist doing it in a way that creates far less of a fundamental change. Keep in mind here, female empowerment has nothing to do with either the original intended meaning of the statue, the forceful something or another of America, or the meaning often assumed for it, love for bull markets. It's straight up a completely different thing.

    So, we gotta assume that our Triumph of the Will lecture is something like, say, "This movie is about different varieties of marching and the metaphorical value thereof." Actually, what would be really funny would be to show off clips of other cool marches nation by nation, and stick Triumph of the Will in the middle of that. That could maybe be sufficiently meaning warping context to get close to this situation. And, again, it is now physically impossible to watch a version of Triumph that isn't the, "Ain't marching cool?" version. Seems much much less ambiguously problematic than the situation you presented, and also much much closer to the true situation we're dealing with.

  24. - Top - End - #84
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Vinyadan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Charging Bulls, Fearless Girls, Dead Authors, and Art

    Honestly, I'm kinda tired of Tienanmen spoofs in the West. What happened with the guy on the street is that he stopped a tank column for a little while. The point is that there were people in those tanks. The same people, a few hours later, murdered hundreds of unarmed civilians. And this has duly been forgotten in the places where it happened.

    Imitations in democracies look very removed from reality to me. I'm totally on board on the "women need to take a stand" part of the argument. I am not on board when it comes to representing it like a war or a blood sacrifice, or extremely removed symbols like waiting for a bull to smash you. Reality is on the bull's side. And equality means changing the bull and become part of it, because, let's be fair, who can think to survive outside the system?
    Quote Originally Posted by J.R.R. Tolkien, 1955
    I thought Tom Bombadil dreadful — but worse still was the announcer's preliminary remarks that Goldberry was his daughter (!), and that Willowman was an ally of Mordor (!!).

  25. - Top - End - #85

    Default Re: Charging Bulls, Fearless Girls, Dead Authors, and Art

    My complaint with Tienanmen spoofs is that they completely ignore the end of the incident. The man in question was dead before sundown and his family sent to a prison camp.

    Which makes a stupid little girl standing in front of a charging bull fairly accurate--she's dead.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •