Not remotely what I meant at all. The issue isn't that the "meaning changed," it's that SSGA changed an artwork's meaning into an ad for an index fund. It's not a reinterpretation, it's a rewrite into something different that destroys the intention of the original.

Why are you angry about this? Why do you hate this guy so much because he pulled a stunt thirty years ago? It's not a case of a god complex or solipsism. He's not demanding your pity or empathy and there's nothing destructive about this. A man who, thirty years ago, placed a sculpture as a guerilla work, allowed it to…

Its not totally different or in a separate location. It's fifteen feet away, done in the same style and medium as his work, within the same space, and placed in interaction with his work. The two sculptures share the same base. It's an addition. It doesn't physically alter the piece, but it absolutely changes the…

No, and I'm not sure how much legal standing he has, as far as a ban goes. But an artist is absolutely within their rights to be mad that an advertisement is installed in the style of, and in direct engagement with, the work itself.

That's true! But the artifacts of capitalism aren't a copyrighted work sculpted by one person— his sculpture is. Wall Street wasn't a work of art that his addition changed the message of, in the way that the girl fundamentally changes a piece which he owns.

It's not that the meaning naturally changed over time— it's that a finance company rewrote it. I'm fine with reinterpretation or evolving meanings, less so with a carbuncle that uses shallow feminist imagery to advertise an index fund.

He installed it without a permit in a different location. It was immediately removed by the city, and its current location was selected by the city after overwhelming popular support. It's not like he's squatting there— he allowed it to be removed when the city requested it, and was then given a standing permit for…

Also, bull markets are a good thing, and this statue shows women standing in the way of upwards market growth.

There's actually a law— the Visual Rights Act of 1990 —which covers this, and gives artists legal rights against actions which alter or damage their works in significant ways, which this certainly does. He doesn't have standing under it because the statue was erected three years before the law was passed, though.

I get that the bull statue is, like, not deep art or anything, and that it was erected without a permit thirty years ago, for what that matters. But still— this is the government backing finance companies over the rights of an independent artist. No matter what you think of the guy's art, he's got more a right to be…

Parody doesn't change the preexisting work itself, though. Duchamp painted a mustache on a print of the Mona Lisa; he didn't deface the painting itself. The Bull isn't the Mona Lisa, but the girl being there essentially destroys the work— it's an addition, made by finance companies, that alters the singular work and…

(It's a JG Ballard reference; they're not actually stating their full name and job title).

It's not the exact same stunt. He placed an original piece of work in an area with no pre-existing art. The Girl is a work that is derivative of his own and changes the meaning of his own work.

"I'll be right with you, I gotta do somethin'."

The Hobbit Films: they got Sylvester McCoy a paycheck!

It's incredible, and it serves the story really, really well— you instantly understand why people are afraid of Mutants and how much their presence changes the world, in addition to it being a stunning action scene.

That's a lot of work when the $20 already has a giant dick on it though.

Aw, lemon party's sweet. Nothing wrong with some old dudes having fun.

Age of consent laws.

X-2 is amazing, and as a kid who grew up reading Claremont it just blew my mind. It's got some incredible set pieces (the opening, the mansion raid, the prison break-out), tons of inventive visuals, and it manages to have a big ensemble cast while still giving each character something to do. It's not without its…