However it goes, I hope it doesn't involve one side or the other saying the other had no business even having their opinion on the matter.
Both artists seem to have had positive intents, yet the two together are incompatible with the first artist's intent. While satire typically allows both works to exist in their original contexts, the Charging Bull becomes a menace here, no longer able to be interpreted as a symbol of economic optimism.
The Fearless Girl has value, too, but it is not without critics either, so there is at least a valid discussion to be had.
I'm all for discussion, but from what little information we have to go on, it appears the bull's sculptor is seeking to stifle discussion and simply have the girl removed despite a valid permit and public interest.
That's what I take issue with; he doesn't get to dictate what is placed on a public street any more than the girl's sculptor does (which she isn't).
> Di Modica called the statue an “advertising trick”
A mite ironic, seeing as "Charging Bull" was initially an advertising trick installed without the city's permission...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charging_Bull#History
That said, I am a tiny bit sympathetic to the Charging Bull artist who had the stated meaning of his art subverted a bit - I get it, you didn't mean it as a "male power!" thing and it sucks to have your work treated that way.
At the same time though, I do feel that this sort of subversion is important artistically, and allowing copyright to stifle it would be unfortunate. Furthermore, I can't help but feel that the idea that you could be able to control the context of an artistic work (not the art itself, but the environment around it) with copyright a little silly, especially for art as public and symbolic as "Charging Bull". All-in-all, an interesting case.