If only the sculpture was called "Clever Girl", we could all be making stupid Jurassic Park jokes and be done with it. Anyway...http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2017/04/12/the_charging_bull_sculptor_is_right_fearless_girl_should_go.html
Wall Street’s Fearless Girl statue has weathered more than her fair share of mischief since she was erected the night before International Women’s Day. Just two days after her arrival in the Big Apple, she got humped by a man in a suit miming child rape. A few weeks later, supporters of our dear President Donald Trump nonconsensually draped her in MAGA gear and anti-immigrant placards.
Now, the sculptor of the decades-old Charging Bull statue the girl “fearless”-ly faces down is claiming she doesn’t belong there in the first place. Artist Arturo Di Modica, who installed his bull sculpture under the cover of night after the 1987 stock-market crash, called on Wednesday for New York City authorities to remove the girl statue, saying it violates his rights as an artist.
So... I agree with the general idea that art, public or private, shouldn't be defaced, but does putting a statue of a girl outside of the bull's general area but in its line of sight *really* constitute defacement? Sure, it turns the whole scene into confrontation rather than optimism, but I don't know, even at that it seems like you can just ignore the girl (LIKE WE HAVE IGNORED GIRLS THROUGHOUT HISTORY AMIRITE??) and still understand the original intent of the bull.
Also, original intent really doesn't matter all that much when art is made public. If Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa as a way of pointing out the brutality of capitalism, that message is and really should be lost to us now, as there's not a lot of sign of that in the painting (I mean, in the cases where an artist can make a case for his work meaning thing X, by all means he should make a case for it, but I don't think that his interpretation is necessarily any more valid than anyone else's once the art is made public).