I got metaphorically spanked a couple of days ago. Folks have been talking about the Fearless Girl statue ever since it was dropped in Manhattan’s Financial District some five weeks ago. I have occasionally added a comment or two to some of the online discussions about the statue.
Recently most of the Fearless Girl discussions have focused on the complaints by Arturo Di Modica, the sculptor who created Charging Bull. He wants Fearless Girl removed, and that boy is taking a metric ton of shit for saying that. Here’s what I said that got me spanked:
The guy has a point.
This happened in maybe three different discussions over the last week or so. In each case I explained briefly why I believe Di Modica has a point (and I’ll explain it again in a bit), and for the most part folks either accepted my comments or ignored them. Which is pretty common for online discussions. But in one discussion my comment sparked this:
Men who don’t like women taking up space are exactly why we need the Fearless Girl.
Which — and this doesn’t need to be said, but I’m okay with saying the obvious — is a perfectly valid response. It’s also one I agree with. As far as that goes, it’s one NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio agrees with, since he said it first (although, to be fair, probably one of his public relations people first said it first).
But here’s the thing: you can completely agree with the woman who responded to my comment AND you can still acknowledge that Arturo Di Modica has a point. Those aren’t mutually exclusive or contradictory points of view.
Let me apologize here, because I have to do some history — and for reasons I’ve never understood, some folks actively dislike history. It’s necessary though. So here we go. Back in 1987 there was a global stock market crash. Doesn’t matter why (at least not for this discussion), but stock markets everywhere — everywhere — tanked. Arturo Di Modica, a Sicilian immigrant who became a naturalized citizen of the U.S., responded by creating Charging Bull — a bronze sculpture of a…well, a charging bull. It took him two years to make it. The thing weighs more than 7000 pounds, and cost Di Modica some US$350,000 of his own money. He said he wanted the bull to represent “the strength and power of the American people”. He had it trucked into the Financial District and set it up, completely without permission. It’s maybe the only significant work of guerrilla capitalist art in existence.
People loved it. The assholes who ran the New York Stock Exchange, for some reason, didn’t. They called the police, and pretty soon the statue was removed and impounded. A fuss was raised, the city agreed to temporarily install it, and the public was pleased. It’s been almost thirty years, and Charging Bull is still owned by Di Modica, still on temporary loan to the city, still one of the most recognizable symbols of New York City.
Arturo Di Modica (the one in the beret)
And that brings us to March 7th of this year, the day before International Women’s Day. Fearless Girl appeared, standing in front of Charging Bull. On the surface, it appears to be another work of guerrilla art — but it’s not. Unlike Di Modica’s work, Fearless Girl was commissioned. Commissioned not by an individual, but by an investment fund called State Street Global Advisors, which has assets in excess of US$2.4 trillion. That’s serious money. It was commissioned as part of an advertising campaign developed by McCann, a global advertising corporation. And it was commissioned to be presented on the first anniversary of State Street Global’s “Gender Diversity Index” fund, which has the following NASDAQ ticker symbol: SHE. And finally, along with Fearless Girl is a bronze plaque that reads:
Know the power of women in leadership. SHE makes a difference.
Note it’s not She makes a difference, it’s SHE makes a difference. It’s not referring to the girl; it’s referring to the NASDAQ symbol. It’s not a work of guerrilla art; it’s an extremely clever advertising scheme. This is what makes it clever: Fearless Girl derives its power almost entirely from Di Modica’s statue. The sculptor, Kristen Visbal, sort of acknowledges this. She’s said this about her statue:
“She’s not angry at the bull — she’s confident, she knows what she’s capable of, and she’s wanting the bull to take note.”
It’s all about the bull. If it were placed anywhere else, Fearless Girl would still be a very fine statue — but without facing Charging Bull the Fearless Girl has nothing to be fearless to. Or about. Whatever. Fearless Girl, without Di Modica’s bull, without the context provided by the bull, becomes Really Confident Girl.
Fearless Girl also changes the meaning of Charging Bull. Instead of being a symbol of “the strength and power of the American people” as Di Modica intended, it’s now seen as an aggressive threat to women and girls — a symbol of patriarchal oppression.
In effect, Fearless Girl has appropriated the strength and power of Charging Bull. Of course Di Modica is outraged by that. A global investment firm has used a global advertising firm to create a faux work of guerrilla art to subvert and change the meaning of his actual work of guerrilla art. That would piss off any artist.
See? It’s not as simple as it seems on the surface. It’s especially complicated for somebody (like me, for example) who appreciates the notion of appropriation in art. I’ve engaged in a wee bit of appropriation my ownself. Appropriation art is, almost by definition, subversive — and subversion is (also almost by definition) usually the province of marginalized populations attempting to undermine the social order maintained by tradition and the establishments of power. In the case of Fearless Girl, however, the subversion is being done by global corporatists as part of a marketing campaign. That makes it hard to cheer them on. There’s some serious irony here.
And yet, there she is, the Fearless Girl. I love the little statue of the girl in the Peter Pan pose. And I resent that she’s a marketing tool. I love that she actually IS inspiring to young women and girls. And I resent that she’s a fraud. I love that she exists. And I resent the reasons she was created.
I love the Fearless Girl and I resent her. She’s an example of how commercialization can take something important and meaningful — something about which everybody should agree — and shit all over it by turning it into a commodity. Fearless Girl is beautiful, but she is selling SHE; that’s why she’s there.
Should Fearless Girl be removed as Di Modica wants? I don’t know. It would be sad if she was. Should Di Modica simply take his Charging Bull and go home? I mean, it’s his statue. He can do what he wants with it. I couldn’t blame him if he did that, since the Fearless Girl has basically hijacked the meaning of his work. But that would be a shame. I’m not a fan of capitalism, but that’s a damned fine work of art.
I don’t know what should be done here. But I know this: Arturo Di Modica has a point. And I know a lot of folks aren’t willing to acknowledge that.
gregfallis.com 
Di Modica has point worth ignoring. He may own it, but it is now in the public trust. His only option is to take it back.
Legal Threat From Creator Of Wall St. Bull Statue Even More Full Of Bull Than Expected – https://goo.gl/E7hZmJ
“Di Modica’s lawyers argue (apparently with a straight face) that the Fearless Girl is a derivative work of the Charging Bull, and thus copyright infringement.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
LIke seriously how low can people go? How dumb have we become? Is this what it’s come to? Will they just accept any bone, however meager and false, and made by their very enemies, as long as it’s cut in the shape of something they like? Fuck off!
LikeLike
You have written a brilliant article. Social media and those of us using it take neither the time nor the effort to understand the entire context, historical or otherwise to fully understand any given situation. Through the use of social media we are continually responding in overly biased, non-thinking knee jerk reactions to any given situation. We are demonstrating our increasing naivete and ignorance culturally, politically and in numerous other areas. Instead of becoming a tool for educating and enlightening the masses it’s become a weapon for dumbing down the masses. I’m over it. As far as I’m concerned all FB is good for is cute animal pictures and your children’s photo sharing. There is no open mindedness being fostered through this medium.
LikeLike
Also yeah how shitty is it for a self-promoting corporation to sponge off someone else’s actual art? And people are actually cheering this on? Because it panders to and exploits a value they hold dear? Oh fuck off. I can’t take this shit. Kill everyone now.
LikeLike
Really glad you explained this, I had no idea.
Thank you.
LikeLike
I love both as beautiful pieces of art. I don’t stop to think about what they mean at first. I just admire the beauty. When I finally think about possible meaning, I still see the bull as a strong and bold entity. He IS a bull! This is their nature. The young girl looks confident and fearless, as most young children are until they learn what danger means. The meaning of the art is in the eye of the beholder.
LikeLike
Good article. I was wondering what/who was behind the Fearless Girl and I agree with your point. To add another perspective, I like Fearless Girl, not because she is a symbol if feminism, but because, girl or boy, she adds a humanistic quality to the concept of our economy. Our economy is all about people and built on people. Seeing her human-ness helps ground our capitalism and reminds us that we are investing in stocks or companys for ourselves and our futures. If you want to be greedy, remember, you are hurting real people.
LikeLike
Why not just turn the WS Bull around?
LikeLike
Art can evolve and change, fearless girl is an inspiration to everyone not just little girls. My view of this piece will be different to someone else, so the conversation starts, good piece.
LikeLike
If I made a powerful statue of Atlas holding up the world, and someone made a sculpture of poop 💩 put it on top to signify men make a crappy world, no matter how artistically the poop was designed, or how meaningful the message, I’d be pissed.
LikeLike
Interesting read. I didn’t know all the background. But art is art and because of the Fearless Girl both sculptures are getting incredible public attention. Especially in the age of selfies and social media. The Bull is getting an almost equal amount of public attention as people literally and politely wait in line to take their photos of each sculpture. The Bull has never seen so much public attention. Now with any art piece, you’d have to ask each person what the two pieces mean to them – separately and together.
Thanks so much for the article. Much food for thought.
LikeLike
First world problems
LikeLiked by 1 person
Move fearless girl to the twin towers site. That way she is fearless to the threats of the world.
LikeLike
If you look at the history of the Statue of Liberty (a narcissistic artist, a “gift” that most French weren’t in favor of funding and that Americans inadvertently paid for in part) it does not have the “pure” background that we might like for something so symbolic. We prefer the sanitized “it was a gift from our democracy-loving friends, the French.” But does that change the meaning of the statue for an individual viewer? I don’t think so. When we interact with art of any type, we often don’t know its history. Isn’t that the purpose of art? Also, when you are an artist (or a writer or a dancer or an actor or any other type of creator) isn’t the act of creating the point at which your job ends and the viewer’s begins? Most artists don’t feel compelled to explain and force viewers to look at their art as they intended, and I think there’s a reason for that. It’s a complicated and fascinating issue to consider though!
LikeLike
It’s a fucking Trojan Horse. get rid of it!
LikeLike
Well said. I teach ‘Humanities’ and I have always stressed the merits of holding to contradictory points-of-view without taking the easy way out by jumping to one side or another simply so our heads don’t explode.
LikeLike
He could reply with subversion simply by turning the bull around and having it face the other way.
What a furor such a gesture would create and rightly so.
Learning the truth about the fearless girl statue makes me realise it doesn’t really deserve to be there.
Does it?
LikeLike
Even if it wasn’t an ad campaign, it’s still appropriation. Any artist should pause at the cheering.
LikeLike
Seriously, this scene makes me feel very ill at ease because it could be a modern adaptation to a sacrifice to Moloch : this little girl, no matter how confident she may (have been brainwashed to) feel, has no hope, she will be devoured quickly.
LikeLike
Interesting to now know the history of both pieces. I’m in Australia and never visited NY.
To me and without any great thought on the matter always saw the bull as a symbol of capitalism, location would seem to reinforce this, regardless of the artists original intent.
The artist and commissioner’s of the girl seem to be confused if they are placing her in a position of being ‘fearless’ in the face of ‘the American people’? Surely she should be facing the same way as the bull?
Everyone involved has different views and opinions, that is the point of Art, the artist is but an instigating voice.
LikeLike
“aggressive threat to women and girls — a symbol of patriarchal oppression”
America has been just that since long before and after 1987.
I would have preferred this had been gorilla art too but i’d also prefer my taxes be raised and the aggressive patriarchal oppression end.
LikeLike
“Gorilla art [sic]”?
Really?!?
LikeLike
Thanks for the history and perspective. I agree with you. I too resent that Fearless Girl was a marketing ploy. I’m disappointed in the way her installation was handled.
I do like the juxtaposition of Charging Bull and Fearless Girl. And if the advertising gimmick has been missed by most of us, did it work? How is this company benefiting by this sculpture? That’s the thing I can’t see. Maybe that’s just because I don’t have money to invest in the stock.
LikeLike
Here’s what needs to happen. Put a big full-length mirror in between the two statues. Then Fearless Girl and Charging Bull will both reflect themselves, and it adds a complex layer to the whole scene. Like, what do you see when you look in the mirror? The art would then become somewhat separated yet stay as one at the same time.
LikeLiked by 6 people
If nobody *knows* that Fearless Girl is an advertisement for SHE, then how the HELL is it effective advertising? If *everyone* who sees it thinks it’s about men dominating women, then how the Hell is it NOT? It’s origins have NOTHING to do with its message, and the message that people get from it. I SAY, I’M A FEARLESS GIRL, AND SHE SHOULD STAY, FOREVER. AND NO MALE ARTIST SHOULD EVER DOMINATE HER. (Have you forgotten that “art” is another medium dominated by men? Who is to say that “sculpture” is “Art”, and quilting is NOT???!)
Terry Nation (Dr. Who, Blake’s Seven) used to say that it didn’t MATTER what his message was intended to be, the ONLY THING THAT MATTERED WAS THE MESSAGE THAT THE VIEWER TAKES AWAY. I agree with HIM.
LikeLike
And yet Fearless Girl will still derive all of her impact from Di Modica’s existing work.
LikeLike
If Di Modica had merely created a single bull, the argument might be more persuasive, but he created 5 of them – it could be argued that the one in Manhattan was on display as a demonstration model, i.e an advertisement to encourage the purchase of the remaining four, one is on The Bund in Shanghai, another in Amsterdam, I don’t know about the remaining 2, but presumably Di Modica has made a profit on their sale. So how is this different from the Fearless Girl who was produced to advertise an investment fund? It seems to me that neither can be described as guerrilla art for art’s sake. Both have a commercial purpose.
LikeLiked by 2 people
One is originally guerrilla art (it has been illegal/removed/impounded and currently temp loaned), funded by personal savings. Then used for personal advertisement/branding by 1 artist years later.
The other is an official commission by a Wall St/NASDAQ company.
Really not similar.
(Your argument would be more valid if the little girl was facing the Shangai bull).
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, thank you.
LikeLike
The fact that you can read this article and respond with that question is truly beyond me
LikeLike
You didn’t ver the point, the problem os that It changed the meaning of the bull
LikeLike
Maybe just turn the bull around?
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s what I thought!
LikeLike
Actually, turn the girl around so she has the backing of her American people.
LikeLike
I was about to say just that.
LikeLike
Your solution is simple and elegant.
LikeLike
Simples! The bull was there first. Remove the other statue to a different space.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Disagree. Public space. Room for more than one idea.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It’s not an artistic idea; it’s an advertisement for a mutual fund. Throw the little girl in the East River!
LikeLike
The bull was there first, but illegally as the artist never got a permit and just dropped a huge load of metal on land he didn’t own.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Out of control American capitalism – as symbolized by the bull – is a threat. To everyone and everything.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Actually in this context, the out of control capitalism is symbolized by the girl, the people who commissioned it, and their reasons for doing so.
LikeLiked by 6 people
why is the bull a symbol of “out of control american capitalism?” the bull (the yin to the yang of the bear) is a symbol of an up-market—of people buying into an idea because it is either fundamentally sound or has positive momentum—which is an aspirational notion of backing services and products. sure, traders buy for nefarious reasons, but that has nothing to do with the notion of investing in and of itself.
if the totem were an animal representing a zero-regulation market, or union busting, or the destruction of pensions, then yes, i’d agree 100%
LikeLike
Yes, for me the bull never represented the American people, but the Bullish corporate world, the traders, the lawyers, the capitalists. The girl represents the people.
LikeLike
Did you not read the article and learn about the historical context of the bull? It represents “the strength and power of the American people”. The Fearless Girl statue changes the context, which is the point of this article. It’s a good opinion piece, you should give it a read.
LikeLike
Whenever I see an article in this, I try to make the point that State Street ahousonr even exist today. They were one of the first to run to the government for a bailout in 2008 and has they not received it, they would have gone the way of Lehman and Bear Sterns.
Instead, they are here with us today along with Goldman and a host of other “too big to faol” banks manipulating the markets and, now, the emotions of Americans. Start wrong, finish wrong. This company shouldn’t exist. Their statue shouldn’t exist. This debate sgpuspnt exist.
LikeLike
He doesn’t have a point in the world.
He’s got a statue.
They got a statue.
The little girl statue isn’t a fraud.
It is a statue.
Are we giving quality points on who commissions art now?
Enjoy the statues.
He doesn’t like it he can turn the bull around.
LikeLike
The girl is merely a marketing device for a product. She’s an ad. However, folks have elevated her falsely because they were ignorant about what she actually represented. Now, if they backtrack, they will look like fools. Hence, the girl will continue to be elevated into some imaginary feminist deity so that those folks can save face. That is all this is. It is all it will ever be.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well with that argument any commissioned artwork is marketing or propaganda. Does that mean the artwork can no longer have other, non-commercial values placed upon it or other interpretations? Of course not! Look up the history of Miller’s “We can do it” poster which was commissioned by Westinghouse for a very narrow, already-employed audience in a series of posters that later feature women in very domestic, passive, homekeeping roles (source: https://www.mendeley.com/research-papers/visual-rhetoric-representing-rosie-riveter-myth-misconception-j-howard-millers-we-it-poster/). That poster was later repurposed in the 1980s onward to become a feminist icon despite its historical context in the factory and in a series of posters promoting patriotism and labor efforts during WWII. A fabricated history that most are ignorant of does not mean that this is “some imaginary feminist deity.” If anything this is a fine piece of propaganda, that associates girlpower with the success of this company. Neat!
LikeLike
You have a very absolutist view which I disagree with. I like the idea of her representing the increasing strength of women in this country. The beauty of art is that one can append one’s own meaning to it. I suspect there are a LOT of people who see this statue and are heartened by it, and who will never give a shit about SHE. May their “brilliant” advertising campaign not ever produce what they are hoping for.
LikeLike
I don’t think it’s fair to totally invalidate the feelings of people who originally saw this statue as a symbol of something good – in this case women’s rights. It meant something to them, it created a visceral emotional response. It is empowering to people, especially young girls. Just because it has a ‘nefarious’ origin doesn’t diminish the genuine emotional response.
LikeLike
“Facts” don’t g.a.f. about your “feelings”.
LikeLike
>
LikeLike
i bet you’re fun at parties
LikeLike
I’m not sure this is fair. As a feminist, I never jumped on the Fearless Girl bandwagon, because I know the history of what Charging Bull is and what it is meant to symbolise. I understood it was representative of all that is wrong with the rampant capitalism and greed of Wall Street. So when Fearless Girl arrived, I wasn’t sure what she was being fearless against – because surely a young girl, standing as she did, emanating her strength as a woman, was not standing there in favour of the greed of Wall Street and the patriarchy it represents.
I think most feminists would agree with your first couple of sentences – implying that somehow feminism is part of the reason she’s attracted attention diminishes it.
LikeLike
And how many of the folks erroneously elevating this marketing gimmick to mean something other than what it was initially intended to be by it’s commission would have a problem if instead of standing up to Wall Street / Capitalists, a statue of an isis jihadi, holding out a burka to the girl was placed in front of it?
I wonder how differently the actual intent of the girl would be redefined if sharia’s openly violent oppression of women was inserted as the “foe”. To be sure, you never see/hear/read feminists (even the more rabid one’s) condemning islam’s/sharia’s treatment of women.
LikeLike
Would the folks erroneously elevating this financial product marketing gimmick to mean something more saintly than it’s original intent have a problem if instead of standing up to Wall Street / Capitalists, a statue of an isis jihadi, holding out a burka to the girl was placed in front of it?
LikeLike
Of course, the juxtaposition of the two could also be interpreted as taking a stance against BULLying… Art is interpretive. And regardless of the impetus behind either piece (or the choice of position), what the viewer gets from it will vary according to the experiences and beliefs of the viewer. (And if you don’t want to view the two pieces together, position yourself in front of the bull or in front of the girl, accordingly.
LikeLike
To me, what a piece of art means and represents to people, and what they get out of it, is far more important than where it came from, why it was built, or whether or not it passes some guerrilla purity test.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This always confused me because when taken literally this reimaging represents SJW’s getting in the way of economic prosperity.
It’s a magnificently confused, foolish metaphor which is hilarious on so many levels. Having the girl turn out to be a manufactured corporate shill is just so perfect for the current age that I hope it stays.
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure the “intended” mean of the bull is basically bullshit at this point. Art “means” whatever it means to the people that see it. And almost everyone sees it as a symbol of Wall Street, not of the “strength of the American People”. The artist is just another person at this point, whose opinion is not any more important.
But, amusingly I suspect that if it hasn’t happened already, the “intended” meaning of girl statue will quickly be subverted. Having not heard the story, I saw it as a symbol (ironically) of the Strength of the American People in standing up to Wall Street.
Neither the supposed feminist message nor the commercial one came across to me at all. And the way it has been circulated on social media, I think that most people took it that way.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The statue is fine but it shouldn’t be placed there, it changes the meaning of the original piece of art. It’s like sticking another piece of canvas on the side of someone else’s painting. They should move it somewhere else.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So statutes aren’t compatible.
There should be a law that no statue in the boroughs can have another statue facing it?
LikeLike
Leaving Fearless Girl out for the moment… What would the Bull symbolize were it not for the NY Stock Exchange? Put the Bull in front of Macy’s or in Central Park and it is simply a nice statue. It is a marketing device for the NYSE (intentionally or not) and those assets are significantly larger than SHE. At least when the two statues face each they an an emotional response. Separately, they are advertisement in bronze.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Imagine if the Fearless Girl was placed facing the other direction? Or slightly in front but to the side of Chaeging Bull..
LikeLiked by 1 person
What if they were side by side, facing the same direction? Both pressing forward toward their intended profitable, productive, and beneficial purposes? That would certainly be better than opposing one another. Our country has become far too divided, and a symbol of unity would be nice.
LikeLike
I enjoyed this so much, Go Fearless Girl ! In “reflective judgment” we seek to find unknown universals for given particulars (Immanual Kant). Fearless Girl is so clever, today’s problems need the challenges of what only ‘imagination’ can give us. It’s a (small) pity it came from a corporation. We can get past this, as we are invited to think differently and not confirm.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My feeling is that an artist doesn’t get to tell the viewer what his art represents. While he created it with his own vision, those things change with time and how people see it.
LikeLiked by 3 people
SHENANIGANS IN THE ARTS
I call shenanigans on this article. Contrary to the words in this article, the bull is not a symbol of “the strength and power of the American people.” It is the symbol of the rising stock market which makes a boodle of cash for investors. Otherwise, the original sculptor could have used the symbol of a ferocious bear, except that that would have symbolized a falling market. That would not be a symbol that would have ingratiated him to the rich and powerful of Wall Street or the public.
Arturo Di Modica, the sculptor who created Charging Bull did not get a permit or rent the space to place his statement. He just plunked it down at his own cost in a space he determined to be empty, and wanting. His objective was to make his personal statement to the world, unsolicited, and at no expense to the city. Some have found his statement endearing, and some found it provocative.
When another sculptor does the same thing , apparently with some limited permission, suddenly Di Modica is struck with a flash of self-righteous indignation and he cries out to the press. I call shenanigans.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Put the girl next to the bull, facing the same direction. It would still be a powerful symbol, and not antagonize the true message of the bull.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I like your idea, to face them in the same direction – because both appear to be in favor of capitalism; the bull because it represents a Bull Market, and the girl, because “SHE” was created by bankers to represent some fund. So, they are not opposed– they are in agreement!
LikeLike
Regardless of the origin of each sculpture, the net imagery of the girl facing the bull is both art and commentary.
I don’t think anything specific should be done. Both are worthwhile and protected speech —
separately and together. Until reading this blog post I did not know there were any commercial or non-commercial interests behind the girl or the bull. If the bull artist cannot accept artistic commentary, that is his right but also disappointing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Commentary does not consume, and therefore destroy, the original piece of art by adding on to it. Draw mustache on a copy of the Mona Lisa, that would be commentary, but leave the original oil painting alone. So, they should make their own new sculpture of a bull specifically for Fearless Girl and place those together a block away. It’s OK to take inspiration from charging bull and produce work that comments on it. It’s NOT OK to add on to this sculpture in such a way that the original piece is suffocated out by being incorporated into a new piece that the original artist had nothing to do with. When you alter a work it ceases to be commentary and instead becomes defacement.
Everything else about who made what when and for what motive is not as important as the principle that you shouldn’t go around hurting the artwork of others.
LikeLike
See Picasso’s “Minotauromachy” for a dark deepening of the meaning of this image of “the young girl and the bull”. Also http://johnwoodcock.com.au/2017/03/trump-and-our-future/
LikeLiked by 2 people
If I was the artist of the ‘Charging Bull’ I would be pissed and would want the ‘Fearless Girl’ moved. However my opinion would have been different, had I not read the meaning behind both statues.
LikeLike
Beautifully put. I’m in the less beautiful stance of thinking the bull sculpture was a bit ironic. And the girl is a bit PC…..and doing a dangerous thing. She should not be fearless. And the two together really don’t say anything meaningful.
LikeLike
Di Modica could put 5 bars of steel just in front of the girl. Would save the bools meaning, even put it in “contemporary” perspective. And at the same time show the feminists the bigger pocture: their fearlessness is still in training. And some serious one…
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think the “Fearless Girl” statue should be facing forward, standing beside or just in front of the bull. Then her spirit joins his to lead women and men onward together!
LikeLike
I appreciate the analysis here, however, I have to object. A work of art takes on meaning above and beyond the conscious intent of the artist, and it will have as many interpretations as it has viewers. Mr. Di Modica may have intended to create a symbol of America’s strength, but it cannot be denied that the manifestation that he chose can also be seen as a symbol of masculinity, and therefore, to 51 % of the population cannot represent all of our citizens. It may be unfortunate to some that the counter statement comes from a corporation and is tied to advertising. Nonetheless, the point made, that the financial industry is lacking in female participation, is wholly valid. In my opinion, the challenge made by Fearless Girl in no way diminishes the power of the bull, but rather enhances the conversation and brings it to contemporary societal demands. That she is not a product of the oppressed, does not negate the call that she embodies to women and girls to rise up. It is my belief that men should assist in that goal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Now that I have read your post and know the history of the bull, I like Fearless Girl more. The artists says it’s about the strength of the American people, or does he really mean American men? You see, people will say “people” while still thinking “men” because women are still invisible or excluded. They say “people” to avoid arguments with their wives. The history of capitalism is very much about domination and patriarchy. Unlike the Charging Bull artist or the patron of Fearless Girl, I am in no way enamored by Wall Street, the US or capitalism. There is far too much to criticise about American capitalism and the way Wall Street dominates the world’s economy without consequences for that. Let the girl take that Charging Bull by the horns. Maybe she can tame that stupid beast.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Beautifully written, Sir.
LikeLike
I enjoyed your article so much – your rendering of all the nuances and ability to hold seemingly contradictory ideas as truth. I’d like to think these two statues could remain, in all their contradictory messiness, impure intentions, and suspect origins, for they do look good together.
LikeLike