seriously, the guy has a point

Posted on by

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.

 

 

 

2,098 thoughts on “seriously, the guy has a point”

  1. What makes art more interesting to me is the truth in its subject matter. At one time I liked the metaphor of the bull and the stock market crash. Now that it’s meaning has changed
    considerably. The voyage these two take displays a purpose. However it touches on the human psyche we still continue to seek understanding. That’s powerful stuff.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  5. Art, being subjective, means different things to different people. Most artists know that, regardless of a corporation’s intention: the message crafter’s intention bows to the message receiver’s comprehension.

    Without the history lesson, she’s just a fearless girl standing in front of a raging bull.

    I daresay that’s what most people see.

    Let’s not overcomplicate things. It’s modern America.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  6. Let’s keep it simple ~
    Art is a collaborative process.

    Yes, the bull was there first.
    Yes, he is telling a story.
    So is the new sculpture.

    It’s not the same story.
    It has changed.

    Perhaps it is this CHANGE that has gotten so many people upset.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  7. The work is incomplete if the intent was to show a fearless girl. If the company commissioned the girl and they have trillions, they can commission an artist to make a bull to place in front of the girl. Di Modico can either leave his bull or move it to a new location.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  8. Baloney. Arturo Di Modica needs to get over himself. Imagine if artists who hung their masterpieces in museums had say over what other paintings could be hung or forcibly removed them. If my memory is correct, Di Modica’s sculpture was a piece of guerrilla art that was placed in its original location illegally. Only later was it placed in its current position after it was impounded by the City of New York. The amount of money that Di Modica spent on the sculpture is irrelevant. If the Fearless Girl serves as an artistic commentary to the Di Modica piece, then its art too. Geeze Louise.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  9. “People loved it” is glossing over the entire issue, Some loved it, some didn’t, and “Wall Street” isn’t the dividing line. For many, it symbolizes Wall Street itself, not opposition to it. If that weren’t true, “Fearless Girl” would have no power as an artwork, or would be construed as supporting Wall Street against the public.

    In addition, the people who have their pictures taken fondling the bull’s balls are rarely the same people who have their pictures taken with Fearless Girl.

    What makes the whole thing controversial is not misinterpretation of an artist’s intention, but that the two artists successfully represented two opposing forces in our society. Perhaps di Modica should just admit that his work failed – that happens with art sometimes.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  10. Point to ponder here is that SHE represents the feminine side of life that needs to balance the masculine side. Women have become equally educated as the men, yet men still want yo put a cap on the levels women are accepted to be at. This being said, it creates a step-back to what we as a nation have become. The BULL signifies the strength, and so does SHE as she stands up against the so called strength she is up against. To me, both pieces of art signify the existance our country has gone up against. It’s within the minds of the viewers of the two pieces of art, yet something that will make us all step back to ponder about life in its-self.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply ↓

  11. Since this has made very clear that an artist can’t control what his work will represent to other people: if most people have decided that the Fearless Girl represents feminist striving for equality on Wall Street, are they wrong?

    Like

    Reply ↓

  12. It’s interesting that in a patriarchy you need to be an individual male to be a legitimate contributor. Women in a general sense have fewer means by which to participate in this sphere. Hence the irony of the art you’re taking issue with. Had it been made by an individual female, would the girl still be there and the argument still taking place? Alas I doubt it. The patriarchy does recognise the corporate. Maybe it’s true that men can only have meaningful relationships with other men (and corporate entities) and women provide a mediating role in these relationships. It no doubt interrupts the patriarchal space and makes many in this space uncomfortable and resentful. I suspect you may need to question your own arguments relating to authenticity as well as your acceptance of the legitimate male enterprise.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  13. Here’s the best possible solution: Di Modica should move his statue to a different part of NYC. Then, his bull will stand alone and the girl will stand alone, and people can see if they’re evocative in isolation, on their own merits.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  14. I think you’ve swung me solidly against the artist (Di Modica). I’ve been reading this topic for several days and my thoughts have been one of seeing each side. But, you said a couple things that swung me definitively in one direction.

    1) He placed it there inappropriately (without permission). It being popular and allowed to remain is neither here nor there. It also drastically lessens his claim of appropriation. He’s not even supposed to be there.

    2) You said, “He said he wanted the bull to represent “the strength and power of the American people”.”… the unspoken part is, ‘power derived from the stock market and capitalism’. Sorry, but while he may be the independent artist, his motivation is really no different than the backers of “Fearless Girl”.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  15. Have you looked up State Street Global’s “Gender Diversity Index” fund SHE? That’s the missing piece here. The purpose of the fund is bringing awareness of the not very diverse heads of Wall Street, all seats occupied by white men. The fund will help organizations who support gender diversity in the workplace.

    True, the Charging Bull has a new meaning with the Fearless Girl, but so does Wall Street. How Wall Street bounced back and stabilized the goal economy overall shows the strength of the American economy. But now we’re in a new era where Wall Street is affecting our everyday lives and is becoming part of the patriarch societal structure. This is why Fearless Girl is needed on Wall Street. If the artist chooses to take back the bull, the Fearless Girl’s purpose will remain the same.

    Art is subjective to the people who consume the art, so the meaning will change over time.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  16. The sculptor of the little girl needs to create one of a small boy standing behind the bull with his leg swinging forcefully, kicking the bull square in the SACK… How is that for a metaphor?

    Like

    Reply ↓

  17. It would be great if somebody would put up a statue of RoboCop about to fire a bullet into the brain of the rampant bull. However, they can’t even seem to be able to finish the one in Detroit, a city where they used to be able to make things happen.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  20. I think Di Modica is stretching a bit when he says the bull represents the strength of America, yada, yada. In the context of the location (of 1 of 5 of his bulls), I believe most people would associate it with a “bullish” market and thus it became representative of something more or different than he intended; and that is capitalism, which is now associated in the minds of so many, with so many pitfalls of this country and western culture, both. That the defiant girl is a product of that capitalistic system is almost equally non-relevant, as the net perception by most– unaware and/or unacknowledging of its original purpose– has turned it into an icon of a social backlash and restoration movement. Di Modica got “trumped”, as did those responsible for the girl. In the end it has kind of boiled down to two wrongs making a right: a commentary on the commentary of a commentary, with a much higher and inspiring message.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  21. A simple solution to me would be to put the Fearless girl BESIDE the bull.

    I believe this would address the legitimate concern of the artist of the bull, while also retaining the message of those who created the girl.

    If you place the girl beside the bull, then the bull is no longer a negative force whose path directly threatens the girl.

    But in standing close to the bull, the girl retains her fearlessness.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  22. From another whose response dissected this well:

    I actually disagree that Fearless Girl doesn’t work without Charging Bull. If she were standing there facing all of Wall Street, that message is just as, if not more, compelling to me.

    I also disagree that the meaning of Charging Bull has been altered. It’s still a symbol of bold, unwavering capitalism, which has, by and large, benefited wealthy white men more than anyone else in the pursuit of the so-called American dream.

    Maybe di Modica doesn’t want to acknowledge that his work subliminally supports the idea that progress should always be characterized as a ruthless hyper-masculine beast.

    For decades, this line of thinking has been status quo and now the limitations of that thinking are part of the every day discussion about social equity. Even so much so that a global investment firm decided it was time to financially support a piece of art that questions that masculine symbol.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  23. Di Modica should simply accept that if he’s gonna put I commissioned guerrilla art out in public then it’s public. Too bad if a shady capitalist fund builds something iconic off of it. If you don’t want anyone messing with your $350k “artistic expression”, don’t leave it in the middle of the Financial District.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  25. My .02$?

    I think Fearless Girl should be repositioned to stand beside the charging bull…….

    They both have a place and f*ck the campaign those who commissioned her had.

    I get his point and no, I wouldn’t want the meaning of my art hijacked either. But he needs to understand, too, that while his meaning is valid others have continued to suffer inequality at the very hands and minds of those he praises with the very nature of the Charging Bull.

    There is a catch to everything. Nothing is perfect.

    But if we are trying to move forward into a more perfect future then the two must work together to put forth a common message… That if we all work side by side, despite and because of our differences, we can prevail and create and accomplish more than we would ever of alone…

    Like

    Reply ↓

  26. Art often transcends its own meaning. It is not about what the artist intended to say but rather what the viewer sees and how he or she interprets the piece that affects the message. In the case of “Charging Bull,” it no longer is just about “the strength and power of the American people.” In the case of “Fearless Girl,” it no longer is just a corporate marketing tool. The artist or corporate sponsor can say whatever they want about how people should see the work, but ultimately the public will have its own opinion.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

    • Qu’on parle de moi en bien ou en mal, peu importe. L’essentiel, c’est qu’on parle de moi! .Citation Léon Zitrone

      Whether one speaks of me for good or for bad, whatever. The bottom line is we’re talking about me! Léon Zitrone

      Like

      Reply ↓

    • You can say that, but when you learn what the meaning of why it was created in the first place, I think any reasonable person would feel short-changed.

      It’s like watching a grass-roots musician you loved become a sell-out pop artist. Sure, you still enjoy it for what it is/was, but when the message is tainted by the medium then it definitely sours my outlook on it.

      I’ve yet to see “great advertisements” become staples at museums. Art being used by corporations to promote themselves is no longer about art. It’s about self-promotion. I think we can all agree that if the medium of art was only used for self-promotion that we would call it marketing and not art.

      Like

      Reply ↓

      • This statue was created by a financial firm, but one that employs more women than most banks and is promoting employing more women on Wall Street, which is why she’s staring down the symbol of Wall Street. The fund mentioned helps other firms in hiring and developing female employees. Mr. Fallis is trying to make it seem more sinister than it is.

        Like

  27. After reading this article.. I’m filled with the same swirling questions and feelings the author has presented.

    Being an artist, myself, I see the argument from both sides. I appreciate the work of both artists and I find great meaning in both artist’s intentions. I also appreciate the underlying contradiction of Fearless Girl’s presence and the irony of a guerilla artist’s work being compromised and appropriated by commercial art. Usually, it’s the other way around.

    The situation is definitely a conundrum, for which,.. I don’t have the answer or a definitive “side”.

    Regardless,.. It has open a line of dialogue and discussion that I look forward to hearing more about. Great Art is meant to provoke an emotional response and this has certainly done that. Quite interesting, when the artist is one of the critics.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  28. The number of times I’ve seen tourists cradling the nutsack of the bull for a fun photo for their facebook or instragram account kind of invalidates any deep meaning Di Modica had for the original piece. The intent of the artist is kind of meaningless if the public leaves with a different viewpoint.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply ↓

  29. You do have a point. Yet, my thought when reading was, unless I’d read your article, I would have never known about the SHE fund and what they had to do with it. So to me (and I’ll assume here the masses as we all represent a group one way or another) though it may be some marketing ploy – it isn’t working in the context they’d hoped. Even if I was there and read the statement, having SHE in capital letters would have led me to believe it was in capitals as an artistic thing, not a stock fund.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  31. For all the supposed artists around here – yall have a serious lack of understanding when it comes to the terms “fair use” and “transformative work”.

    The so-called point the bull artist makes, is precisely what protects the fearless girl, and precisely why he has no claim. It’s the very point of the fearless girl work in the first place – to make a transformative statement about the meaning of the original work. AKA – fair use.

    I would think artists and those who speak about art would understand that. It’s a pretty basic concept. But if you don’t believe me – ask the experts at stanford.

    http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-use/

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

    • Fair use is a legal principle that protects artists from liability. This is not a a discussion of legality, but of ethical and aesthetic concerns.

      Like

      Reply ↓

    • Except fair use doesn’t typically transform the original work of art itself into something completely different, which makes your argument misleading and not entirely applicable to this situation.

      Like

      Reply ↓

    • You’re making a legal argument in a space that’s arguing about the morality and artistic merit of the thing. I don’t think Di Modica is claiming a right to the space, or that Fearless Girl infringes on his IP. He’s saying it disrespects his work and he wishes it would be removed. That’s a different argument.

      Like

      Reply ↓

    • This has nothing to do with “fair use”. Any argument about “transformative work” is weak at best when it directly affects the original work. If someone came behind the great masters who painted many of the iconic works that society has admired for generations and decided they were going to “transform” them because they had a better idea…a “modern vision”, everyone would scream “You can’t change the creator’s intent by altering the work”. It would be viewed as a catastrophic destruction of that art. If you want to paint or create a new work as a “commentary” or “transformative interpretation”, you might have a point. If the creator of the “Fearless Girl” had created a complete work with their own version of a charging bull, this would be “transformative”. But you can’t touch the original work….the work of another artist is his. Even if the statement made by the alteration is seen as the greatest message ever, it is part of a separate work and it is not fair to the original artist’s intent. If Di Modica’s work has been accepted for the context in which it was created, then it is wrong to subvert it by allowing someone to re-interpret the work in this way. Move the “Fearless Girl” to another site, and if this is the interpretation that she must achieve by that artist, then it is the artist’s duty to provide their own context of danger.

      Like

      Reply ↓

      • Although the US statute on copyrights (17 U.S. Code § 106A) does say that an artist “shall have the right to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of the work of visual art in the event of a distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation.”

        Like

      • Fear use applies to reproductions of the original work, so your entire claim here is bogus. Furthermore, the original work was untouched, so your argument is even further off base.

        Like

  33. Appropriation art is an interesting term. Most artists will appropriate a concept and interpret it through their work. That said, I agree with the original artist, if I understand his intentions correctly. The bull has a higher meaning for him and it was important enough that he had placed the bull without permission. It’s a bit of subversive work, not unlike the naked Trump statues which were removed. If he used it for advertising as well, not a problem for me, artists have to eat, it’s not a crime to have one piece of art I feel strongly about, then use some of the publicity to try and sell my other pieces.
    I don’t also really like the Fearless Girl Statue. Maybe not on it’s own but the context it’s in. I assume that most people know it’s conceptual but I can’t help but feel that it embodies foolhardiness and not fearlessness. Why would a kid stand in front of a bull that can gore a grown man (sorry, the recent headlines about a matador that died is still fresh on my brain)? It renders the original message mundane. And maybe a tad disrespectful to the original artist. This girl is just riding on the bull’s fame.
    It is just that we have this political climate, to speak out about the “bull crap” of this thing means to be anti-girl empowerment. There are other ways to do this without messing up the original optics and artist vision.
    I say this from an artist’s point of view.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  34. So: if you never heard the story behind either piece of sculpture, and haven’t the foggiest notion who/what SHE is–and in my case couldn’t care less–is this really anything more than a pissing contest among over-inflated egos? Once I heard the stories, it still strikes me as precisely that. If the statue of the girl was supposed to be a marketing ploy, it failed because it would appear that only a handful of insiders got the reference–it had to be explained. If the bull was guerrilla art, it certainly isn’t anymore.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  35. Aaaahhhh….but in the end it is art by both of the creators…whether it is free lance or commissioned…they are defined by the sculptors and the business that is it for advertising…but it is in a public domain where anyone who chooses to view it may…leaving it open for any individual who views it to have their own interpretation of it…so, whatever definition has been given to it does not really matter in the end…art is whatever the viewer sees it as, it cannot be defined as a whole

    Like

    Reply ↓

  36. Just enjoy both statues and interpret them any old way you like. Appreciation of art is in the mind of the beholder so let everyone just enjoy them. I see a fearless young girl standing up to a bull and remember when I was that fearless and it makes me smile.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  38. Wish I had $350,000 of my “own money” to engage in this kind of stuff. That is the privilege of being a dude in the art (or any other) world. You don’t need to be commissioned. You have a third of a million dollars to be “subversive”. Somehow, this working class woman doesn’t have much in common with a dude with access to that kind of cash.

    Like

    Reply ↓

    • Easy does it with that victim complex. Just because you don’t understand how to save money doesn’t mean all men are doing it to you. Anything I’ve done in my life any woman could have done had they chosen to. The problem is, women don’t choose to do the same things. That’s where the problem lies. Not with men keeping women down, but with women not wanting to do the same things, but expecting the same results regardless. Almost as though they want special treatment.

      Like

      Reply ↓

    • Right. Because all “dudes” have $350k to blow on a sculpture. Speaking as a lifelong dude who has known many dudes in the art (and other) worlds I can emphatically say that I have never known a dude or lady who had that kind of scratch.

      Like

      Reply ↓

  41. Remove it. It is clearly conflicting with his art piece. You don’t get to add on to one of DaVinci’s painting do you? No you don’t. You don’t get to add to someone else’s sculpture either. Perhaps they should move fearless girl statue….or better yet….he should remove charging bull. And sell it to someone in China. Then fearless girl could be called lost and stubborn girl.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  43. I did not know that Arturo Di Modica’s “Charging Bull” is “the strength and power of the American people”. I thought it was about the money. As in “Bull Market” a market in which share prices are rising, encouraging buying. Why else would it be on Wall Street.
    Mr. Di Modica may have a point. However, a bull is adult male animal and does represent the “strength and power” of women.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  45. My thing is… I never saw the “meaning” of the bull changing. It can still be the strength and power of the American people and the girl can still be fearless in the face of that power. Or fearless because of that power. Fearless in wielding (or, I suppose, testing, if we’re going for the whole bullfighting analogy) that power. What ever.

    But really – art is art. Its meaning may be implied or even decided on by an artist, but the moment you put it out in the world, its subject to the interpretation of the people who view/hear/read/etc it.

    Like

    Reply ↓

    • Exactly. Every person I k ow probably thinks it’s just about the “bull market”. Just as almost no one probably knows the “SHE” thing with NASDAQ

      Like

      Reply ↓

  47. I love this story. There’s something electric about trying to hold on to two conflicting ideas in your head. This duality is perfectly represented in the art. I too hope both statues stay. And I hope more people learn of this story. Holding conflicting ideas in one’s head is in short supply these days.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  48. I have a point, too. On one hand, I follow what Greg Fallis is saying. On the other, Di Modica “said he wanted the bull to represent ‘the strength and power of the American people’.” But his bull lost its intended meaning a long time ago – to the commercial interests of Wall Street. Indeed, it is often called the Wall Street Bull, probably more often than not. It is not a symbol of We the People of America. Instead it is a symbol of Wall Street and of corporations and of a very few people who have more money than anyone really needs. It is a symbol of how powerless We the People have become in the face of Big Money.

    Ironically, We the People – and especially those who are women – can now see our power, or at least our potential power, in the figure of the Fearless Girl. So, with further irony, Di Modica’s bull is now able to once again symbolize our power for us, albeit indirectly through the presence of the Fearless Girl facing the bull. The bull has regained significance as part of what could, and perhaps should, now be a collaborative creation rather than a contentious situation.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

    • Remember that Wall Street is a form of gambling. While it is better than mere casinos because it represents investment, we all know you can’t bet the family farm on paper assets in the market, The girl represents that knowledge and warns us that there must be underlying valu in all human investments. The margin factor, absent value but used to allow low income gambling that broke the house in 1929, must not represent an absence of value within ourselves.

      Like

      Reply ↓

Leave a reply to Kiri Cancel reply