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. Great context of which I was ignorant, Fearless Girl should go or Di Modica should move Charging Bull. Charging Bull anywhere will retain its strength but without Charging Bull, Fearless Girl is reduced to its essence a crass commercialized ploy.

    Liked by 5 people

    Reply ↓

  2. By applying the same flawed logic, Di Modica or someone else offended (and clever) enough would be thus ‘entitled’ to further redirect the now altered message by adding new pieces of sculpture/street art. Then, the new message would now appeal to new audiences, stir hate from new detractors and probably spawn a stream of endorsements to random causes. Because redirection is a valid move and art is vulnerable like that. And a part of me wants to see the corporate brain behind ‘the girl’ to huff and puff at something like that.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply ↓

    • Good point. By placing a few ‘faceless corporate suits’ behind her, and perhaps laying a ‘carpet’ before her, I think you’d achieve something similar.

      Like

      Reply ↓

  4. Awesome an interesting story. The sad fact is, if you had to look up what the bull meant, then there’s not a lot of people who care anymore.
    The Times They Are A-Changin. If I were him I’d move my bull…

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  5. To add fuel to the fire, Walmart have stated that they intend to commission a statue of a large bear whose open jaws will hang hungrily over Fearless Girl’s head. This isn’t actually true, but it is The Truth.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  7. He should do as he pleases, he should not demand that others do as he pleases. You either give your art to the world or you don’t. It either lives or it doesn’t. If he wants to control the message of his work, he should take it back.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply ↓

  8. On second reading of this, this girl (beyond branding, which is not clear in the art) represents the strength of women, and all the rest of us “little guys” in the USA against the raging bull of the market. The bull has become a symbol of profits above all, right down to the custom of traders stroking the bull’s scrotum on their way into the trading floor for luck to prove they have the “balls” for the job, then if this little fearless girl makes the artist take his 3 1/2 ton monster away from a public space, where it wasn’t asked for, then David beats Goliath. The 99% top the 1%. Let Di Modica remove his behemoth. Let the fearless girl win!

    Liked by 5 people

    Reply ↓

  9. Art is paid for by all sorts of folks. Take the money and make the art transcend the advertising…that’s exactly what Fearless Girl did. It doesn’t diminish its power that it was paid for by a company. If the artist were NEA funded would you worry about it being traced back to big foundation influence or all the corporate fingers there? Who cares who paid for it– art got made and an artist got paid! Let go of your purity scale, and it’s a genius little piece of fair use that has meant as much to the people of New York as the bull did, apparently. The original artist is welcome to remove his own guerrilla piece since he still owns it and seems to have forgotten its history and how he himself turned a piece of art unasked for into a pretty decent paycheck as he has had several successful lawsuits over its use in book covers, he collects royalites for its use in films, and the city has allowed him to display it for a decade while he tries to sell it (to big companies at that, Merrill Lynch declined), and at what will be a massive profit given its popularity and that he hasn’t had to house it or advertise it all this time.

    Liked by 7 people

    Reply ↓

    • It’s the context. SHE changes the meaning of the bull and SHE doesn’t have any impact without the bull. Basically the company that had made SHE used his work without his permitting it. With out the bull the girl SHE is just angsty for the sake of being angsty at best and the intended meaning they wanted for her would not exist without the bull. Intent matters in art. Art, as “ethereal” as people try to make it, all has purpose and specific intended meaning. Changing that is the same as graffiti.

      Like

      Reply ↓

  10. Very interesting. Capitalism, the very thing the charging bull champions, gives birth to a cheap advertising ploy. I agree with Di Modica and Greg Fallis that Fearless Girl is the right message, but wrongly motivated. If they had simply made SHE typed “She” people would have found the connection to the NASDAQ fund and State Street Global would have come out smelling like roses instead of bovinial dung. To that end, I think the best solution is to simply turn the bull around.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply ↓

  11. The solution seems simple to me. Keep fearless girl, just move her BESIDE the bull, facing the same way. Then it melds Di Modica’s message with an inclusive one. (But ditch the SHE stock reference).

    Liked by 6 people

    Reply ↓

  12. Are we still pretending the argument of “Real Art ™ has to involve no commission or money” holds weight? Buddy, the Sistine Chapel was a commission. Countless pieces of historical, iconic pieces of art were commissions. Does the statue proclaim that you must buy shares from this firm? Is it clad in logos and ads? No. No it does not. So your argument holds no water. The fact that a man had 350k to pour into this statue during a recession doesn’t make him a True Artist, it makes him a rich guy who’s out of touch with what his statue means. That argument was tacky and pretentious the first time it came from Generation X, and it’s no less of an eye-roller to hear now.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply ↓

    • “True Artists” need to be poor. “Rich” automatically means out of touch. Receiving money to create art is okay. But not too much, because then you’ll be an out of touch faker?

      Like

      Reply ↓

  15. Not a fan of capitalism? Do you not see the benefits of it? Sure it’s not perfect, but show me a better system for success and I’ll listen.

    Like

    Reply ↓

    • Oh, Capitalism is fine for instant gratification of a lucky few. Just give it a few more years, though, and you’ll see how bad it is. People see what they want with art, and the meaning will change with time if the whole “shithouse” doesn’t go up in flames before that happens because of the damn capitalism. I think it’s pretty cool, and respectfully plead for them to leave it alone. For all we know the bull statue was also commissioned but by some people that inevitably made money on the crash, as they are want to do in a capitalistic society and felt guilty but not guilty enough to attach their names.

      Like

      Reply ↓

    • Live your life the way you want.

      That is a better system.

      Anarchy is not a system, not a heirarchy, or set of rules, because it is anarchical by nature, but living an anarchical lifestyle doesn’t require over-throwing capitalism. It just requires you lve your life for yourself.

      Take the good you see in how other are living and copy/spread it. Take the bad you see in Capitalism and banish it from your life.

      Not a single system for everyone to live (which is where Communism fell down – look especially at Tito/Titoism) a diversity of ways of living, prescribed by none. Live authentically. Live your values, and the system can take care of itself.

      Like

      Reply ↓

    • Indigenous Life, unadulterated by “civilization”, is more successful on the long term than this capitalist “experiment” that fails every 20-50 years and must be propped up by stealing from the people or manufacturing a war.

      Like

      Reply ↓

  17. Whatever he wanted the message to be, as an artist he must understand, his art changes depending on it’s audience and it’s presentation. Being by wallstreet it has come to be a symbol of the capitalist economy and not the American people, but more so the ways our economy takes advantage of the American people. Bull w horns, the girl.actually adds a depth to the piece, that is actually making more people acknowledge and k is the sculptures originally meaning bc people now know the sculptures original message, bc of the girl sculpture

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  18. Reblogged this on jqubed and commented:
    This was a fascinating read. I had no idea the *Charging Bull* statue was an uncommissioned guerrilla artwork. I always assumed an investment firm or trade group had commissioned it, but the New York Stock Exchange actually had the New York Police Department impound the statute when it first appeared outside their building. I also didn’t know the *Fearless Girl* statue was commissioned by an investment firm as a bit of guerrilla marketing. But I can understand why *Charging Bull*’s artist doesn’t like *Fearless Girl*: it changes his symbol of power and strength into a symbol of oppression, all to sell somebody’s stock portfolio. I also find it ironic that the company behind *Fearless Girl* would turn a symbol of “strength in the market” into a symbol of oppression when the product they sell their clients is strength in the market. Maybe a more apt placement would be to put the *Fearless Girl* next to the bull, facing in the same direction, as though she was directing the *Charging Bull*. That would probably square better with what State Street Global is selling, and it would return *Charging Bull* to a symbol of strength, not oppression.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply ↓

  19. First of all, can we acknowledge that the Fearless Girl is a transparent realization of Tiqqun’s “Preliminary Materials for a Theory of the Young-Girl”? Accordingly

    Second, Di Monica is a jackass for celebrating capitalism and then complaining about commodification and the colonization of public spaces by private interests. Wtf did he think he was celebrating in the first place?

    The Young-Girl (I’m rechristening the piece with its proper name) succeeds precisely because she’s the culmination of the bull’s own logic: the collapse of authenticity into commodification​—or, rather, the fact that this excessive concern with authenticity and self-expression (Di Modica) always already reflects the commodified form of life. The Young-Girl is the commodified image of total integration that haunts capitalism’s fragmentary logic. “The Young-Girl is the one who has preferred to become a commodity, rather than passively suffer its tyranny.”

    Di Modica should consider himself lucky to have exploited this public space for so long for his own rather banal self-promotion. That another interested party, State Street Global, is willing to pay the appropriate market price for the use of the same public space for advertising is eminently reasonable by comparison. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    The irony is that he thinks his work celebrating capitalism somehow transcends its logic, but “The Young-Girl” calls his bluff, just as she stares down his bull—.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  22. If one were to place a new statue of Donald J Trump, facing the fearless girl, in between the two statues, I believe a compromise that satisfies both parties may be possible. Say’n.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  23. Whether or not a corporation paid for it, it’s still some kind of wonderful. Unless the corporation doesn’t intend to follow in the vision that this statue conveys – is it really a big deal whether a corporation or a single person put it here?

    Even if so, it’s still not even changing the meaning of the original Charging Bull piece. If the artist agrees that the bull represents “the strength and power of the American people” then it’s quite the opposite. Sexism is a huge problem in America (just as is anywhere else), so it makes sense that the girl needs to stand up against the bull here. There is no real difference to the original meaning here.

    America is still a charging bull, and women are still fighting for equality. I’d say keep it. :)

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  24. It kind of like what duchamp did with L.H.O.O.Q. mona lisa with a beard and mustache. If it was placed relative tp the work of dvinci it might have not been so funny. I see both sides too. I feel for de modica. Does that set a precidence for other people to retalliate against other art directly? Corporate or government Propaganda used to silence or deminish the statements of criticism? Change the meaning of the artists intent? There are slippery slopes all around. Artistic autonomy should be respected especially through a nonart entity to a unknowing public. How i dont know. But in trumpian times its like tweeting untruths through art.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  25. I agree with you. As a former artist, I immediately knew the guy who made the bull was in the right. So many people are confusing their right to interpretation with the artist’s physical right over his piece. They think that because they like the relationship between the bull and the girl that it’s OK because interptations of works do change over time. But physical pieces, created by an artist are mostly fixed. This girl defaces the bull. It’s so unfair to the artist and it sets a bad president.

    Like

    Reply ↓

    • He may own the statue, but he doesn’t own the space in which it is placed. That’s public space. It’s not a gallery. It’s not a museum. It’s not a private installation.
      It’s a public street. And there are no barriers to access. The risk of putting a work in an unrepentantly public space is that public spaces are dynamic and beyond the artist’s control. They change. Minute by minute. And changing the space around the work will change the meaning(s) the audience draws from it. If the Bull’s artist was unwilling to accept that other parties would have control over the surrounding space, and that they might change that space in a way that changed the perceived meaning of his work, he should have installed it somewhere where he could control the space.

      Like

      Reply ↓

  26. The comments I’ve read by Di Modica have been exemplars of “patriarchal oppression.” His beef with Fearless Girl boils down to his perception that she emasculates his bull. Heaven forbid.

    “The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.”

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  28. why did the bull sculptor choose a bull, a masculine symbol, to symbolize “the power of american people”?
    why not a bear?
    or an eagle, a much more “american” symbol…?
    because he wasn’t completely truthful about his intentions.
    because he actually meant “the strength of american MEN” (all-capitalized intentonally!).
    or alternatively, the power of the american STOCK MARKET” (again, intentional…)
    and to be more exact, the american BULL market (assuring people that prices will rise amidst the crash… how pathetic)
    regretfully, however, the raging bull of the market stampeded over women much more often then over men. so the fearless girl, comissioned or not, intentionally or not, actually sets the statue right and puts it “in its place” they way it ought to have been seen.
    so the bull’s sculptor is rightfully pissed…but he really had it coming

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

      • Mr. Fallis misrepresented the artist in this article. In a quote of the artist I read, he said he created it to represent the American stock market, not the American people.

        Like

      • “Mr. Fallis misrepresented the artist in this article. In a quote of the artist I read, he said he created it to represent the American stock market, not the American people.”
        Which has literally nothing to do with the O.P.’s claims that the artist “wasn’t completely truthful about his intentions,” or that “he actually meant ‘the strength of american MEN’”.

        Like

    • Um, you do know “bullish” and “bearish” are specific terms in the stock market, with bullish being the version believing stocks will go up? He didn’t just randomly choose an animal and masculinity had nothing to do with it

      Like

      Reply ↓

    • OMG NOOOOO did you really publicly announce your ignorance with so much fervour? The symbol of the bull was in reference to a BULLISH market – optimism at at time of deep angst and you’re calling that pathetic? This was not a misogynistic act, this was the act of an inspired migrant. Next you’ll be calling the Statue of Liberty an ‘symbol of oppression to women due to her attire that could be interpreted as overly modest’. Stop overthinking an artistic gesture that is as iconic as it is gorgeous. The passion and workmanship that has gone into this bull in nothing short of magnificent. I hope he takes it away and is offered a squillion dollars to place it somewhere narrow minded twits like yourself have no voice.

      Like

      Reply ↓

  29. The girl changes the meaning of the bull.
    Maybe it is ok to rethink its meaning.
    Maybe what the bull symbolizes has an underlying fragility.
    Maybe each piece could be moved.
    Maybe the bull at Ellis island? To show our attitude.
    Maybe the girl at the supreme court to show that girls are watching.

    In the end, this debate achieves what much of modern art has sought to achieve. It brings up a discussion about art and meaning and, in this case, male aggression.

    Maybe it’s time for Hindus to pay respect to the bull.
    I see flowers and milk.
    How would that make the girl look?

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  30. I shared Di Modica’s complaint a few days ago, not knowing the history behind Fearless Girl, and still acknowledging he had a point. And I suggested, as a compromise, that Fearless Girl could be positioned looking in the same direction as Charging Bull, to tell the story of a girl taking on the world with her bull; or that Fearless Girl could be moved each month around three city, placing her always before other symbols of oppression.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply ↓

  32. Seriously I think the guy is getting the best critique in ages… If art is to stimulate discussion, then he should be thanking Fearless Girl. The juxtaposition can be seen as post-structuralist re-alignment where his work is transformed in meaning but it can also be seen as pulling back the layers of ‘everydayness’ 30 years of passing it by and seeing it in images can impose on an artwork. His intention and the meaning derived by others has not been as keenly articulated in years. The one thing worse than being talked about phenomena……

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  33. Your presentation is well self debated. SHE is really nothing more than a bill boared placed on public property. Since the bull was placed where it was by some important commisoners, i would assume SHE would have to have the same credentials and permission. I would venture to guess there could be liable damages claimed against the commission of important people,or, agaist the advertising firm et al if it was a rogue act of placement.
    Simular action would be Wells Fargo placing a large sign facing toward the newly constructed US BANK stadium.. Wells Fargo sign is on wells fargo property, yet US BANK still had a case of spacial infringement.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  36. You have a point. I love Fearless Girl and I love Charging Bull. Both are beautiful works of art. But the SHE cheapens the whole effect. She’s an ad for a fund. A clever corporate ploy. Whereas the bull, a symbol of American strength is still owned by its creator. ‘Tis a puzzlement. I love them together, though. Let them stay. They’re part of New York City now.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  37. I agree with the perplexing delema of these pieces . 🤔 I for one feel it would be a shame to see ether one or both removed but the irony of it all is it would be the logical conclusion that Arturo removes his piece in defiance of what it has become 😢 It’s beautiful to understand the complexity of ugliness

    Like

    Reply ↓

  38. Imagine this solution: leave the girl in place, but rotate her 180º, so her back is to the bull. Then she and the bull become a team, facing the winds of adversity together!

    Oh…don’t care for that? Not what the girl really stands for? If you think that, you’ve just acknowledged that the girl derives her meaning FROM the bull, and putting her there is an acct of artistic parasitism. That’s aside from the transparently self-serving advertising aspect.

    If you don’t want her to face away from the bull, then put her somewhere else, where she can make whatever statement she makes without leaning on the achievements of better artists.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  39. The beautiful thing about art is that we don’t have to give a fuck about what the artist “intended”.

    Di Modica’s work may have been intended to symbolize the strength of the American people, but for many, it has come to symbolize the corporate/wall-street greed that has grown beyond its intended function to enable commerce and provide capital investments.

    Likewise, State Street Global’s “Gender Diversity Index” fund has failed miserably if this was supposed to be some sort of “advertisement”; Instead it is symbolizing the strength and courage of women standing up to patriarchal society.

    Greg Fallis might have a point, but in art, the creator ultimately has very little ability to decide how their works will be received, interpreted, or remembered.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  41. Just imagine putting a painting of let’s say a lady, to be politically correct, pointing a middle finger, right next to a Mona Lisa painting in Louvre, with an idea of showing how modern women don’t buy into that “submissive smirk b.s.”, they know better, and the’re powerful and angry, and not afraid to show it, (and, add here whatever you think appropriate). What would Leonardo say?

    Like

    Reply ↓

  46. Glad I read your piece. Maybe Fearless Girl should also be appropriated to change the context of her origins and give back to the guerrillas in all of us.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  48. Change the angle of the bull a little. That way the fearless girl is being fearless about something that isn’t a threat, thus negating the advertising campaign’s distortion of the original meaning.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  49. Pingback: Fearless against the blow-back – blog.rightreading.com

  50. I agree on the whole, but consider this – what does a ‘bull’ symbolise in and of itself? NOT the ‘strength and power of the American people’. A bull has connotations of *masculine* power, brutishness – patriarchy. Unfortunately, and as is often the case, the ‘American people’ have been subsumed under the umbrella of ‘the male’ – and that is MY problem with Di Modica’s work.

    Like

    Reply ↓

Leave a reply to Colin Broughton Cancel reply