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 
This gets really old. The bull is a symbol not of anything anti-woman but of strength. But, no women cannot appreciate strength. Somebody decides to twist its meaning into something anti-female. Women have to make everything be about themselves. This gets really old.
LikeLike
My comment is less about the matter at hand and more about this conversation itself. Agree or disagree, Mr. Fallis (an interesting name to bring up a discussion about bulls) presents a coherent argument. Agree or disagree, the majority of commenters have done the same or otherwise added to the discussion. I found myself agreeing with everyone, all at the same time.
Is this what civil argument is supposed to look like in the Internet Age?!?!? Kudos to all. I enjoyed reading the post and the comments that followed.
My two cents FWIW: If the guy is unhappy, it’s probably time to put the bull out to pasture. As the situation stands, the meaning of his artwork has been subverted. Commissioned or not, the Fearless Girl did a good job of it to that affect. If she (SHE) stays, he continues to be unhappy. If the Girl leaves, it will continue to simmer bad blood with the public. If he doesn’t like how his art is displayed or presented to the masses, he can take his bull and go home. I would imagine that Guerrilla art can be that way sometimes….
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Willow's Corner and commented:
This is interesting.
LikeLike
Place SHE on a precipice in a physically precarious position, if SHE is truly meant to symbolize fearlessness wouldn’t this be a far more fitting location?
LikeLike
That is total BS. I think that “Fearless Girl” AKA “Cheap Use of Feminist Outrage” should be taken down. How shameful to create what I’m sure is going to be loud and obnoxious outrage from the SJWs toward such a fine and historical piece of work as “Charging Bull” in order to push a brand.
Kristen Visbal, State Street Global Advisors, and McCann should all be ashamed of themselves.
LikeLike
Fearless Girl has basically hijacked the meaning of Di Modica’s work. Stock markets don’t always react only to financial statements of each company but at times to the Bullish or Bearish beliefs of the investors in reaction to local and world news. The Charging Bull is a symbol of the optimism and financial strength of our country. So why do we want Fearless Girl to block its path? Fearless Girl is better served in front of the Statue of Liberty as a symbol that with Liberty & Justice for all, there should be no fear.
LikeLike
Arturo Di Modica is in the right. However, the best thing he can do is find a new place for the bull. That would return the original intention and power of the bull and reduce the meaning of fearless girl back into a shitty pr stunt. It shits me that they turned the bull into a symbol of patriarchy to denigrate it. Someone should make a puppet master statue behind the fearless girl.
LikeLike
Perhaps Fearless Girl could be relocated so that Charging Bull was looking over her shoulder? They could stand together <3 Xx
LikeLike
It certainly is an interesting story, made more interesting by the fact that so many people had no idea whatsoever what the Charging Bull meant. Which leads us to an important question: What matters more? The meaning behind the art? or how the public PERCEIVES the art?
In this situation, and based on the reactions, it’s the perception that matters. This is how people see things. Is there a plaque explaining the meaning of the bull? to ensure everyone sees it the right way?
What about introducing one? How about adding something along the lines of “Strength and Power are the the characteristics of the Fearless”…. basically, why not be inclusive…
Yes, it’s ironic who commissioned the work, but why not use it to further a message that is not opposed to the initial meaning of the bull… fearless girl is representing the Strength and Power is she not? This how people are perceiving the girl… help the message go louder…
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Michido's Blog.
LikeLike
The dude put his art in a public space – the context and meaning of that art is always going to change, Fearless Girl is just another example of that.
LikeLike
Solution seems simple; turn the girl around and put her at the bull’s side; then they can build on eachothers meaning and become more than their parts. (wouldn’t hurt to ditch the plaque on the girl too).
LikeLike
He’s entitled to be annoyed but, in the end, it all comes down to one thing: you don’t get to decide what an artwork means to people (and neither does Di Modica). Women aren’t seeing an ad for something on the NASDAQ, they’re seeing the subversion of a society that marginalises them, regardless of who put it there in the first place.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Solution seems simple; turn the girl around and put her at the bull’s side; then they can build on eachothers meaning and become more than their parts. (wouldn’t hurt to ditch the plaque on the girl too).
LikeLike
In reality, that little girl would be trampled and gored. Fearless Girl? Ha! Reckless Girl. Texting while driving reckless. And similarly oblivious
Somewhere, Goldilocks, the burglar, cheers. The Bears sleep, completely disinterested.
LikeLike
It’s obvious that a second Di Modica is required that represents a state like North Korea and imprisons fearless girl behind some bars…. Just a thought, where would the additional statues end…
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
I would like to point out that the Raging Bull’s message has already changed number of times (e.g. after the Credit Cruch I’ve seen photos of the statue with caption reading “So much bull they had to bronze it.”). The minute you show your work of art to the public, you are no longer in control of what message it sends across. Sad, but that’s the way it is. On the other hand, it still angers me that the Fearless Girl has been commissioned for loads of money, while the bull is treated as guerilla work.
LikeLike
Brilliantly written piece. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. There is a simple solution to this vexing situation.
TURN THE BULL AROUND 180 DEGREES. Another solution, put up a pole with a speech bubble. My suggestion is ” there you are,
come on it’s
time to go home”
LikeLike
Something you don’t discuss, in the context of appropriation, is how meaning can change over time. Modica has said in other interviews that the statue represents ‘world peace and love’. But how far are an artist’s intentions to be taken as gospel? Nobody has ever interpreted the Charging Bull as a symbol of love and peace regardless of what he meant by it. Also he changes what he meant by it depending on the interview. In the same interview his lawyer described the bull as ‘aggressive’, which is how everyone else has always interpreted it. Can it be ‘aggressive’ and a symbol of peace at the same time? I doubt it. The history is interesting, but it doesn’t alter the fact that it was partly Wall Street (and its bullishness) that caused the crash in the 80s, not to mention the one in 2008. And while Fearless Girl’s (brief) history is one of corporate sponsorship, do you really think anyone’s going to remember or care about that in twenty years’ time, if they’re both still there? The viewer of art has a perspective on it as valid as that of the artist’s intention, and this current pairing means the aggression and devil-take-the-hindmost of Wall Street, up against someone who’s not having any of it. I like it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You make a good point.. and you have convinced me..
LikeLike
I see what I see.
A wee girl standing up against a charging bull.`
it doesn’t matter who paid for it because their message only works if you subscribe to their interpretation.
LikeLike
I’m not a local and may not get to visit that place anytime soon. So here’s my outsider’s suggestion:
Just have the plate below the girl removed and leave it to the interpretation of the viewers. Remove the advertising and things may look a bit nicer overall. Instead, publish this article nearby the scene for everybody to read and make their own decision.
LikeLike
They have switched sides of meaning. The bull has become in faux representation by the girls presence to be the big bad corporate and unjust machine. However, the irony is that the girl is actually commissioned by that same machine. So the bull still represents the thing it began as. And the worst thing you could do, the only way to let the machine win would be by removing that bull. Don’t remove the bull, let them fight it out in stance, with the observation and understanding of the world and the people to lay final judgement, as art is intended to be and how it will naturally thrive. Because without conflict, art does not inspire.
LikeLike
The complexity of this story is great. And for art to generate debate is art at its best. I think the bullish attitude of the financial district is an ‘ aggressive threat to women and girls’ . This attitude was lauded in the 80s, – greed is good, asset stripping, Regeanomics. I didn’t know the story behind the bull but to me it was a negative symbol: Proud, aggressive a ‘symbol of patriarchal oppression’. The bullish behaviour of the financial sector has destroyed many people all over the world. I love that a human has stood up to it, especially a young person and a female. And lots of artists would starve without commissions and it’s always been like that, the Medici family, churches, etc. It was exceptional that he had 350k of his own money to spend. So I think keep the girl. But maybe could move his bull to another location where it could reflect the strength of the American people in an other context rather than the destructive financial context.
LikeLike
How do you feel about authorial intent?
If the author meant her to be an aspiring capitalist taking on a man’s world but the audience interpretted her as an inspiration for social change, for standing up to the crushing forces of the unrelenting market capitalism we find ourselves in, does it matter what the author intented?
It feels like you have a problem with rhe messenger rather than the message. Who cares if the creator of the charging bull intended for it to be X, Y, or Z, and that this peice alters that intention?
I don’t take Arturo Di Modica’s point seriously because he doesn’t get to decide how his art is recieved. The same way i wouldn’t take criticism of harry potter fanfic from JK Rowling seriously.
LikeLike
Very interesting.
Little suggestion: the girl can stay besides the bull. The bull reacquiring that way its meaning. Only the ‘little’ problem of her being an advertisment remains
LikeLike
He has no point.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Perhaps someone could remove Fearless Girl and put her in front of a tank outside a military base somewhere…or in front of the Pentagon..outside Trump Tower. You get my drift.
LikeLike
To be honest, it doesn’t matter who or what funded Fearless Girl, it’s what the sculpture symbolises that is important.
It’s really sad that the vast majority of men get extremely uncomfortable the moment anything is presented as a symbol of female empowerment. If Fearless Girl makes you uncomfortable you are part of the problem.
Regardless of what the artists original intention was, Charging Bull has become a symbol of Western Capitalism. Through patriarchy, western capitalist society discriminates against women. This is why Fearless Girl was erected in direct opposition to the bull.
If the artist doesn’t like this fact, he should ask the City of New York to relocate Charging Bull to a location more fitting of the message he is trying to convey.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I see the point you are trying to make, but I disagree. The fearless girl does not diminish the bull. The bull is still aggressive, perhaps overly aggressive. I think the placement is genius – the two pieces of art play off each other & start discussion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I did not know the history behind either artwork. You are right – historic context matters. And you are also correct that Arturo Di Modica has a point. Thank you for this article.
LikeLike
He should move the bull behind her, like it’s going to charge her butt that’s sticking out. Boot her right out of the city.
LikeLike
As has been suggested elsewhere, I would love to see a statue placed in front of the girl to change its meaning and to see how the ‘advertisers’ like it. Maybe we can open the floor to suggestions. My feeling is a tired and harassed mother, at the point of tears because of her bratty, insolent child.
LikeLike
Symbolism and metaphor… the threatening bull finds its match on a defiant small girl. Both works imbued with equal power. Size here does not matter.
LikeLike
I’m just saying The Fearless Girl = Pippi Longstocking :O)
LikeLike
maybe Di Modica can take his bull and turn it around.
do what you like little girl, we don’t care.
LikeLike
You make some valid points and thanks for the history, that’s particularly interesting.
In the end it is all about appropriation.
As a regular visitor to New York I had always assumed Charging Bull was a piece of corporate art and dismissed it as a vulgar metaphor for the virility of the financial institutions that surround it. It actually made me angry. My fault, I should’ve done my research, but the fact is, that’s how the work spoke to me.
The pictures I’ve seen of Fearless Girl with the Bull, for me put the Bull in context and I saw the girl as the restraining power of liberal America.
How wrong could I be?
Thanks for the history and the logic, but if the Girl stays, she will be appropriated in ways her corporate commissioners hadn’t intended. And maybe that’s a good thing.
LikeLike
As others have said, if Fearless Girl were moved 180 degrees, facing the same direction and alongside or in front of the Bull, her message would change drastically. She would be “with” the Bull, alongside him, taking on all challengers as part of a team, Fearless together. The real art is the discussions and expressions of viewpoints.
LikeLike
Di Modica claims his bull represents “freedom in the world, peace, strength, power and love”. In his head, I’m sure. But did he protest when armed NY cops surrounded and guarded the bull while others were beating up peaceful Occupy Wall Street demonstrators? Some freedom, peace and love there! (Google for pics.) On that day the bull became a symbol of Wall Street terror and this is what it will always signify, even when it winds up in some museum of human folly two hundred years from now.
So, sure, Fearless Girls is commercial, too. But if Di Modica did not speak up when cops were breaking human bones in the name of his bull, he has no business (pun intended!) enforcing what his art is supposed to “mean” for the public.
LikeLike
Why do either of them have to be removed? Why not simply change the girl’s position so that she is standing beside the charging bull. That would give another interpretation to the statues, and regardless of the sculptors’ intent, art is in the eye of the beholder, and will be interpreted on an individual basis.
LikeLike
I vote move charging bull.
LikeLike
Maybe Fearless Girl should be placed beside the bull(instead of in front of him) as an example of how women can help make America great again…
LikeLike
Just turn the bull around
LikeLike
Perhaps Di Modica could respond with some further guerilla art; I think an en pointe next iteration would be to bury the Very Inadvisedly Overconfident Girl in several tons of bullshit.
LikeLike
The bull’s placement is also stratigic; putting this statut in a field might diminue his message as well. Personally, I think the SHE is interpretive. I do understand what you have said and explained but I simply do not take HER message as such. One might say that a huge charging bull represents the stock market crushing investors or the power of capitalism plowing through the masses. Art is the eye of the beholder and I love this David and Goliath message. Just my two cents.
LikeLike
My solution is to place a mirror between the two; each then facing their own reflection. Ponder on the meaning in that!
LikeLike
Solution –
Turn the Bull around to face the other way (or any other way
LikeLike
Interesting story! How about moving the girl over and let her stand side by side with the Charging Bull? She and the American people are on the same side, opposing the greedy men of Wall Street.
LikeLike
While the artist may have intended his bull to represent “the strength and power of the American people”, it’s hard to look at that rampaging, menacing presence on Wall Street, no less, and not feel threatened by the image. It looks to me like the utter disregard for anything but making money at all cost. Anyone standing in the way of the corporate juggernaut will be mowed down. The symbolism of the Fearless Girl, advertising or not, is too empowering to be dismissed.
LikeLike