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 
Perhaps both pieces of art would better serve the intent of both artists if the young woman was to be positioned, say, 10 feet in front of the bull with her back to it, truly fearless and projecting leadership. The bull, not her adversary but rather adding strength to her quest for equality and progress, combining their strength through unity. Unity through strength and determination. Both going forward to, I believe you call it, the “Canyon of Heroes” (an historic name for that section of Broadway). To me, a far more powerful and symbiotic image that magnifies the impact of each piece.
I suppose I am unclear as to why so many images have to be confrontational but then I’m not an American so I may be missing some nuance of the American psyche (and I’m not trying to be offensive).
LikeLike
This is a fine bit of research, with an insightful (and entertaining) argument. Thank you! For whatever it is worth, I’ve always thought of the Bull as pop art, because it (1) engages cultural icons, (2) is fun to look at, but (3) doesn’t really any commentary that is worth pursuing. If it was genuinely intended to symbolize “the strength and power of the American people”, that particular message was lost on me. It is ‘about’ the stock market, playing on the not-especially-compelling metaphor of a ‘bull market’ (Why the Bull was not facing off with a Bear, I don’t know). Ultimately, for me, the original artist’s explanation is lame, but the addition of Fearless Girl (a less interesting sculpture) is equally lame. Is she fearlessly standing up to a bull market? Is she fearlessly challenging “the strength and power of the American people”? Whatever the case, people are investing to many of their resources, time, and thought into glamorizing in an institution that regularly exploits and destroys countless American lives.
LikeLike
Pingback: On women & public art; or, no, seriously, the guy does not have a point. | Week Woman
Maybe when it was created the bull represented America then, but now America has changed. A better depiction of America would be to add a China cabinet around the “Charging Bull” maybe with a globe skewered onto the end of one of its horns with an oil like substance oozing out. This way we can show whst America had become, a raging bull in a China cabinet goring the earth with out a care.
Art, both spoken word and visual artists may have intended on their piece invoking a certain emotion, conveying a particular idea but the message can be subjective to the individual who views it. Plain and simple, America has changed so does the meaning of the Bull.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well researched and reported, and I agree with all you said. But for all those who do not know about SHE, or recognize the marketing ploy (or care) each statue makes the other ‘more’ not less.
LikeLiked by 4 people
I disagree. The addition of the Fearless Girl changes the meaning of the Bull from one of representing the strength of the American people (and yes the economy) to one of threatening and bullying.
LikeLike
A LITTLE GIRL facing down Wall Street instead of woman. It diminishes women … making them hide behind a little girl.
LikeLike
Maybe Arturo Di Modica should come back and turn his Bull statue around so it’s back end is facing the new statute, Takes on a whole new meaning wouldn’t it, use your own imagination.
LikeLike
Agree with Polly. In Arizona we don’t know from bulls and SHE’s, but we do know good art.
LikeLike
Possibly a compromise, with the little girl standing strong NEXT to the bull. Both of them fearless.
LikeLike
At least for Di Modica’s work, different would be the word here, not more. The bull is now a symbol of aggressive violence and a threat rather than defiant resilience. I doubt running children down was Di Modica’s intent when he set out to represent the strength and power of the American spirit.
LikeLike
I must disagree. This is a case of artistic parasitism, not symbiosis. “The Fearless Girl” draws its power and impact from “Charging Bull” while diminishing that work.
This is a case of one artist using the work of another as a prop. It is not legitimate.
LikeLike
I must disagree. This is a case of artistic parasitism, not symbiosis. “The Fearless Girl” draws its power and impact from “Charging Bull” while diminishing that work.
This is a case of one artist using the work of another as a prop. It is not legitimate.
LikeLike
No. He does not have a point. Regardless of what the stated inspiration, impetus or purpose Arturo Di Modica says led to his creation of the charging bull it VERY OBVIOUSLY IS DIRECTLY REFERENCING BULL MARKET ECONOMICS. Do not condemned to anyone by suggesting otherwise either by his statements or your own interpretation. This article is a blatant confabulation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yea, obviously, because art is obvious as fuck! Oh man you really cemented the meaning of the bull! And that corporate marketing tool-oops I mean statue of a fearless girl.
Blatant confabulation.
LikeLike
Are we allowed to disagree? I guess they forgot to send me the memo where they appointed you as the flag barer of truth.
LikeLiked by 14 people
two illiterates for the price of one 😉
LikeLike
– Artist creates work of art.
– Artist gives reason and meaning of said art.
– Rando poster thinks they know better.
LikeLike
Your Comment is short of the Purpose of Fearless Girl. You sound like an oppresant
LikeLike
Exactly what is your concern regarding “bull market economics”?
LikeLike
if its “blatant” does it really still qualify as confabulation? 😛
LikeLike
Derek – Mr. Di Modica *can* have a point… and opinion, just as you are entitled to your opinion. This is the US of A. Does it represent a ‘bull market’? Maybe… A bull market is a good thing… a sign of economic strength.
So, why would the girl challenge economic strength for the USA?
You might want to also look up the definition of “Confabulation”. It doesn’t seem to make any sense when used here. Nevertheless, the author of this article is entitled to his point of view, and I support it.
Based on what I know so far, I’d say that the “girl” should be moved.
I am 100% in favor of women’s rights. I don’t think this placement of this statue truly serves that purpose based on the context provided here.
LikeLike
It is art. The point of art is interpretation. Sure, if I wanted something plunked in the financial district, I would loosely connect to something relatable. But to stomp your eye-blinder driven feet is sophomoric. I would gather you are as ineffective in fiduciary insight as you are in creative license.
LikeLike
So what? That has nothing to do with his point. Besides, you fail to construct contradiction on any level you’re trying to do so.
LikeLike
Pretty sure YOU don’t more of a say over what the statue means then the one who made it. Get off your high horse and stop acting like you’re more important then everyone else.
LikeLike
Sorry, check your timeline. Pretty sure you don’t even know what that means.
LikeLike
Arturo apparently isn’t a street artist either, if he had that sort of pocket change to spend on a piece of art which returns him nothing. On the other hand, although the Fearless Girl is an advertising stunt, it has been co-opted, much the same as the bull has been by Wall Street.
LikeLiked by 3 people
He literally made art on the street.
LikeLike
One thing Fallis says about Fearless Girl is, “I resent that she’s a marketing tool,” but one thing he leaves out of his commentary is that Di Modica has made a ton of money from selling copies of the bull because of all the free advertising he has gotten from it being displayed on public property. His bull is a marketing tool.
I think the most interesting thing to come out of this is that Di Modica feels that the placement of Fearless Girl infringes on his copyright because it changes the meaning of his bull. To me that really is an intriguing question. Does Fearless Girl change how people view the bull? Yes. Does Fearless Girl benefit from being paired with the bull? Yes. Does his copyright extend into the environment where it is placed? To that I say no. But that is just my opinion
LikeLiked by 9 people
Di Modica’s bull benefits from its context of being on Wall St. The fearless girl by her contextual proximity to Di Modica’s bull. Touche. Sometimes advertising ideas transcend their original intent ie Santa Claus’ current iteration from a long ago Coke ad and the public assigns them new meaning. I think that will be the case here. All positive. I also think by his guerrilla placement of Charging Bull, Di Modica assumed the risk that the context would someday change.
LikeLike
It’s not true that Santa Claus looks like he does because of Coke ads. I’m embarrassed to say I used to believe that too. Now it’s your turn. http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/santa/cocacola.asp
LikeLike
I don’t think the girl changes how the people view the bull. If you asked the average American born in the last two generations, perhaps even the Boomers, they would probably not see the bull as a symbol of “the power and strength of the American people”. More likely the idea of the bull as a representation of Wall Street economics and personality has been in the minds of most who pass by it daily.
What I’m saying is, I think the perception that the bull represents something different than the artist claims was intended was in the minds of people long before the Fearless Girl installation and why it has become so popular and the message easily understood. Modern culture has already decided what that statue means and few will invest in SHE simply because the statue stands but many women will feel inspired by her just the same. Keep the girl, lose the bull, if need be.
LikeLike
No, you’re missing the nuance here: art made for art’s sake is not a marketing tool. Picasso didn’t make Guernica to sell prints or other paintings even if it had that result afterwards. If an artist makes art for art’s sake and it ends up making him rich and he sells merchandise based off the art then that’s fantastic, but it doesn’t change the meaning of the art any more than a band selling a t-shirt with their album cover on it changes a single note on the record.
In music, changing the meaning of a work of art by putting it into a new context is sampling, and is a very careful line to walk because art is to be respected. If this was sampling however, then the marketing firm didn’t just take a small, iconic piece; it took the entire song and ran over it. It’s the Kenny G of art.
LikeLike
Interesting. In addition to appropriating the original artwork, the Fearless Girl has direct economic impact on the artist’s revenue from his work. Now that’s probably quite annoying to Di Modica.
To say that the bull is a marketing tool is misleading though. The only thing it is marketing is the artist and the artwork itself. It that perspective any art is marketing tool if it can and will be monetized.
In contrast, the Fearless Girl is advertising a brand. It does not only represent itself and the artist, but public relations of a company, which commissioned it.
In some very twisted way this everything makes the artwork quite representative of our times. It’s an appropriation of artwork by a white male artist for feminist message, just for the sake of it, not giving a thought for the original artist. Feminism, in it’s all-encompassing equality, is using the tools in the war for minds the usage of it’s fighting against.
The Girl violates, in principle, the intellectual rights of Di Modica – it places his art in a totally new context. Whether that’s a legal issue or not is a different thing.
LikeLike
Ok but there is a difference between a single artist, who is selling copies of his own piece of art, because in a certain moment and place it was – and is – full of genius, somehow, and a big corporate who is abusing the same piece of art to sell their market product…. one cannot just apply on both things the same judgment.
LikeLike
Public art is in the public domain, which means the artist gives up some of the typical/standard rights to the work in exchange for visibility. He doesn’t get to control its use when it goes public (thus, the permit) – end of discussion.
Beyond that, any artist who has any level of awareness would be doing a happy dance about the fact that the work is getting so much visibility. The man comes across as (at best) a stereotypical temperamental, self-absorbed egotist or (at worst) the poster-BOY for the misogyny these anti-Fearless Girl comments represent.
Grow up and make your own fucking sandwich…
LikeLiked by 3 people
“He doesn’t get to control its use when it goes public” in this case you are incorrect. Re-read the article. The Charging Bull statue is privately owned by the artist. It’s “permit” for display is temporary. The artist, if he so chooses, would be well within his rights to remove the piece.
As to your “happy dance” thought, you couldn’t be more wrong. NO artist would be happy if the intended message of his work is perverted for some advertising stunt or economic/political ideology… no mater the medium of the art. (Example: Many biographers, family, and friends of F.W. Nietzsche agree that he would be outraged by the Third Reich’s perversion of his philosophical works).. Your take on what would be acceptable to “any artist” shows an obvious lack of knowledge about art, people being individuals, and artists in general (if there is even such a thing).
Grow up and realize NOT EVERYONE IS THE SAME.
LikeLike
VAFUTH . . . Di Modica may own the bull and the copyright to it but unless he moves it to a private location he doesn’t own the environment in which it sits. In my opinion the point of the copyright issue here is that Di Modica’s copyright doesn’t extend into the space in which the bull is placed. His copyright doesn’t own the air surround it. A copyright is just that, the “right” to “copy.” What if the city wants to cut down a nearby tree. Do they need his permission first? Or what if the city wants to put up another fence around like they did when Occupy Wall Street was going on, or a curtain around it so no one can see it at all? No, an artist doesn’t’ own the environment in which ther artwork is placed. With him it’s all about his ego. If he doesn’t like it he can move it. I could care less.
That would then allow Fearless Girl to move onto taking on other foes in the city.
LikeLike
You can’t fool me anymore. Every time I make a sandwich a woman shows up looking all pretty and helpless and say’s she’s hungry and the patriarchy is keeping her down. So I give her the sandwich, and she takes everything else I have. Then I go back to two work hungry.
LikeLike
So you are fine backing fearless girl even though it is a marketing ploy from a global capitalist corp.
LikeLike
So if someone were to come along and tag either piece with hate speech and symbols, that is cool too?
LikeLike
If you were a serious artist, and a piece of your work that was highly visible, publicly discussed, publicly *cheered* when it was first introduced, and later, after a good expanse of time has passed, but during your lifetime, that work was displayed in a museum or gallery directly opposite a statue of someone pointing and laughing, and now your work is back in the public eye being discussed *because* it is being pointed at and laughed at, are you honestly telling me you wouldn’t be the least bit upset? Because if you are I’m 100% sure you’re lying.
Both works independently are beautiful examples of inspiration incarnate. Both had their own reasons for being created, but the second one was placed in a position where it detracts from the first. Yes, the first time I saw the “Charging Bull” I immediately associated it with the stock market, because I know that Bull and Bear markets are a thing. I later learned why and when this was created, and I found it to be something that I could appreciate for what I saw in it as well as what it was created because of. “The Fearless Girl” being a commissioned piece of work on it’s own is awesome. I, however, cannot get behind any symbol thrown into the public domain that either a) deprives another object in the public domain of its significance, or b) is created to attempt to rally support for any cause (valid or not) that, under scrutiny, amounts to nothing more than a corporate ploy. (And yes, I feel the same way about “I’d like to buy the world a Coke.”)
Each individual artist (not the commissioner of the piece, but the commissioned artist) has the right to be unhappy with a situational change that completely changes the perception of their art. Any artist does. I also agree with the post below you that because the two pieces are linked they are starting more discussions. The “Charging Bull” and “Fearless Girl” statues separately are powerful, striking works of art. But the have been integrated in such a way where they have become a singular piece, and that’s just sad. “The Fearless Girl” plopped on the sidewalk opposite Trump Tower would be equally discussion-worthy (and hilarious). It also would be discussion worthy near the WTC, and there it would also a very deeply emotional, powerful piece.
His comments aren’t about girls. It’s about this corporate backed sham that changed his art. Going back to the hypothetical I started with, If it was a male figure in the statue pointing and laughing at your art, would you presume that the artist was sexist and the museum or gallery put your works across each other because you’re you and he(the statue) is making fun of your proudest piece? Or would you say hey curator, the installations are kind of an issue, please fix it. (And hint: the gown-up thing to do would be the latter.) Problem is, there *is* no curator. This? This was plopped on the sidewalk. It changed the meaning of “the Charging Bull” *into* something the “the Fearless Girl” isn’t afraid of. *Into* something a little girl (or a big girl) is capable of ‘handling’ and in this new context, changes the Bull from representing strength to something agressinve. Strength and aggression are not the same… and only one of theme should get under your skin. But you, hypothetical proud artist, are saying that you’ll be doing a happy dance. So Keep Calm and Happy Dance On.
LikeLike
Wow. Did you even read the whole article?
LikeLike
One of the most annoying things anyone can say in an online discussion is “end of discussion.” But I suppose if no one engages with your comment, you might understand why.
LikeLike
That’s ridiculous. Should John Lennon’s Imagine be sampled and used in a Jeans commercial? No, because artist intent in art should fucking be respected. There’s a nice thick line between Paul Ryan listening to Rage Against the Machine and him quoting half a song in a congressional address about how good Donald Trump is doing in his eyes.
Or to put it nice and easy, grow up and make your own fucking art. Oops…
LikeLike
It is actually incorrect assuming public art is in the public domain. Many architects have laid claim to their building works for non-reproduction purposes. This also applies to sculptures. The U.S. copyright act clearly spells out what does and doesn’t receive protections.
Sadly, I am conflicted about the use of another piece of art in order to send a completely different message. It is clever, yet if I was the artist whose work was being hijacked, I probably wouldn’t like that someone is changing the meaning.
This would be a great topic for an art class.
LikeLike
You’re not an IP artist, are you? You have no clue what you’re talking about, and you do it rather zealously. Oh, and you’re presuming to tell the artist how he should react to a work that dramatically changes the perspective of his work and that is, arguably, derivative of his. Chill out and grow up indeed.
LikeLike
Artists can intend all they want, but the meaning almost always changes within the eye of the beholder (and also as the context around the art evolves in the case of public art). Here’s what my eye sees: For better or worse, the girl and the bull are now ONE piece of art, now more powerful, now more thought provoking, and now more discussion-starting than either one would have ever been on it’s own.
LikeLiked by 15 people
Pretty sure this is why he is mad. Ever doodled something on someone elses work because you thought it would look better? Thats probably how this dude feels.
LikeLike
Except in this case, I’m not sure “discussion-starting” can really apply. After all, only patriarchal misogynists would even consider that there could be anything to say against “Fearless Girl.”
Everyone loves to champion stuff like this because it’s “thought-provoking” (which it is) and “discussion-starting” (which it should be). But good luck actually questioning the protesters and zealots. They don’t want a discussion. They want submission.
Don’t believe me? 30sec scrolling through the comments here will show you just what kind of “discussion” you’re in for writing articles like this.
LikeLike
Exactly! The intentional fallacy applies as much in other forms of art as it does in literature. The meaning of and response to a work can never be limited by its creator’s intention.
LikeLike
I agree with this to some extent but ” the art evolves in the case of public art” the environment wasn’t changed due to a testament of time, it was altered overnight with a crowbar in direct juxtaposition to completely alter the gravity it creates. if these statues were a physical block apart this would not allow the new addition to stand on its own just like a gallery placing a photo of poor starving children next to a photo of rich people eating portions of meals and throwing out the rest for example. The message of the later added is literally riding completely off of coat tails of an original work. Not saying its wrong (because realistically anyone can do what they want to provoke art) but I can say it raises eyebrows for right reasons as this is done to undermine another works message regardless of the message to embolden the more recent piece.
LikeLike
“on its own”
LikeLike
Hi Greg, love this and with your permission we’d like to republish on a site called The Unapologists, linking back to your blog? If you’re happy to be reposted please email us at theunapologists@gmail.com and we’ll sort it all out – Tarn Rodgers Johns (Culture editor http://www.theunapologists.com)
LikeLike
Why not let fearless girl stand in the face of those who profit from the oppression of women. Have her put in front of fucking bank.
LikeLike
Points to ponder for sure. On one hand, go to MOMA or The Met and see thousands of creations, comfortably co-existing, with no one being offended.
On the other hand, this girl is there for commercial purposes only, and does completely change the concept of what the bull represents to its creator.
On one hand, the bull is on city property, at the discretion of the city, presumably as is the girl. The artist could “Take his bull and go home,” essentially rendering the girl without purpose.
It is truly a dilemma, but for whom? Girl artist no doubt got big bucks, while bull artist came out of pocket for well into 6 figures. Both have presumably sold other pieces as a result of being seen by lots of people, many with mega bucks.
What is the right thing to do, and by whom? Probably, The City should step up, but the Mayor is an idiot and will do nothing.
Both of these pieces could be considered as exhibits on public property, BUT, one was created and located in such a way that it disrespects the creation of the artist, demeaning it for the financial and social ideas of the other.
But, this is the US of A. The bull man could sell his creation and the buyer could do with it as he, she or it pleases. Hang coats on the horns if they so desire. Or the bull could be turned loose to trample this grave little girl, as would happen in real life, the fact that it’s a girl notwithstanding. It could be a grave little boy who would suffer the same fate.
Personally, I think the girl should be relocated so not as appear to be challenging the bull / and offending the artist. You would not see a picture of Ted Nugent taking aim with his hunting rifle, hanging next to one of Dr King, in the direction in which the rifle is pointing. Mayor Bill should step up but he won’t.
What would I do if I were the bull artist, you ask. Create a sculpture of a tank ready to run her over if she doesn’t move. Oh wait, that concept has been taken by the Chinese government.
LikeLike
What if I put a statue of a cannon in front of fearless girl – facing the bull. That would suddenly give the entire presentation a whole new meaning. So is that ok? Can we just keep adding to someone else’s art without consideration. Hmmmmmm
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for the background to this story, I had no idea
LikeLike
Arturo Di Modica should remove the bull. It’s meaning is already “over determined”. Witness how it was used as a prop on Mr Robot. Whatever the original intent of the artist, it’s lost with time. Time to deprive everyone else of imbuing it with other messages.
LikeLiked by 2 people
What about just rotating the bull, it will take away all the meaning of the “fearless girl” and send it back to those corporate cons. You can chose to the right to the left.
LikeLike
he had no problem when the bull was corralled in metal fencing and protected by nypd officers during the occupy protests, which arguably subverted his artistic vision even worse. i contend that his piece has taken on a new meaning of the indomitable spirit of capitalism, not the American people, and as a result his criticisms of THIS subversion take on an extreme irony.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Of girls, bulls, and the authenticity of subversion – Reason & Existenz
What is the little girl’s name? Is ‘SHE’ Europa? If so, that encounter may a become rape, which will be legendary!
LikeLike
Holy shit!
LikeLike
Well, damn. That was enlightening. That’s the beauty of history–it provides context. Just as it is easy to misrepresent someone’s viewpoint by taking a written sentence out of context (quote-mining) so it can be easy to misrepresent one act without considering the history and applicable context. Now I’m also conflicted. I loved that girl statue (although wondered why it wasn’t “woman” if they were interested in more women in the market place), but hadn’t realized it was an advertisement rather than another work of guerrilla art.
Maybe they should take Charging Bull and spin it 180 degrees. ?? But would be easy to move Fearless Girl to the front again.
LikeLike
Absolutely correct. The bull is also a symbol of progress and economic growth. “Bull market” anyone? So the Fearless Girl is against American strength, power and economic growth… Is that really the message you really want to send? Not well thought out by it’s creators.
LikeLike
Put fearless girl in front of the white house – that’s where it’s currently needed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have a crazy notion. Leave the statue in the same place only turn it around 180 degrees. That would be a powerful image of the fearless girl embodying the spirit of America.
LikeLike
Charging bull has not meant what the original artist meant it to in years. The statue already had a change in meaning. No one knew the intended meaning of the statue any more society has already assigned it on loooooooong before the girl arrived. Society chooses what art means through collective interpretation not the artists. So no he doesn’t have a point
LikeLike
Thank you for pointing this out.
Don’t fuck with artists at all, in any way if you want us to continue voting democrat.
LikeLike
The solution? This history you just write should be put down in bronze and screwed to a fine rock near the two statues. Without context, both are wrong. With this context, they both get their share of power. Don’t move them. Just add the truth. It only gives more questions for the onlookers. That’s why Art exist. “Bronze, non-co-op work of an artist and a firm, 1987/2017. this is the story behind it: …”
LikeLike
Now that I know the background, I like the idea of putting her next to the bull better than having the bull facing her, and here’s why:
The charging bull as a symbol of American economic power, set opposing Fearless Girl, is in a nutshell everything that is wrong with the position of women in this country, because let’s face it: In real life, that girl, fearless or otherwise, is toast. Charging bulls do not stop because you stand there confident and fearless. They RUN YOU OVER. They gore you. They stomp you. Then they turn around and do it again as you are just barely starting to wonder WTF just happened.
That is precisely how the American economic system has treated women for decades — nay, centuries. Seventy cents on the dollar is our current rate of pay, and frankly, if you go back further in history, it’s amazing we even have that: We have always been regarded as cheap labor (or free labor, when it comes to raising children and home-making.) And it’s telling that the fearless girl is a GIRL. She lacks enough experience in being misled, overworked, and undervalued to recognize that simply standing there looking confident isn’t going to be enough. Don’t believe me? Ask any woman who watched less qualified male peers get hired or promoted. Ask the female justices on the Supreme Court who are continually interrupted by their male supposedly co-equal colleagues (when these same colleagues courteously let one another finish their sentences). Ask the CEO who discovered that her male subordinates made more money than she did and was told that it was because her compensation package included ephemeral benefits that she cannot use to pay her bills. Ask an actress who has been told, at 35, that she’s “too old” to play the female lead opposite a 50+ year old male lead. Ask Hillary Clinton.
But: Put Fearless Girl NEXT to the bull? Put American economic power into partnership with this confident child, who also lacks the cynicism and quiet righteous anger of her older sisters, her mothers, her grandmothers, the generations of women before her who’ve fought our asses off only to see the gains ripped away from the very forces that have previously let this bull run rampant over us?
Yeah. THAT is powerful. That would be something I’d support. It would also turn the advertising campaign on its head — making a rather empty symbol more meaningful. Perhaps to the shock of those who commissioned it, even, which makes it that much better.
LikeLike
Di Modica should take the bull home and offer it for sale to State Street Global Advisors since their fearless girl is nothing without it. They would surely shell out at least $750,000 to put it back in place. Then everybody can be happy. The corporate greed masters get their publicity, Di Modica can get his money back, and we can endlessly fill up forums discussing art.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The corporation that commissioned fearless girl should commission DiModica to make another statue of some impossible force or animal and put that installation somewhere else. Problem solved. Fact is – they hijacked the bull without permission. It’s like putting a Coke can in the painting of ‘Gods’ hand as he reaches out to Davincis Adam – it would suddenly take on a whole new unintentional meaning. Suddenly fearless girl doesn’t make sense to me any more. Love it – but move it and stop hijacking.
LikeLike
The bull and Fearless Girl should be placed side by side, both representatives of marginalised communities and strength despite challenge. They’d make a great inspiring duo. Let everyone know the girl and the raging bull can be allies.
LikeLike
You, know, I think that Greg Fallis misses the point, regardless of what the INTENTS of the artists were or how the work was financed, the two statues, in juxtaposition to each other, represent what the viewer sees and comes away with, NOT what the artist intended. Each may be viewed for the particular and solo impression they glean, but it is also up to those who view them to appreciate these works of art together, otherwise what would be the value of cultivating an artistic viewpoint?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Turn her around to face the same direction as the bull. Right now it’s laughable. Looks like the bull is saying, “Hey, wouldja stop blocking the TV? I’m trying to watch Judge Judy!”
LikeLike
I get what you’re saying, but the nature of art is always not what the artist intended but how it is interpreted. In this case both the original artist and those who commissioned fearless girl have to accept that once it’s put in a public place the interpretation is no longer theirs to own. That this is a marketing campaign is a total flip, since no one knew anything about it until you pointed it out. At this point both statues mean something to the public and it’s time for both artists to let go. And, as an artist, he should know better. If he intended to respond to an time in history, that time is passed, and now his statue means something different. Time being what it ii and doing g what it does to any subject, what makes him entitled to the last word?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I really appreciate the history behind the bull statue. It’s now an iconic symbol in NYC. And I am like you, at first I loved the statue of the girl and the fact that she will stay (for now). But knowing that it is more of a marketing tool than anything else…that makes me sad. Feels like exploitation. What about the girl standing next to the bull? I’m sure DiModica wouldn’t like that either but…it would shift the meaning of the girl statue to something less “in your face” to the original artwork.
LikeLike
I thought the point of art was for the viewer to interpret it his/her own way. It doesn’t seem to matter what either artist’s intent was, people will make up their own truth as to what they see.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Turn Fearless Girl around and stand her with the bull.
LikeLike
This analysis is through the eyes of individualism and self-gain. The author is using the same system of value as the symbols he’s analyzing with considerable projection. What if the lens changes to one of mutual empowerment through art? While most onlookers embrace the symbolism as a fearless girl standing before the BULL of a male-created world of finance and advantage, they remain unaware of the SHE fund. The meaning of these symbols ultimately belongs to the people, and they are inextricably linked in relationship as they face each other, regardless of whether the placement of either was motivated by personal gain. This powerful young girl stands in the psychic shadow of an empire of financial patriarchy. As a woman, I’m pleased to see her in the world challenging a system that has institutionalized the substitution of money and power for life and relationship. It matters not that the SHE fund is inviting women to invest. This girl child defies the power facing her. We have a relationship of artistic symbol birthing a new character into the world: where 1 + 1 = 3.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fascinating. I think YOU make excellent points, your historical references offering context. The presence of Fearless Girl alters the experience of Charging Bull, without question. Would we want a military-oriented sculpture placed within the same visual frame of reference as Robert Indiana’s “LOVE” sculpture?
Art is always affected by what surrounds it, certainly not just public art — guerrilla or otherwise.
So many ironies. So many stakeholders. As is the case elsewhere in this country, so little appreciation of the “real” artist’s life (much less significance or message) in all of it.
LikeLike
I would turn the fearless girl statue around, or the raging bull statue, one of the two. But the girl statue would be easier to turn around I guess, lighter. Plus the raging bull statue was there first so it has right of stay the way it is. Anyway, like that the confrontation ceases because both statues will be facing the same direction, complementing each other in the positive.
LikeLike
So, if I stand in just the right place, tilt my head just so, squint slightly and look over my left shoulder; I see a little girl who is challenging the mighty bull as she unwittingly exposes corporate greed and excess.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting – I think if the second artist needs the first work of art in order to make sense, permission should have been sought from the first artist. I side with the bull guy. If the second artist truly wanted to get her point across that little miss would be taming a bear not getting in the way of a bull!
LikeLike
One of the justly venerable traditions of our culture is that works of art can be appropriated for the purpose of parody and criticism. Weird Al doesn’t have to ask a composer’s permission before he parodies a song (though, for his own reasons, he does ask).
Parody and commentary of course change the cultural meaning of art. That is “a point” so obvious as to not even be worth stating, and it gets no sympathy from me.
The artist can move his bull if he doesn’t like it. He arrogated the spot on Wall Street anyway.
Artists have one recourse to preventing their art from suffering mockery: hide their art in a dark storage container and never show it to the public. The moment that art becomes visible, it is fair game.
LikeLike
He should turn the bull round to face away from the girl if he feels that strongly about it.
LikeLike
I agree with your post entirely. Thank you for your research and background!
If they paid to have fearless girl in front of Charging Bull, maybe he should try to find a new home for Charging Bull where the meaning it symbolizes isn’t overshadowed.
Now that Charging Bull is a NY staple, he shouldn’t have any problem finding backers for a new location.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Ron Writes Stuff.
LikeLike
Perhaps instead of implying the statues are “one against another” Fearless Girl could be turned to stand with the bull. The two of them, confident, assertive and ready to take on the world.
LikeLike
1. A white guy with a spare $350k to spend “sending a message”- in 1987- is not marginalized by any means. In fact one might argue that he appropriated populist anger towards Wall Street in order to raise his profile, like the Kenneth Cole Twitter account with an MFA.
2. The Bull would mean nothing were it not at Wall Street. If an answer to something “appropriates” the power of that which responds to, then The artist of the Bull is a hypocrite for complaining of his appropriated power being re-appropriated.
3. Wall Street has embraced the Bull, which calls into the question your power based subversion definition- as well as the idea you can criticize groups of men effectively by comparing them to a powerful animal with giant balls.
4. Given the size and power of Wall Street entities, SHE probably is the David, versus Goliaths with Trillions of dollars hiding behind multiple shell companies.
5. Finally, any artist who spends decades implicitly beginning a public conversation in a public space should not be surprised, and does not get to whine, when someone answers the conversation they started.
LikeLike
I love these 2 pieces appearing together. I love that they were both marketing ploys in their own way and that those 2 marketing ploys are facing each other off on the veritable center of capitalism. I love that together they are SO much more than they ever could be separately…just like men and women, light and dark, peanut butter and jelly.
LikeLike
Pun intended, that’s a bunch of bullshit.
Someone should put a big sign in front of the girl that says “Corporate Art meets bull.” The International Women’s Day, is in my humble opinion a bunch of bull all on it’s own. I, as a woman come from the era “I am woman hear me roar” I am a woman but, I don’t need any man, woman, or child to acknowledge that I am. You either do or you don’t. I am human first, if others make a big deal about gender, be they male or female, that’s their own pettiness not mine.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Okay everything about strength, capitalism, marketing ect in this article is true. The two piexes of art represent all the is good. If you look at positioning it is awesome that our business culture is firece as this fierce bull and can also be fearless as this magnificent gorl facing him head on. I do not care who paid for the art. I love them both because they represent the best ….. therefore ALL this country can be to different people who do commerce…..who work hard….have a dream. When will we get back to saying BRAVO to the spirt that makes both statues important for all they stand for.
They should make all of us proud and our hearts sing.
LikeLike
Should have done spell check…..not an idiot, just too quick to post.
LikeLike