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 
I have always hated the bull. While it’s origin is one thing, artists don’t get to control how their work is perceived. All you can do is guide it as much as you can, and when it is ready, let it go. Unfortunately, it DID become the symbol of Wall St. To me, that is all I have ever seen. The bull of Wall st charging and bullying and wrecking it’s way ahead no matter what.
The best response to art, is more art. And that’s where we are now.The guy dumped his bull statue without permission and the city let it stay. Then it became a symbol of the greed and corruption that is Wall St. and yet, he never complained. Then a feminist statue went up (is it by a corporation, yes. Is it still a feminist statue? Yes.) Suddenly, he complains. He’s pissed somebody did the same thing he did and he’s pissed it’s a woman. Because he wasn’t pissed about his statue being co-opted before. Fuck him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Arturo Di Modica should turn Charging Bull around, making it face the other direction. Subvert the subversion.
LikeLike
I don’t quite agree. Fearless girl would still be fearless without the bull as she would be facing an unknown future. However, I wonder why no one thought of putting her beside the bull, both fearless and indicative of the power of ALL Americans……
LikeLike
Di Modica could turn his bull 180 deg. The meaning and dynamic of the two statues would be quite different.
LikeLike
Ugh. Just stop crying. Someone illegally places a huge statue and gets pissed when some legally placed one next to it. She is not appropriating the meaning of the bull; the ‘power’ of the US, as you put it, IS largely patriarchal and the girl (a much smaller representation proportional to the number of women in leadership when conpared to the bull) demonstrates the power of women in spite of that.
As far as who commissioned it, why do all things from massive and rich corporations have to be evil? I think SHE is a great symbol for a movement to show the strength of women in leadership. What else do you think gender diversity could mean in a largley male-dominated economy? Why does cleverly linking the commissioners of a piece of art that inspired even you have to be a bad thing?
I find it much easier to believe that women at the top rungs have finally wrestled out a victory for our gender and all you are doing is making it small because yet another guy is complaining about a women appearing next to him in the spptlight.
LikeLiked by 1 person
With how ignorant most people are acting towards Arturos point I honestly hope he simply removes the bull and finds a better home for it. One where the civilians seeing the art will respect it’s intended message and purpose instead or ursurping it for literally nothing other than an ad that piggybacks on a social trend. Fearless girl isn’t standing up for women, she’s just another symbol being used to create support for a capital system. Don’t make that mistake, companies don’t do things because they are right. They do them because they make money.
LikeLike
I am an artist. Having read both the article and its attendant comments thus far, I find a delicious irony in a 30-year-old “guerrilla” sculpture celebrating American might, financial strength, and male domination being challenged so easily by a corporate-sponsored, feisty little SHEmale. The standoff is quite representative of the state of this nation on an abundance of levels…and gives new life (as well as exposure) to the bull. As for Arturo Di Modica, “Ya pays yer money, ya takes yer chances.” Leave them BOTH up!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Simply remove the plaque and you remove the marketing ploy, and the symbolism and power of both are restored to a point of balance.
LikeLike
based on the article, I think the artist should remove the bull (it belongs to him and is on temporary loan to the city).
He should relocate it to another area of Wall St, or NY, or even Chicago (they have a stock exchange as well).
This way his piece does not lose his original meaning, and the girl statue loses its usurped marketing power.
LikeLike
I support Mr. Henson’s idea. It doesn’t matter what “they” thought they were creating. This creation and its subsequent evolution are all about art having a life of its own. As for the creators of the girl, “even a broken clock is right twice a day, blah blah blah…” I love that the art itself has taken their mean point and made it insignificant. Don’t limit the meaning of SHE. It is universal. Back to work, guys. Nothing to see here except magnificence.
LikeLike
So he can erect an unsolicited piece of art in downtown Manhattan against the wishes of the people who work there (although it supposedly was intended to be a show of support for them) and it only stayed because the public liked it. But the girl statue shouldn’t be allowed the same public support because he thinks it botches his interpretation of his own art? Whatever.
LikeLike
How about if Fearless Girl was placed right beside the bull and facing the same direction? Then it would seem that they are allies.
LikeLike
Why not turn her around or place her next to the bull?
LikeLike
Simple solution. Place the girl next to the bull. Facing the same direction, they amplify the message.
LikeLike
Interesting read. But I think there is flaw in the basic premise. The artist who created Charging Bull created it to represent “the strength and power of the American people.” But that is not what it is commonly referred to or felt by people as depicting. Instead, it is seen, by a majority of those who have posted or written or discussed it, as a symbol of Wall Street and the strength of the Stock Market. Fearless Girl may have been commissioned as a marketing ploy by a 2 trillion dollar hedge fund, sure. But it is not seen as a marketing ploy. It is seen almost universally as a symbol of feminine confidence and the inherent strength in women… even when they are girls. There comes a point in the creation of any artistic work that is put out for public view and scrutiny when that piece of art transcends the artist’s desire or view or message and takes on a life, and meaning, all of its own. I respect Di Modica’s stance, but he needs to realize that what he created isn’t his anymore; just as the hedge fund who created Fearless Girl needs to know that she isn’t the message they wanted to convey, either.
LikeLike
So the girl is Hillary Clinton? The fearless girls standing as a protector of Wall Street and the status quo against the roaring, unruly masses of the american people.
LikeLike
So, let me get this straight; you don’t like it because it’s advertising? Well, gee fucking whiz, brah, better just shoot yourself in the head right now, because – NEWSFLASH –
EVERYTHING IS ADVERTISING.
I’m an ACTUAL street performer, like, on the sidewalks, in the subways, and even THAT, literally a sneeze away from prostitution is still advertising, hell, the PROSTITUTES ON THE SIDEWALK ARE ADVERTISING.
Get the fuck over yourself, you talentless keyboard jockey.
LikeLike
Since Fearless Girl is an advertising stunt by an investment fund I can see why a representation of a little girl was used to symbolize female power: cute in her cockiness but no real threat.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for this, but I remain sort of committed, (ha ha), to the notion that words wreck visual art. Yet I enjoy the irony of the dichotomy, so there I am, wrong again!
LikeLike
Well written & thought provoking post.
I agree that the artist kind of had a point. And yet…
The bull metaphor to me has always been ambiguous in terms of positive/negative connotation, especially given the Wall St. excesses leading up to the crash of 2007. I too have no problem with playing off the original work, especially since it occupies a public space and not a museum or gallery and was installed without permission or contract originally. Also it doesn’t obscure or deface the bull in any way.
As for the corporate angle, lots of classic art and symbols originally commissioned as commercial or political works have become accepted as legitimate art. Even today, I’d bet few of those familiar with the girl even know she was commissioned by the SHE fund.
I say let her stay. What is art without controversy anyway?
LikeLike
So the girl is Hillary Clinton? The fearless girls standing as a protector of Wall Street and the status quo against the roaring, unruly masses of the american people.
LikeLike
A great example of “art doesn’t exist in a vacuum.” Sure, the Charging Bull was intended by the sculptor to represent “the strength and power of the American people” after the 1987 stock market crash. But after the even greater fiasco in Dubya’s 2nd term, it definitely took on a new meaning, and not a positive one: the Wall Street Bully Bull. The confrontation with Fearless Girl tells us alot about who we really are, not just who we think we are…including the sneaky, implicit commercialization & exploitation Greg Fallis talks about.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Twisty. And as is so often the case – the situation is so much more complicated than it appears on the surface or as spun by doctors who have their own agendas. Great post! Thanks for my bit of education for the day!
LikeLike
Could she be turned around? What if she had her strength in the same space as the bull, despite of the bull, not directed at the bull? The guy has a point.
LikeLike
A thought experiment for the folks who believe Di Modica has no legitimate complaint about Fearless Girl changing the meaning of Charging Bull – consider the following scenario: Fearless Girl remains where she is, the bull is removed, and another guerrilla artists positions a statue of a person offering Fearless Girl a teddy bear.
Do you feel that Visbal would not be within her rights to comment on the appropriation of her work? The new statue clearly derives its impact from Fearless Girl (without the statue it’s a bit of a non sequitur), and it changes the meaning and perception of Fearless Girl when taken as a collective whole (she’s no longer “fearless”, she’s “petulant and ungrateful”). Personally I think Visbal would have every right to speak out about it if she didn’t like the way the new companion piece affects the meaning of her work.
LikeLike
As an amateur bronze sculptor I respect Mr. Di Modica for his work and contribution. I would encourage him to be proud that he provided the base for a vigorous airing of thoughts and feelings. This is very, very much a part of “the strength and power of the American people”. If I were him I’d be thinking, hey, THAT’S pretty darned cool! I helped make that happen.
LikeLike
Put her behind the charging bull. Problem solved.
LikeLike
Refreshing to read something nuanced on this subject. Di Modica may have intended the bull to represent “the strength and power of the American people,” but a bull is (symbolically and literally) an emblem of specifically male strength, power, and sexuality; thus his sculpture could be read as a glorification of Wall Street or as a subtle critique of its masculinist, brutalist ideology: either is possible even without the addition of Fearless Girl. While the juxtaposition recasts David and Goliath (note the similarity between Fearless Girl and Donatello’s David, a slender youth just becoming aware of his beauty and power: expressing the optimism of early modern humanism),Fearless Girl can be read not as a subversion of capitalism per se, but its exclusionary, masculinist manifestation: she represents the “strength and power” of a more inclusionary capitalism without threatening the foundations of capitalism at all. Read this way, Di Monica’s message is merely expanded, not denied.
Artists have never been able to control how their works are interpreted, appropriated, misappropriated. All of the arts are conversations among artists and works and change meanings in different contexts. (MIA curators, among others, intentionally place works ahistorically to highlight and create conversation.) How exciting would it be to bring these issues directly to the public, not just in journals and on Facebook, but by public debates on site? Docents engaging visitors in conversations? Actors representing differing points of view conducting public performances?
LikeLike
I think this can be solved… Just turn the bull around…
LikeLike
Interesting! I agree. But maybe both can stay. Or if Di Modica makes a girl just as the one standing there now (though without the advertising) and makes a switch. The bull would stand for what it has for all this time, and the girl can stand for what she should.
LikeLike
If I hang a Picasso next to a Monet does one steal or detract from the other? Art is meant to be controversial and inspire thought and discussion. The bull is a powerful animal and and could kill the little girl and the little girl shows strength by facing fear head on. Both compliment eachother not deminish the other. What is sad is that the artists and their artwork is being used in defining the agendas of what I’d call public manipulation to fule hate and discrimination. They are both beautiful and being a NYer….appreciate the art and the artists. We can all look at the same piece and feel diffrent things and walk away with a diffrent perspective in its meaning but that does not take away from the beauty or the talent it takes to create such works of art.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Di Modica should just take it back from loan. Then the Fearless girl has no foot to stand on. done and done.
LikeLike
How many if not all of the SHE fund managers women? If it’s all men that certainly makes it exploitiative faux art.
LikeLike
Move the Fearless Girl next to the Bull, facing the same direction. They then become a team.
LikeLike
Meh… Just turn the bull around.
LikeLike
The bull is a past expression of power, namely the men dominated stock market. The girl combied with the bull statue represents the current empowerment of women changing the perspective to the current social norms.
The bull statue creator should be proud that his archaic concept has been revived to a current powerfully expressive one where his status is again being at the forefront of the populace. Time changes perspective and social norms, we are witnessing this paradigm shift.
LikeLike
All valid points and like stealing or borrowing a classic or brilliant piece of music to sell something,… this is another example of that.. SHE should be ashamed.. let’s see, that girl might as well be a young Hillary letting America know she’s going to destroy America.. See art can havee millions of varied reactions. I’m an artist and know it all to well… If it had been true guerilla art, she should be riding the bull,.. not waiting to be steamrolled by it.. I applaud the artist for his original work and intent. Shame to those who attempt to make a point off someone else’s heart n soul… that’s something true artists really loathe..
LikeLike
This has transformed into an epigenesis of Art and di Modica is missing the beauty of it.
While I do sympathize with his narrow view, I don’t agree with it. In fact, it can be argued that the “power of the American people” is “cast” (pun) largely from a ubiquitous and perniciously false perception that it is masculine.
What sways me is the author, Greg Fallis’s, conflict, which keenly expresses Americana today: its hypocrisy, optimism, roguishness, internal conflict, bullshit, bullishness, corporo-socialism, Tolstoyist WhatIsArtism?, desire for immutability, feminist longings, and fierce sense of justice. This new space is doing what all art ought, imho: Fomenting thoughtfulness and dialogue. Di Monica should be celebrating.
Art is an ACTIVITY, Tolstoy wrote, seeking unity toward societal well-being. By expanding the original guerrilla inclination into a sort of corporate guerrilla marketing ploy using excellent commissioned art, we are unified in dualism, at least, lol! But there is much more here.
“Art is a lie that enables us to realize the truth, at least the truth that is given us to understand,” said one of the greatest artists of all time and one of the most reprehensible of men, Pablo Picasso. Who also is supposed to have claimed that “good artists copy, great artists steal.” The Wall Street creation surely embodies all this Pablovian dichotomy.
What I love about all the mindful attention to the case is that it gives rise to optimism that we Humans can, in fact, find unity and even peace through art after all.
I do believe in the truth of observations by two other great artists and philosophers: Ralph and Chris. Ralph Waldo Emerson, a Humanist, understood the power of the man whose death many just celebrated as a birth, a creation: “Jesus Christ belonged to the true race of prophets. He saw with open eye the mystery of the soul. Drawn by its severe harmony, ravished with its beauty, he lived in it and had his being there. Alone in all history, he estimated the greatness of man.”
Greatness comes through understanding. Understanding comes through communion.
Plus, there’s the viscerally powerful emotion that rises at the bull swerving from a little girl. Just that is enough for me!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Fantastic article. I feel the same as you. I think I would suggest the following compromise to appease DiModica: Turn the bull around to face the other direction. The girl could still be fearless, but now she stands behind the strength and power of the American market.
LikeLike
It (the placing of the Fearless Girl) completes the circle- the Bull is Guerilla Art in support of vested interests. The Fearless Girl is Corporate Art with a subversive message about people power. As Mark Henson said, they are now one piece of Art
LikeLike
I haven’t read all the comments, but of the ones I read, I didn’t find what to me is a viable alternative. If Di Modica doesn’t like the placement of Fearless Girl, since it is “on loan,” he could take his Charging Bull away, possibly donate it to a museum.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Even though the NYSE initially rejected the Charging Bull after it was dropped illegally in front of the NYSE building, the move to Bowling Green Park was actually supported by many individuals affiliated with Wall Street firms. It was NYSE floor brokers, and investment banks such as Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch, who supported the Charging Bull’s permanent placement at Bowling Green Park. In other words, there was no “public outcry” to keep the Charging Bull the likes of which we are witnessing today for keeping the Fearless Girl today.
LikeLike
It’s not a marketing ploy.
“Fearless Girl is meant to “send a message” about workplace gender diversity and encourage companies to recruit women to their boards.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fearless_Girl
LikeLiked by 1 person
The history you have provided is fascinating and makes the story far more interesting.
Di Modica could certainly move his statue, maybe put it alongside fearless girl so they stand together against a common enemy.
LikeLike
If Arturo Di Modica came by and simply turned his statue around so it was facing in the same direction as the girl wouldn’t look as if it was protecting her and they were both defiantly facing the same threat? That would be an interesting change of the meaning and situation. 🙂
LikeLike
I am really glad to have seen and read this explanation of the phrase, ‘this guy has a point’, because he does. But I also agree with those who now see the two as one statue and are giving to the two together multiple meanings. And I agree that in any non-studio space the meanings are the province of the observers and always alter over time too. For me, the history of both pieces adds complexity and interest. I think the big cat outside the Hotel Crosby needs a similar fearless girl too and I have no idea of that sculpture’s history!
LikeLike
If fearless girl were beside of, instead of opposite, the bull would’nt they appear to be facing off against the same opponent?
LikeLike
What if Di Modica just turned his bull anti-clockwise by 45 degrees?
LikeLike
Museums pair pieces all the time. They do so, usually on an exhibition basis, to allow new meanings and interpretations to develop. The artists, usually being dead, complain little. What is intriguing here is that the juxtaposition tends to overpower any other meaning that might be derived from the pieces. Each work individually rewards contemplation with a rich net of meanings. To make the installation permanent, as many feminist partisans suggest, binds the pieces to each other in meaning for the duration, one that is less abstract and a bit forced. Other meanings are overpowered and lost. Regardless of the self-commissioned aspect of Munoz’ work, he was not consulted and I think he has the higher moral ground here.
LikeLike
Interesting back and forth banter here… Of course, none of this is going to matter in a few weeks when Russia nukes New York and Washington DC.
LikeLike