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 
Maybe a third party should add a stereotypical capitalist as puppet master, hovering over the little girl, to stand for this third line of the dialogue?
LikeLike
Greg, I like how you stated the argument. Well thought out. As it now seems to be viewed as one piece of art, it seems that the bull is leaning to get away from or possibly in fear of the defiant girl. Interpretations as we know are subjective. I think if I were Arturo, I would simple turn the Bull 180 degrees. Now that would reeally make a statement!
LikeLike
The bull has long (however appropriately or not) come to mean bull market. That may be a distortion of original intent. It is there with no contract so he could take it but really doesn’t own the real estate in front of it either. I’d like to see the girl and the bull side by side with women getting credit for being a force along with/as part of the peole against tyranny, dishonesty, injustice. Until we control our own bodies and destiny we could use that bull on our side….
LikeLike
the solution: have her stand side by side with the bull, so they can BOTH be powerful.
LikeLike
Just turn the bull to the other side…
LikeLiked by 1 person
. . . or turn the girl to the other side.
LikeLike
Good response I love it. They are destroying everything that represents what it took to make this country what it is and are determined to destroy it.
LikeLike
Well, the bull doesn’t say what the artist wants it to say, either.
So, the guys who put the girl there want her to “advertise” SHE, but she doesn’t.
It’s kind of the nature of art that it is in the eye of the beholder. Those of us who try to make it know that, once you put it out there, you no longer control what it means to its audience.
They mean to us what we think they mean. I’m not incredibly crazy about either of them, though I do get a kick out of her staring down the bull. But, there you go …
LikeLike
The world moves everyday. New “texts” are added. They speak and interact with the old ones. Words and ideas expressed through art mix and are changed. Now, the two statues work in concert to say something new–something that I hope DiModica also wants to say. The text has changed because a new idea is also needed.
LikeLike
I actually think it’s a rather poor marketing ploy because no one recognizes this piece for what it’s true and original intention is. In that sense, it’s a huge failure.
At the end of the day, it’s art. There can be art even in advertising. Art has a life of its own and no matter what the intention of the original artist or creator was, its meaning and context can change in situations, time and to individuals.
LikeLike
how does his freewheeling of plunking down his ‘so-called’ ‘art’…stand …isn’t that nyc property, is he being paid?…is nyc being paid..?….who gets to plunck down anything on public/city property,,,…i mean, the 99% couldn’t camp there, protesters have to have a permit just to congregate….. come on people….! W T F…?
LikeLike
Did you actually read the article. It answers these questions, pretty succinctly
LikeLike
“…for reasons I’ve never understood, some folks actively dislike history.”
LikeLike
While never being a fan of the original piece, I have to admit that a nerve is tickled which would like to see actual insolent little girl in arena with actual raging bull.
LikeLike
I’ve never read the bull statue as representing the strength of the American people – I’ve always seen it as representing the strength of American capitalism. And I appreciate that the fearless girl is standing up to that strength, which has been so destructive to so many.
LikeLike
Yet ironically it’s the girl statue who is the piece made with corporate money. But regardless I think most people will perceive it like you mentioned
LikeLike
Apparently you don’t know shit about finance jargon. Bull market is prosperity and good times, bear market is recession. The bull market is what we want.
LikeLike
Yeah but the girl is not standing up to capitalism; she’s stands for it – specifically the SHE fund. AND ‘she’ misinterprets the bull. Had she stood WITH him instead of facing off she’d make her point and then some. That is: while showing strength and no fear of standing next to a bull, she would not be making an oxymoron about the very thing you claim she’s against when in fact she is representing the very capitalism you thinks she’s vilifying.
LikeLike
You mean that has be so beneficial to so many.
LikeLike
Why not move one or the other so that they are alongside each other facing the same way?
LikeLiked by 2 people
oooooooohhh… I like that
LikeLike
I guess he should take his ball… er bull, and go home. Although the original motivation behind creating the bull has indeed been trumped by a little girl, the sum of the two pieces is much more impactful (from purely an aesthetics perspective) and lets be honest… who really cares what either artist wants their sculptor to represent… who are they to tell me how it’s supposed to make me feel? That’s the funny thing about art, if you don’t like it – don’t create art.
LikeLike
My gut would say his point comes from ego. And, regardless of the behind story, things can take on larger meanings beyond what a creator intended. The bull to many represents Wall Street. Would it’s popularity have been the same if placed elsewhere? On a personal level, I love this expansion of art and interpretation between the two.
LikeLike
Thanks for being brave!
LikeLike
Superb Article!!! I would like to see the Fearless Girl standing side by side with the Charging Bull. Symbolizing the importance of women in our nations economy and a reminder of the success that this capitilist superpower has had and how it can help a lot more people when we are united in our goals.
LikeLike
Just change the direction of the Bull
LikeLike
Change the direction of the girl
LikeLike
Turn her around 180 degrees. The power the Bull represents would be doubled by the defiance of the marketing tool (the girl)
LikeLiked by 2 people
I like it. Or, turn the bull around 180 degrees so she is in fact commanding the bull.
LikeLike
I’m not sure the feminist perspective is best supported by the child showing defiance toward a bull. Same goes for the marketers of SHE. After all, the bull is symbolic of growth and prosperity. Wouldn’t it be more telling (and courageous) to have her firmly assert her fearless persona against a rampaging bear?
LikeLike
To begin with… this piece of expanded art, brought a huge smile to my face, as it depicts a childhood memory of mine. Where the memory diverts from the piece of art…. was that in my life it was a cow and not a bull and I had a 6 inch twig with which I attempted to swat the cow. The posture is all me as 4yr old facing off a cow. Needless to say, the story ends with a 4yr old in tears… and an embarrassing tale that get retold at family gatherings quite often.
However, to come back to your point….when I read your article, to begin with I thought you made a valid point. But the more I thought about it… I realised actually No… the artist has no place to be pissed.
Guerrilla art is an organic at heart and allows for people and other artists to interact and build on it. So there he can’t have an issue.
Also, he built this as a symbol of hope and empowerment at the time of the stock market crash. It was relevant then and worked.
Over the years the stock market recovered, fluctuated, etc. However, it had since then developed into a symbol of capitalism and given the current scenario in America and globally .. no longer remained a symbol of hope and empowerment.
This expanded upon piece of art returns it back to its original purpose… becoming a beacon of hope and empowerment for women… an issue very relevant today.
The only problem I can see with the artist having a problem with it… is a feeling of loss power!
All in all I love this piece! 🙂
LikeLike
Well said. I have and Idea of what should be done. The sculptures should remain, but Di Modica could add a plaque explaining the appropriation for all to see.
LikeLike
I’m going to be very consistent on this one. It is the same as the Nativity Scene on public property argument – if you demand that the Festivus Pole must be removed,then you must also remove your Nativity Scene. Either both stay or both go.
LikeLike
You admit that the bull statue shouldn’t be there. So, the answer is that the artist move his statue somewhere else.
LikeLike
Turning Charging Bull around and facing it in the opposite direction should solve the artist’s complaints, right? It’s a big plaza, the bull doesn’t HAVE to face that direction…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good one. I love this suggestion. 🙂
LikeLike
I see three obvious choices, one of them is an original idea from me . Number 1. The city moves the statue and places her beside the bowl facing in the same direction of the bull torch off the advertising part of the statement or change the she to they which would be cooler in my opinion and then she adds to the strength of the American people. Number 2, The city to orders the company to move the statue to their company or donate it to an interested party. 3. The city removes the statue. Number 1 solution would actually make everybody happy except of course the people who are never happy. I appreciate the information that you found about the Investment Company who commissioned the statue for their own advertising and personal gain which then actually takes the strength away from women because it’s using women in a way which is benefiting their company. Okay, yes I know companies do that anyway, but they are paying for advertisement ad.in they ever advertise in appropriate places If the city does not move the statue, then they are allowing the company to have free advertising space. And that creates a a problem because it sets a precedent.
LikeLike
the things is you wrote “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.” well, IT ALWAYS WAS A SYMBOL OF PATRIARCHAL OPPRESSION. To women that strong, virile, rampaging bull ALWAYS meant male domination. The only difference now is that the big, proud, male artist is being forced to see it.
and about the distinction between “art” and “commerce”, umm, have you seen medieval art? It is all about advertising how wonderful the rich noble is that paid for the work of art. Yet over time the commercial aspect of the piece has been subsumed by the other content. That is what is happening with Fearless Girl: there are many, many women who love it and have no idea that it is an advertisement or what it is advertising.
and by the way, why is it so terrible to advertise something aimed at empowering and advancing women? Do you really want to start a comparison of all the things that have extolled men in advertising?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think this quote fits this situation perfectly. “You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.”. The bull which represented the strength and power of american people, might still represent those things, but it also represents many things that are wrong with the singular aim of gaining profit before any other considerations. Such is life, things change, people change, world changes, even statues change.
LikeLike
Remove the bull for now or relocate. Without the bull, fearless girl’s intent is diminished. Art in and of itself cam be interpreted many ways, and on paper it’s placement is of little relevance. However, for one artist to use another’s work to help define it’s own, and in the process very obviously painting a very new picture of the others intended purpose is a disgrace. Whether arturo’s bank account disqualifies him as an artist or not, whether it was commissioned or not is irrelevant. I’d be irate as an artist. I’d rather take the heart and soul of my creation home and have it be missed than to engage in any argument of the little girl. Let her become whatever she may without the bull. Just a little bronze statue with a plaque description.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well said Jasper, I couldn’t agree more. In the music industry artists have been successfully sued for damages for appropriating parts of someone else’s melodic intent and re channeling the creative energy for their own purpose.
LikeLike
I see three obvious choices, one of them is an original idea from me . Number 1. The city moves the statue and places her beside the bull,l facing in the same direction of the bull and torch off the advertising part of the statement or change the she to they, which would be cooler in my opinion and then she adds to the strength of the American people. Number 2, The city to orders the company to move the statue to their company or donate it to an interested party. 3. The city removes the statue. Number 1 solution would actually make everybody happy except of course the people who are never happy. I appreciate the information that you found about the Investment Company who commissioned the statue for their own advertising and personal gain which then actually takes the strength away from women because it’s using women in a way which is benefiting their company. Okay, yes I know companies do that anyway, but they are paying for advertisement ad.in they ever advertise in appropriate places If the city does not move the statue, then they are allowing the company to have free advertising space. And that creates a a problem because it sets a precedent. I think people did to understand that this is not an artist”s statement, but a Company commissioning an artist for advertising purposes. So arguments for the artist”s rights are invalid.
LikeLike
So…. I don’t get how it’s and advertising campaign if no one makes the connection. 99% of the talk surrounding Fearless Girl and this is the first time I’ve seen any name attached to it other than the artist. Not very effective if they’re trying to bring attention to the “SHE” index.
LikeLike
For the record, your analysis is thought provoking and interesting. The idea that both works of art become more (positive or negative) than the individual pieces when placed in context is interesting. Thank you for the analysis even if I’m still not sure I agree or disagree.
LikeLike
Great Article, this is some deep shit. The Sea ( SHE) has many levels… On one level, “affordable luxury”, which really is not luxury at all, and “Luxury” … The 99% Man/Woman/Tranz, who won’t research or get the true meaning or value or battle or purpose of this “art” will continue their inclusion/exclusion discussions. “Let them eat cake”. This is a really tough call. Check Mate to the Financial District symbol., Check Mate to the first Artist. Check Mate to the City. And welcome the challenge to any Artist or Company who chooses to grafiti, hijack, steal/copy or tag over your original artistic intention thereby obscuring it’s meaning and value for their own profit. Today, how much does legacy matter? The female/male power moral discussion of this art is just “folly” and distraction for those 99%ters, SHE is not She, and SHE is not challenging (fighting) for you 99. For this campaigne to work SHE must face the BULL and all that it represents. The courts are currently full of similar battles in art / fashion / commerce… “Intellectual Property” battles. “If only greed be there for some material feast. How to separate the Man Beast from Beast.” PT.
LikeLike
I think your reasoning is well articulated, and respectful. But it’s a stretch to say she ‘wouldn’t look like a fearless girl’ without the Bull. If she was posed facing a skyscraper, or busy street, or even just an edge of an archway building she could still be called ‘fearless’. With or without the Bull she still looks plucky and ready to take on the world.
I can understand Di Modica not liking it, but I don’t think that makes him an authority on who can put what art where. He’s in a rock and a hard place: take the bull away and the fearless girl ‘wins’? Leave it and he still feels misinterpreted. I sympathize with him for that, that really sucks, but it’s a personal problem rather than a ‘point’. If he had the clarity to recognize wall street ‘needed the bull’ then, it should be clear the ‘fearless girl’ is the symbol it needs now.
Lastly, and you seem to flirt with this truth: if your art can’t be challenged, modified, spun-off of, or even erased– you shouldn’t put it out in public. Graffiti artists would be a prime example.
LikeLike
Suppose we do remove Fearless Girl, out of respect for Di Modica’s wishes. Would he also have the moral right to request that no little girl stand in front of his bull and make the same pose for a photo?
LikeLike
No. Next question.
LikeLike
My question was a bit rhetorical, but certainly that shows the limits of the artist’s right to control what people make of his work. It’s the same message, or very nearly. Is the difference that the statue is there twenty-four hours a day and changes the meaning for everyone?
LikeLike
If they turned her around, so She’s facing the world with confidence with the Bull literally having her back, she should stay. Otherwise, It’s an ad.
LikeLike
If Di Modica takes his Bull and leaves, it might look like the Fearless Girl has won. If he leaves the Bull where it is, the Fearless Girl wins by public and political correctness, although it’s a real shame to hijack the meaning and purpose of the Bull. If I were Di Modica, I would replace the Bull, put the Bull on private property (with permission…somewhere on Wall Street) and put in the Bull’s place a statue of a police officer trying to arrest her. In other words, a counter mockery.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wonder if there is a way for us to think of the two statues, and everything they stand for (history and all!), as being able to exist side-by-side. Is there a narrative we can spin that doesn’t pit them against one another but instead makes them allies?
LikeLike
Thoughtful piece. Thank you.
LikeLike
What I get from the little girl statue is that we’re going to have to wait another 20-30 years for that little girl to grow up to be president or CEO. Why not an adult woman? No, that’s too much of a threat to have that actually happen NOW.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Turn the bull around. Then the girl is bravely facing the methane, her dress billowing in the gales.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Not a fan of Capitalism” – this is the problem with both the the author here and the vastly overwhelming majority of people defending the girl and its turning of the bull into some symbol of oppression.
LikeLike
Interesting read – thank you for sharing. I feel that we need a new guerilla artist to come along and place some chains around the bull’s neck and some puppet strings for the girl?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting points, but I think your support for Di Modica ultimately undermines your point. You consistently link his sculpture to capitalism, specifically identifying it as a “guerrilla capitalist” piece – even suggesting it is unique in being a guerrilla capitalist art piece – and you suggest that Di Modica must have meant the same, since according to you (and every other article I’ve read about this “controversy”) discuss how he made it in response to the stock market crash, placed it outside the NYSE, then allowed NYC to keep the piece on loan for 30+ year in the heart of the financial district. So this is a piece that represents capitalism. Di Modica may describe it as a symbol of “the strength and power of the American people” but that strength and power, explicit in your article and implicit in Di Modica’s self-proclaimed motivations and his history with the sculpture, are linked to capitalism.
So when Fearless Girl is placed in front of it, you claim that the bull statue is “now seen as an aggressive threat to women and girls — a symbol of patriarchal oppression,” and I think you are right. However, I disagree that it CHANGES the meaning: rather, it highlights the fact that yes, capitalism IS an institution of patriarchal oppression, and Di Modica’s “strength and power of the American people” was not so much about the American PEOPLE as it was about wealthy American men. Because let’s face it, that is who has the strength and power in a capitalist society (at least the way capitalism operates in our American society.) So I disagree that it changes the MEANING Di Modica intended; rather the placement of Fearless Girl changes our perception of what that meaning actually represents.
LikeLike
She est mon héroïne…………elle est la force féminine que les hommes redoudent comme la foudre…….car après tant de détresses, violences , féminicide………….ELLE frapperas……!!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Perhaps I am heartless to old Italian men, but I paid enough attention to my Museum Studies class (in London of all places) to know that context is an important variable in establishing the meaning of art. Different contexts beget different meanings, and context never remains static. It is the way of the world that the artist cannot control how people will think about his art decades after it leaves his studio. I think this the addition of Fearless Girl is a brilliant reinterpretation, on a temporary basis, for a good cause, and it is wrong to dismiss it as an advertising stunt.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Although it is a global investment firm, and it is, in essence, an advertisement, the investment firm is changing “the norm” and should have some recognition for challenging the “norm” which is basically white and male. I have struggled to find a way to invest for retirement that also aligns with my values. PAX World Fund was founded to allow for stock investment which did NOT promote or profit from the “military industrial complex.” The SHE fund is an innovative outgrowth of the PAX World Fund. ;I am glad to be able to invest for retirement with a firm that aligns with my values.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think this letter should be set in bronze and placed between them for all to read. Choose some fancy way to present it.. maybe on protest stick, or advertisement board. Subvert the commercial subverters!! Thank you for this valuable information.
❤️❤️❤️
LikeLike
Remove the plaque that references the index but leave the statue, the majority of the people will never know it was advertising a bit like Santa wearing a red cloak.
LikeLiked by 1 person
How is that a bit like Santa wearing a red cloak?
LikeLike
Di Modica has as much right to complain as a squatter complaining that someone else built a legal home opposite his. It’s not the end of the world. Suck it up.
LikeLike
He’s moving the Bull to Las Vegas now anyway. NYC has been unwilling to get rid of the stupid little girl statue that has hijacked his art, so the Bull is moving. Many other Cities were interested but I guess there was a very interested party in Las Vegas who promised to Protect the Bull.
LikeLike
If I were an artist and somebody did this to my statue, I would be flattered to be involved in making the statement it makes instead of being offended that the message changed. The meaning of any art is in the hands of the beholder and that meaning changes over time.
It’s something to be honored by not offended by.
LikeLike
Well said.
LikeLike