seriously, the guy has a point

Posted on April 14, 2017 by greg

I got metaphorically spanked a couple of days ago. Folks have been talking about the Fearless Girl statue ever since it was dropped in Manhattan’s Financial District some five weeks ago. I have occasionally added a comment or two to some of the online discussions about the statue.

Recently most of the Fearless Girl discussions have focused on the complaints by Arturo Di Modica, the sculptor who created Charging Bull. He wants Fearless Girl removed, and that boy is taking a metric ton of shit for saying that. Here’s what I said that got me spanked:

The guy has a point.

This happened in maybe three different discussions over the last week or so. In each case I explained briefly why I believe Di Modica has a point (and I’ll explain it again in a bit), and for the most part folks either accepted my comments or ignored them. Which is pretty common for online discussions. But in one discussion my comment sparked this:

Men who don’t like women taking up space are exactly why we need the Fearless Girl.

Which — and this doesn’t need to be said, but I’m okay with saying the obvious — is a perfectly valid response. It’s also one I agree with. As far as that goes, it’s one NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio agrees with, since he said it first (although, to be fair, probably one of his public relations people first said it first).

But here’s the thing: you can completely agree with the woman who responded to my comment AND you can still acknowledge that Arturo Di Modica has a point. Those aren’t mutually exclusive or contradictory points of view.

Let me apologize here, because I have to do some history — and for reasons I’ve never understood, some folks actively dislike history. It’s necessary though. So here we go. Back in 1987 there was a global stock market crash. Doesn’t matter why (at least not for this discussion), but stock markets everywhere — everywhere — tanked. Arturo Di Modica, a Sicilian immigrant who became a naturalized citizen of the U.S., responded by creating Charging Bull — a bronze sculpture of a…well, a charging bull. It took him two years to make it. The thing weighs more than 7000 pounds, and cost Di Modica some US$350,000 of his own money. He said he wanted the bull to represent “the strength and power of the American people”. He had it trucked into the Financial District and set it up, completely without permission. It’s maybe the only significant work of guerrilla capitalist art in existence.

People loved it. The assholes who ran the New York Stock Exchange, for some reason, didn’t. They called the police, and pretty soon the statue was removed and impounded. A fuss was raised, the city agreed to temporarily install it, and the public was pleased. It’s been almost thirty years, and Charging Bull is still owned by Di Modica, still on temporary loan to the city, still one of the most recognizable symbols of New York City.

Arturo Di Modica (the one in the beret)

And that brings us to March 7th of this year, the day before International Women’s Day. Fearless Girl appeared, standing in front of Charging Bull. On the surface, it appears to be another work of guerrilla art — but it’s not. Unlike Di Modica’s work, Fearless Girl was commissioned. Commissioned not by an individual, but by an investment fund called State Street Global Advisors, which has assets in excess of US$2.4 trillion. That’s serious money. It was commissioned as part of an advertising campaign developed by McCann, a global advertising corporation. And it was commissioned to be presented on the first anniversary of State Street Global’s “Gender Diversity Index” fund, which has the following NASDAQ ticker symbol: SHE. And finally, along with Fearless Girl is a bronze plaque that reads:

Know the power of women in leadership. SHE makes a difference.

Note it’s not She makes a difference, it’s SHE makes a difference. It’s not referring to the girl; it’s referring to the NASDAQ symbol. It’s not a work of guerrilla art; it’s an extremely clever advertising scheme. This is what makes it clever: Fearless Girl derives its power almost entirely from Di Modica’s statue. The sculptor, Kristen Visbal, sort of acknowledges this. She’s said this about her statue:

“She’s not angry at the bull — she’s confident, she knows what she’s capable of, and she’s wanting the bull to take note.”

It’s all about the bull. If it were placed anywhere else, Fearless Girl would still be a very fine statue — but without facing Charging Bull the Fearless Girl has nothing to be fearless to. Or about. Whatever. Fearless Girl, without Di Modica’s bull, without the context provided by the bull, becomes Really Confident Girl.

Fearless Girl also changes the meaning of Charging Bull. Instead of being a symbol of “the strength and power of the American people” as Di Modica intended, it’s now seen as an aggressive threat to women and girls — a symbol of patriarchal oppression.

In effect, Fearless Girl has appropriated the strength and power of Charging Bull. Of course Di Modica is outraged by that. A global investment firm has used a global advertising firm to create a faux work of guerrilla art to subvert and change the meaning of his actual work of guerrilla art. That would piss off any artist.

See? It’s not as simple as it seems on the surface. It’s especially complicated for somebody (like me, for example) who appreciates the notion of appropriation in art. I’ve engaged in a wee bit of appropriation my ownself. Appropriation art is, almost by definition, subversive — and subversion is (also almost by definition) usually the province of marginalized populations attempting to undermine the social order maintained by tradition and the establishments of power. In the case of Fearless Girl, however, the subversion is being done by global corporatists as part of a marketing campaign. That makes it hard to cheer them on. There’s some serious irony here.

And yet, there she is, the Fearless Girl. I love the little statue of the girl in the Peter Pan pose. And I resent that she’s a marketing tool. I love that she actually IS inspiring to young women and girls. And I resent that she’s a fraud. I love that she exists. And I resent the reasons she was created.

I love the Fearless Girl and I resent her. She’s an example of how commercialization can take something important and meaningful — something about which everybody should agree — and shit all over it by turning it into a commodity. Fearless Girl is beautiful, but she is selling SHE; that’s why she’s there.

Should Fearless Girl be removed as Di Modica wants? I don’t know. It would be sad if she was. Should Di Modica simply take his Charging Bull and go home? I mean, it’s his statue. He can do what he wants with it. I couldn’t blame him if he did that, since the Fearless Girl has basically hijacked the meaning of his work. But that would be a shame. I’m not a fan of capitalism, but that’s a damned fine work of art.

I don’t know what should be done here. But I know this: Arturo Di Modica has a point. And I know a lot of folks aren’t willing to acknowledge that.

2,098 thoughts on “seriously, the guy has a point”

Mary on April 17, 2017 at 4:49 pm said:

I read the bull as a symbol of the strength of Wall Street, a bull market, not the strength of the American people as the artist says he intends. With “Fearless Girl”, I’m more aware of his statue than I was before. (I’m not a New Yorker, and don’t spend time around Wall Street when I visit) The bull has power, she has power, I don’t think she diminishes the bull. And while I agree the bull does add to her power, she does have power on her own without this juxtaposition. I’m glad she’s there with the bull.

LikeLike

Reply ↓
Steven Fiske on April 17, 2017 at 4:51 pm said:

Thanks for the mansplaining. I feel better now. Here’s another option remove the bull. Then ask 1,000 people if the girl looks fearful, or fearless. If one person says fearful, remove the girl. It’s a risk I’m willing to take. If all 1,000 say fearless, then the author if this dribble should apologize to America for being a misogynist and take down this article and leave the bull in cold storage.

LikeLike

Reply ↓
Jeff Detweiler on April 17, 2017 at 4:51 pm said:

I love both pieces. I love this article and the interesting and intelligent conversations it’s created. And while we can decry the subversion of Fearless Girl by the corporate interests that created it has anyone stopped to consider that anyone who has $350K of disposable assets to create an object that literally serves no functional purpose can’t necessarily be looked upon as a champion of the common man, either.

LikeLike

Reply ↓
Laura Steele on April 17, 2017 at 4:55 pm said:

I agree with you that the origin of the Fearless Girl as advertising is unfortunate/annoying. But c’est la vie capitaliste. As all world/ancient historians know, most of the great creative works of our human race were commissioned by others to advertise people, gods, polities, policies, etc. The fact that we in modern America worship the dollar is just a twist on this age-old convention. I’ll be a good post-modernist and read the statue(s) however I want. ;)

As for the sculptors’ objections: I’m choosing to think of this act of artistic appropriation as like fanfic. Like him, authors certainly can get annoyed with derivative, not-for-immediate-profit fan fiction if they choose (Anne Rice and George RR Martin evidently send cease-and-desist letters to fanfic writers) – but most of us find that kind of creative miserliness in very poor taste. If my artistic vision inspired spinoffs, re-interpretations, and even co-options by investment firms in the public sphere, I would be delighted. As long as others are not making money *directly* from those acts of appropriation, artists must suck it up (imo, and legally) after sending their babies out into the world.

LikeLike

Reply ↓
joeysnicita on April 17, 2017 at 4:56 pm said:

I’m sorry… But purposely placing a little girl in front of a bull, either literally or figuratively, to make a statement is just flat out stupid. Either way the girl gets trampled. Jumping in front of a bull is not fearless, it’s moronic. It’s certainly not the way I would teach my daughters how to be fearless. Leave the poor bull alone rather than stereotyping him. He was minding his own business and that little brat starts provoking him. She needs to go finish her homework before she gets killed. Oh, and where is this girls mother? She lets her daughter just wander in front of a bull? You want to make this little girl fearless, go drop her off in Harlem for the night. Leave the poor bull alone.
– signed PETA

LikeLike

Reply ↓
Ronaldo on April 17, 2017 at 5:10 pm said:

Why is it not acceptable that a corporation does guerrilla art? why can’t a cooperation be on the right side of things for once, in this case on women’s side.
I radically disagree that the Fearless Girl statue is the one who “(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.)” as the author here states.
The bull became a symbol of oppression because corporations/wall street in general place women as second and underpay them compared to men.
And the most important thing is: I don’t believe that Mr Di Modica, woke up and realized his art represented the patriarcal side of business the day the Fearless Girl was put there.
His art had become that symbol of oppression many years ago and Mr Monica made not statement whatsoever about that. Why now???

LikeLike

Reply ↓
- timscott72 on April 17, 2017 at 6:39 pm said:
  
  New York Times columnist Gina Bellafante called it “an exercise in corporate imaging” by State Street, which, she wrote, had entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the United States Department of Justice, agreeing to pay more than $64 million to resolve fraud charges for secretly billing clients for unwarranted commissions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fearless_Girl
  
  LikeLiked by 1 person
  
  Reply ↓
- yagmot (@yagmot) on April 17, 2017 at 7:32 pm said:
  
  “Why is it not acceptable that a corporation does guerrilla art?”
  
  It’s perfectly acceptable. But this isn’t guerrilla art, it’s part of an advertising campaign. The piece was commissioned by an advertising firm! If the company (not an ad firm) had commissioned the piece and had it placed there without the plaque, I think you could classify it as guerrilla art.
  
  You know how they could show they’re on the right side? By hiring more women, by promoting more women to upper management, by ensuring and promoting equal pay for equal work within their company. But instead of doing those things, they hired an ad firm to put up a statue, and you fell for it.
  
  LikeLiked by 1 person
  
  Reply ↓
- Julio Ritorrez on April 17, 2017 at 8:13 pm said:
  
  Because only SJW twits like you actually thinks it’s a symbol of oppression. Nobody’s ever thought that.
  
  LikeLiked by 1 person
  
  Reply ↓
- Tamara on April 17, 2017 at 8:30 pm said:
  
  Good grief. Are you serious? OPRESSION OF WOMEN. Might it not be better if the SHE fund focused on elevating “real girls” and put the statue in front of the Girl Scouts of America’s office rather than a deviously clever and free PR campaign. It’s funny, Sad, thought provoking and a true conundrum.
  
  LikeLiked by 2 people
  
  Reply ↓
- jason on April 17, 2017 at 9:02 pm said:
  
  While it would probably be fine for the corporation to have sponsored an art piece, the only complaint about the venture was that they did it as a form of subtle self-promotion, and in so doing, adulterated the meaning of an American icon. It’s not the corporation that sucks. It’s the corporation, doing exactly what corporations do that sucks, that sucks.
  I’m just going to say it…
  I think the guy has a point.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply ↓
- Chris on April 17, 2017 at 9:11 pm said:
  
  I have never heard anyone say the Bull meant anything new or oppressive until the other artist placed the Fearless Girl in front of it. Mostly it’s just sad the marketing firm was able to use the Bull to give their project meaning. If it were really about representing women on wall street SHE would face the NY stock exchange or actually be on Wall St. As it is SHE is on Broadway…BROADWAY! ***Jazz Hands***
  
  Makes a good show but not a very good point. I like the statue but it needs to move.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply ↓
ilovesculpture on April 17, 2017 at 5:26 pm said:

I am not sure the Charging Bullll has represented to most people what the sculptor intended in some time; I think for most people it is seen as Wall St trampling the masses even before Fearless Girl. Fearless Girl has also been appropriated by the masses to mean something other than what it’s sponsor intended. Don’t know where I stand on this.

LikeLiked by 1 person

Reply ↓
- qwerty on April 17, 2017 at 10:39 pm said:
  
  yeah, that’s not what the bull has ever represented in finance, this is simply your projection with the presumption that everybody will agree with you.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply ↓
- bidiong on April 18, 2017 at 7:32 am said:
  
  Just because people are stupid doesn’t mean the meaning of bulls on Wall Street change
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply ↓
43bluedoors on April 17, 2017 at 5:29 pm said:

It’s a good point and history is important.

LikeLike

Reply ↓
Kelly on April 17, 2017 at 5:32 pm said:

its interesting for me to find out that what i had assumed was in fact wrong. I had always assumed that the bull statue was purchased by wall street or one of its denizens as a symbol of the power of capitalism in the world as an irresistible and unstoppable force and had assumed that fearless girl was the guerrilla piece that was in defiance of the Establishment–the patriarchy epitomized by the bull; to find out that the reverse is true that the girl is a corporate shill as it were is kinda weird. However, i find that the truth of the situation hasnt changed how i view the combined pieces and the meanings i attribute to them individually and together. Which i think says more about my worldview and my interpretation of the worlds symbols. how we see things is contextualized by our own experiences; the swastika was, until 1933, a sun symbol with the polar opposite connotations of what it now means. a conservative and a liberal can view the same event and still come to two different reactions. sometimes the facts are reduced in importance by our biased views, what that means in the grand scheme…im not sure.

LikeLiked by 2 people

Reply ↓
- Jeff Jansen on April 17, 2017 at 6:29 pm said:
  
  The reverse isn’t true. That’s the way Arturo would like the narrative to work. In fact, the Bull is only there permanently because firms like Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs used their political power to make it permanent. I live in the Financial District and know the history. The public outcry to keep the Fearless Girl is the real pubic – not Wall Street. So matter the origin of the Fearless Girl, it is the public who wants it there.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply ↓
- Tricia Kindle on April 17, 2017 at 9:23 pm said:
  
  Can I please borrow your words?
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply ↓
Ramen on April 17, 2017 at 5:42 pm said:

Learning all of this about the Bull and SHE is hilarious. I could not think of a more American thing than this whole situation. Appropriating what we want on SHE, while discarding Di Modica’s intent. The general ignorance to the substance of both, and the flip flop for, which SHE is praised but is a product of capitalism, and the ridicule of the bull and its truly artistic layers.
This entire display Bull & she together really is America. This is us as we have been and currently are….

LikeLiked by 1 person

Reply ↓
- Uji on April 17, 2017 at 6:42 pm said:
  
  Art is culturally linked, it cannot exist without culture. And that culture interprets art in ways that the creator perhaps did not mean.
  
  The Bull no longer represents “the strength and power of the American people,” perhaps it never did, culturally speaking.
  
  The Fearless Girl never acted as a marketing campaign, instead she was interpreted as standing up to Wall Street.
  
  Culture creates the art as much as the artist does. There is no autuer in art – there is the artist, the art, and the culture – the last of which gets final say on the interpretation.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply ↓
jrpeskle on April 17, 2017 at 5:47 pm said:

I agree. The statue maybe should have been placed in front of the bull with the bull behind her. Showing confidence with the bull backing her up. The bull can give her strength and support in the face of adversity.

LikeLike

Reply ↓
Karen Eberhardt on April 17, 2017 at 6:03 pm said:

I totally agree with everything you said. Thanks for telling the real story and definitely he has a point.

LikeLike

Reply ↓
Robert Joralemon on April 17, 2017 at 6:13 pm said:

Place mirrors between them, and let them both reflect upon their own images !

LikeLiked by 1 person

Reply ↓
- Rafael on April 17, 2017 at 6:52 pm said:
  
  Hahaha!
  I had two ideas, wrote them as a comment and now I found out that both ideas were already at the comments 😅
  So apparently puting a mirror is not so crazy idea 😊
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply ↓
Chris Rakoczy on April 17, 2017 at 6:17 pm said:

Option: turn Bull 90°. Neither charging the defiant confident girl, nor running from her. Rather, disassociating from her. Change the dynamic, change the narrative.

LikeLike

Reply ↓
- J-F on April 17, 2017 at 7:45 pm said:
  
  I’d much rather have them side by side, facing the same unseen force, both charging forward and standing tall at the same time. Together.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply ↓
- laurenmureaux on April 17, 2017 at 9:01 pm said:
  
  Or …. put the girl beside the bull and they can be fearless together!
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply ↓
Natalie on April 17, 2017 at 6:22 pm said:

Solution: Install ‘Fearless Girl’ across from Trump Tower.

LikeLiked by 8 people

Reply ↓
- laurenmureaux on April 17, 2017 at 9:01 pm said:
  
  Now I like that idea!!
  
  LikeLiked by 1 person
  
  Reply ↓
Suzanne D. on April 17, 2017 at 6:28 pm said:

I do think the artist has a valid point of view about the message of his intent being undermined. however, I love the Fearless Girl and what the message COULD have been had it not been double entendres advertising. The solution? Change the plaque to read, “Know the power of women in leadership. She makes a difference. Be FEARLESS like the bull.”

LikeLike

Reply ↓
Patricia on April 17, 2017 at 6:31 pm said:

I understand this point of view. I didn’t know any of that. Id take my Bull and go home. Particularly offensive that it has nothing to do with women…REALLY. I am female and would never stand in the way of a bull because, well, that’s just dumb. I am defiant in ways that make the most of my time and energy, not unrealistic fights no one can win. Thoughtful, methodical…..like the company who commisioned her. Boo!

LikeLike

Reply ↓
Yogi on April 17, 2017 at 6:32 pm said:

About art being sponsored by an institution: this is hardly the first time. Even classical art was mostly sponsored by the Catholic Church as a form of advertisement if you will, and we’ve learned to see generic human condition representations beyond the biblical/advertising figures who embody them.

About the meaning of the bull: I’ve always thought this sculpture was glorifying the financial markets, not the American people. I have a hard time believing that Di Modica would ignore the expression “bull market”, and would have unknowingly chosen it among all possible beasts (horse? eagle? bear? wolf?) to plant in the heart of the Financial District.

LikeLike

Reply ↓
Yogi on April 17, 2017 at 6:37 pm said:

About art being sponsored by an institution: this is hardly the first time. Even classical art was mostly sponsored by the Catholic Church as a form of advertisement if you will, and we’ve learned to see generic human condition representations beyond the biblical figures who embody them.

About the meaning of the bull: I’ve always thought this sculpture was glorifying the financial markets, not the American people. I have a hard time believing that Di Modica would ignore the expression “bull market”, and would have unknowingly chosen it among all possible beasts (horse? eagle? bear? wolf?) to plant in the heart of the Financial District.

LikeLike

Reply ↓
Diana Davis on April 17, 2017 at 6:39 pm said:

I vote either leave both there and admit that sometimes art, and the meaning, evolves with people, or take is dang bull home and shut up.

Di Moda’s statue wasn’t always there, then he put it there, and added something to the Financial District.

OK. So now there’s a new statue. And, no matter WHY or WHO put it there, the people have seen it as evolving the meaning of that area once more. The world tends to do that-new people can change or add meaning. Even words don’t send the same message anymore, or “awesome” and “Terrific” would be negative things.

But, DiModa, who himself changed that little strip-without permission, doesn’t seem to want to let go-even though no one granted him the right to define that space in the first place. He’s hanging on to “owning” the message of that public space so anal-retentively, you’d think he forgot his art studies.

If he wants, he can take the bull away. There you go.

But it’s kind of interesting that he’s so objecting to an entity doing what he as an individual did.

Heck, a soup can is a soup can, but Warhol played with it. Then people riffed on Warhol’s soup cans-from making them back into commerce as T shirts, to doing Warhol-like prints, and he really didn’t fuss-because it was all part of the joke.

DiModa needs to unclench his ass a little.

LikeLike

Reply ↓
Molly Dougherty on April 17, 2017 at 6:45 pm said:

I think fearless girl is going to do fine wherever she ends up. I agree that you have a point about Di Modica’s ire. I appreciate the background that you give and I was informed by it. I think you said a great deal when you said I love fearless girl and I resent her. That is the sentiment about half the population has about girls/women and it is why fearless girl is going to do fine. For girls/women she stands strong against all the fears that girls/women reasonably have about their chances for equal opportunity in nearly all human societies. Now that the media has changed her from SHE to fearless girl, her image and meaning has evolved. I’ll gently suggest that you give her a little love and back off the resentment. She has a long, hard battle. Fearlessness takes a lot of courage.

LikeLiked by 1 person

Reply ↓
Rafael on April 17, 2017 at 6:47 pm said:

Option 1: turn the bull. That removes the symbiosis between the statues and give the new statue part of it’s own medicine (changing the environment of the statue changes it’s meaning)
Option 2: plant a third statue in the middle: a big mirror reflecting the girl, so it radically changes the meaning of the composition, where yhe girl is confident watching herself on the mirror (arrogance?) Anf unaware of the danger behind that mirror. Of course this would change the meaning of the two statues, but it would be a good way to show to the audience why it is not fair to add a statue to change the meaning of a previous piece of art.
Sorry for my bad English ;)

LikeLike

Reply ↓
Mark McNett on April 17, 2017 at 6:49 pm said:

No artist controls how the rest of the world interprets their art. Mr. Di Modica may certainly have intended his magnificent statue to have a certain meaning but he must know this basic truth about art. I have no doubt that he may be upset because his original intention has been changed by the addition of this new work. The same could be said of many artists throughout history. He may be correct in his belief that the new work impacts his intended meaning, which it most certainly does. But, most people haven’t seen his intended message in his sculpture in many years. In contradiction, the fact that Fearless Girl was produced with a nefarious hidden agenda, they can not control how people interpret this piece any more than Mr. Di Modica can. I doubt whether the firm which paid for the statue is suddenly overrun with investors who have been the victim of subliminal advertising. This is art we are talking about here. There is no right or wrong sides.

LikeLike

Reply ↓
Shelly on April 17, 2017 at 6:57 pm said:

When I see the two statues facing each other this is what I see. I see an animal not liking a person standing confidently in front of the animal. The animal wants to charge but is thinking otherwise. The animal eventually calms down and the two work together to create a better world.

LikeLike

Reply ↓
SLM on April 17, 2017 at 7:09 pm said:

Di Modica should take his statue somewhere else, where its true intent will be appreciated. I too thought it was a commissioned work that represented the “bears” of Wall Street. I liked it then, but I like it even more now that I know the full story. Clearly, though, based on everyone’s collective misunderstanding of his work, I suspect his true intent was co-opted from the very beginning. So, I hope he sees that now, takes the statue somewhere else, and let the trillion dollar investment fund leave their “Fearless Girl” “guerrilla ad campaign” standing in the middle of the street, left to find its own meaning over time.

LikeLike

Reply ↓
Sixties Child on April 17, 2017 at 7:17 pm said:

i care neither the artists intent nor the corporate providers ghastly capitalist manipulation of the bronze child, what I see is a child standing in front of a charging bull. The child, representative of the future of society, the bull representative of the current generation of money grubbing capitalists, the child demanding to know what type of world the bull is going to leave to her children and her grandchildren.
We proudly tout liberty in this country, I’ll ascribe my own meaning to whichever piece of art I wish…don’t tell us how we should think-the artist gave up his claim to interpreting his art when he placed it in the public square
.

LikeLike

Reply ↓
Chris Taylor on April 17, 2017 at 7:17 pm said:

On one hand the history behind the bull but also current history of wall Street corruption. This fearless girl is a brilliant symbol, of promoting equality not just for women but for the little person. On the other had if it’s a a marketing ploy, then I agree I’m sick of marketers eroding the spirit of humanity for profit. I hate Comertalisism for the endless stupid idiot box, moron device, insincere product hype that is portrayed on TV and the radio, which is why I don’t watch Comertalized streams any more. But on the other hand, sincere advertising, product awareness that doesn’t lie, scheme, subvert, confuse, misdirect, or talk down the the buyer I’m all for as long as I’m not being harassed endlessly. If I’m going to buy a product I’m going to buy for practicality and quality not your ridiculous excessively extatic twit trying to sell me shit I don’t need with a manic grin on his face. But here it is art in it self is advertising. And this bull was an advertisement for the strength of nation market. But now that market has become parasitic. It comes down to what does SHE stand for? Reinstating corporation responcibility on behalf of the benefit of the nation, Or just another power grab.

LikeLike

Reply ↓
Claire (@huronhusker) on April 17, 2017 at 7:40 pm said:

I think Fearless Girl should be moved to The area around Ground Zero…. if people want to really show fearlessness, it belongs there. Otherwise, this statue is only meant to hurt the artist who did the statue of the bull and no matter how you feel about Wall street, intentionally trying to hurt another artist through advertising is wrong. All the people who see this as a slap against Capitalism are being naive… by calling for it to stay, they are promoting the very institution they call evil… The Stock Exchange, which makes them fools!

LikeLike

Reply ↓
Tim Henning on April 17, 2017 at 7:40 pm said:

He should just move the two statues so they are back to back (or ass to back) so it looks like it’s the two of them against the world.

LikeLike

Reply ↓
Sharon Greenlaw on April 17, 2017 at 7:40 pm said:

Change the SHE.

LikeLike

Reply ↓
Cheryl Casati on April 17, 2017 at 7:43 pm said:

I like both statues, however the FEARLESS GIRL was set up to make use of the BULL without permission from the real owner of the BULL. I’m a woman, I spent 20 years in the USAF and worked on and with the airplanes not a desk..until I became a Shop Supervisor. To be honest both statues can exist independently. I think the GIRL should be moved into her own space…to actually stand for herself as a salute to women, and a statement that they are amazingly powerful with or without the BULL.

LikeLike

Reply ↓
Brett Sherman on April 17, 2017 at 7:44 pm said:

Artists only have limited say in what the meaning of their work is. What happened after this statue was made is that Reagan’s taxing investment income at lower rates than earned wages started a trajectory of massive income inequality that has reached historic proportions. This combined with globalization and weakening labor movements have lowered middle class standing. Regardless of original intent it’s hard to see the bull statue as representing anything except the U.S. serving the interests of the investor-class over everyone else.

LikeLike

Reply ↓
nostical on April 17, 2017 at 7:44 pm said:

I, for one. remember when we were in another stock market and economic decline back in the 70’s. In the midst of the malaise Merrill Lynch created an ad campaign “We’re Bullish on America”. That’s what Di Modica’s bull sculpture represents–not the “symbol of oppression” being stated by some here. The Fearless Girl is great but maybe she’d be better placed in front of Planned Parenthood Headquarters, facing out.

LikeLike

Reply ↓
citizenzeus on April 17, 2017 at 7:47 pm said:

This is all very one-sided and ironic. The statue, Charging Bull, that was put there by a citizen at his own cost to symbolize the resilience and power of the American people, has become, bar none, the symbol of CNBC and Wall Streeters’ anti-democratic, profiteering glorification of passive-income, exploitative, wealth-concentrating, runaway stock market capitalism (just look at where and when the statue’s image is portrayed, and, hint, it is NEVER to symbolize the “little guy’s” resilience). The statue, Fearless Girl, that was put there by a corporation as a stealth advertising gimmick/public statement, has now become a symbol of actual Americans (in particular female Americans) standing up to the greed and sexism of Wall Street. The question is, which do you select in the end, the EFFECT or the INTENTION? Yes, like the author, I resent the originating gimmick of Fearless Girl, but I respect the statement and effect of Fearless Girl. It has taken a life of its own. Conversely, I respect the INTENT of Charging Bull, even as I loathe its symbolic EFFECT. To me the effect is more important than the intention. Pardon the pun, this is how statements or art ‘cash out.’ Effect is simply more important than intention. I side with Fearless Girl. Her message is right for our time.

LikeLiked by 1 person

Reply ↓
Lindsay on April 17, 2017 at 7:53 pm said:

SHE needs to buy CB and donate FG and CB to NYC. Toss the plaque with the marketing slogan and put FG and CB close together facing the same direction. If the Bull is America and the girl is women, they should be allied not opposed.

LikeLike

Reply ↓
Jas on April 17, 2017 at 8:07 pm said:

I’m a woman. Feminist. And I agree. The artist has a point. There should be space for both of these pieces without infringing on the meaning of the original sculptor.

LikeLike

Reply ↓
Smart on April 17, 2017 at 8:07 pm said:

I could think of a dozen additions he could make to his bull to regain the intent.

LikeLike

Reply ↓
Laura Flaherty on April 17, 2017 at 8:11 pm said:

Great article. If they turn the bull to the side then the bull is not charging the little girl and retains its meaning.

And the little girl is still confident in the danger that is in front of her and what she is watching.

LikeLike

Reply ↓
Nancy Lytle on April 17, 2017 at 8:23 pm said:

I think this is a dynamic situation where the public has re-created the ‘art’. Two separate pieces, the Bull, an icon whose meaning is variable, and a commercial piece that has been taken by the public and turned into their own creation. And now in some ways they are also merged. Into a 3rd piece, that includes the two of them. It may be hard for the artist, but this really is an unusual situation. It’s interesting to watch.

LikeLiked by 1 person

Reply ↓
christopherryanshelton on April 17, 2017 at 8:25 pm said:

I get his point, I just think it’s weak. Art will always exist in parallel with other art. It will be displayed along with art from prior generations, from contemporaries, and if it lasts, eventually from future generations.

That the effect and meaning of one piece of art is changed by placing it in context and contrast is the entire point of a museum. Would it be much of a “point” to compain about the MOMA because seeing all the Pollocks affects the intent of the Van Goghs?

How much of the space surrounding their work should an artist be able to claim? Should an author insist that the reader abstain from reading other books, or that a bookstore should display their novel in isolation? Should a movie producer be able to insist that no competing ideologies be represented in the other films being screened that month?

Yes he has a point that the meaning of any artwork changes over time and when put in new context, but it’s a trivial one.

LikeLike

Reply ↓
testosox on April 17, 2017 at 8:33 pm said:

One way to depolarize this dispute somewhat would be to add another sculpture; I suggest a bear, as that is the typical symbol of defensive strategy opposing the bull in markets, and has no relation to gender politics

LikeLike

Reply ↓
- acknowledgeurmother on April 18, 2017 at 2:10 pm said:
  
  Not just a bear, but baby bear crying over an empty bowl :)
  
  LikeLiked by 1 person
  
  Reply ↓
Lyn on April 17, 2017 at 8:36 pm said:

Move fearless girl to the clintons home garden or place it at Chelsea’s home as a “sorry you lost again” consolation prize. The Bulls history is what makes that statue so much more valuable and interesting.

LikeLike

Reply ↓
Penni Weninger on April 17, 2017 at 8:36 pm said:

Very interesting perspective. The sculpture itself is a welcome statement in theae days when women are losing ground, encouraging me as a women and empowering, I’d hoped, to young girls. I’m disappointed to learn that it’s actually a piece of corporate marketing, which completely changes my perspective. Now I firmly agree with the commenter who suggested she be placed across from Trump Tower, putting the diamonds of Harry Winston firmly behind her, in second place to her confidence and integrity.

LikeLike

Reply ↓
K. Carrigan on April 17, 2017 at 8:39 pm said:

Many great works of art have been commissioned by wealthy groups or religions for their own purposes and the works have become something entirely different as they survived their their sponsors. The meaning of all public art is defined by the reactions of the viewers.

LikeLike

Reply ↓
123 on April 17, 2017 at 8:43 pm said:

Take into account that as civil rights progress, the Fearless Girl will become outdated and impractical for its original purpose, while the Charging Bull statue will retain its original purpose as a symbol of the fearlessness of the entire American people.

LikeLike

Reply ↓
Marlene on April 17, 2017 at 8:59 pm said:

Well written

LikeLike

Reply ↓
BeWsKi on April 17, 2017 at 9:02 pm said:

Di Modica is RIGHT.
A good piece of ART should be able to tell a STORY on its OWN.
The BULL on its own is FORMIDABLE. The girl on its own is what?

LikeLike

Reply ↓
Trudy on April 17, 2017 at 9:16 pm said:

A good compromise might be to re-position the girl statue so that she has the bull at her back.

LikeLike

Reply ↓
CanAmFam on April 17, 2017 at 9:17 pm said:

Hopefully most people understand the longstanding symbols of bulls and bears of stock markets. Bulls represent raging stock markets. And one placed in the Financial district embodies that. Period. If the artist truly meant for his work to represent the American people, who were decimated in that stock market crash, he picked the precise symbol that took them to that terrible place.

LikeLike

Reply ↓
Jaimee on April 17, 2017 at 9:19 pm said:

Personally, I agree that having the advertising plaque makes the guerilla art peice much less symbolic. I think they should leave the girl and remove the plaque. That way it isn’t about the company. Then it is an anonymous donation to the artistic community of manhattan and not piece of advertising. I think the fact that the artist’s work has been perverted into something that is about corporations and their “willingness to stand up” should make him angry. Considering the work initially had nothing to do with the corporate world and was in response to a stock market crash. I do think that the girl standing in front of the bull creates an interesting dialogue within the work and the fact that they used the same art style and materials made it even more like a continuing dialogue rather than a new one. If it had been don’t by another private artist I think it would have been beautiful

LikeLike

Reply ↓