seriously, the guy has a point

Posted on by

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”

  1. These few paragraphs sum up my thoughts better than I could say myself.
    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.
    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.

    Liked by 6 people

    Reply ↓

    • Perhaps the ‘Charging Bull’ meaning was already evolving before the Fearless Girl, potentially after 2008? Perhaps it was already symbolizing greed and injustice and not “the strength and power of the American people”. For me the Fearless Girl means that she is there to die, to sacrifice and she is being brave about it. Maybe she symbolizes “the strength and power of the American people”. That is the thing about art.. The meaning is in the eyes of the beholder. Artists don’t own the meaning, they own the piece of art.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply ↓

  2. Yes, but it is art. Most art pieces were create for a reason by its creator, but each individual sees something different. For me it adds to the original art, makes it new, starts a different conversation. For me the bull is havoc, a bull market, then the crash and carnage. The girl represents those who are hurt in the aftermath.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply ↓

    • In fact, I find the friction between the two images and their intents and their interpretive meanings very stimulating. Is that not also a possible “purpose” of art? Certainly it is often the effect. This article highlights the way the intentions behind these two pieces affect our perception of them. I’ve often pondered if this diametric opposition isn’t a sort of definition of profundity.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply ↓

    • No
      The little girl is a paid symbol of a huge international corporate global asset fund mamager which exists to create massive profits and are the cornerstone of extreme raging capitalism symbolised by the “Bull”
      If anything she should be standing in front of the bull protecting / leading it forward to greater profit.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply ↓

    • it’s mock art – it’s a faked sentiment for the purpose of hocking a product. It may be art, but it’s sold out art from the get go and it’s ‘meaning’ is entirely contrived. It’s also highly unrealistic. I’ve seen what a bull can do up close and personal. Any girl that stands like that in front of one that is acting like the one the original artist depicted is about to become a rag doll. Determined or not, she’s about to get a serious butt whoopin!

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply ↓

    • A very self important assessment, I must say.
      By what prerogative do you claim to change the intended significance of a work not only for yourself – so long as you keep it private – but for everyone else who views it? The artist’s intention should be acknowledged always and your response, like that of everyone else, is a critique of the artist and his intention and so has everyone else the right to make their own critique.
      Here we have a highhanded action directed towards deliberately misleading countless potential viewers regarding the intention of the artist, thereby preempting their right to make their own informed assessment. Who made you their keeper?

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply ↓

  3. You know, this whole thing could change meaning drastically if they simply placed the girl and the bull facing the same direction – the strength of the American people, coupled with whatever ‘Fearless Confident Girl’ means to the viewer, facing the headwinds of adversity together.

    Liked by 17 people

    Reply ↓

  4. I think Di Monica is disingenuous in claiming that the bull represents the spirit of the American people. He dropped it in the financial district, home of the *bull market*, capital of capitalism.
    When you place a piece of public art, you let it go.
    I like the girl. My “clean slate” interpretation was that she was standing up to capitalism itself, patriarchal or not. And most, without the background info, will probably think something similar.
    I am disappointed that the girl was commissioned by bankers (what a twist!) but suspect that the artist and advertising firm may have had some subversive fun at their client’s expense.

    Liked by 9 people

    Reply ↓

    • It’s “the strength and power of the American people”, not the spirit. Putting it in Wall Street is entirely appropriate since it’s freedom, and the capitalism that is inextricably linked to freedom, that is the source of America’s strength.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply ↓

    • I disagree that “when you place a piece of public art you let it go”. The integrity of the work should not be violated. The public that views it should not have their right to make their own informed assessment preempted.
      I question further whether this is a “piece of public art”. It still belongs to the sculptor.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply ↓

  5. Why does a work of art lose it’s meaning or power because it is commissioned by a wealthy person or organization? Most of the great works of art from history were commissioned by the wealthy. The best examples are the works of Michaelngelo, 90% of which were paid for by the Medici family. So we just remove the paint from the Sistine Chapel? I had no idea it was advertisement for anything so it’s actually a marketing failure.

    Liked by 5 people

    Reply ↓

    • The problem is this wasn’t just commissioned by a wealthy organization. It was commissioned as an advertisement for them. That’s the whole point of the “SHE” part. Even if you don’t realize it was an advertisement for something, that doesn’t change the problem with the scenario.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply ↓

    • A bit of history here.

      The Medici family was a family of bankers. The wealthiest and most powerful of their time, and commissioning artists, like Da Vinci, then “donating” their skills to the church, was a way for them to display that. So, in essence, it was advertisement. It showed they were so successful that they could just give away great works of art and not be put out financially. What better way to tell the common man how secure their money would be, or the potential profit that could be earned by investing with them.

      Now, I don’t have a problem with corporations paying artists, but they should ask permission before taking advantage of another artist’s work. You don’t see people adding on to “The Mona Lisa” or “The Last Supper”. They are unique and powerful on their own.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply ↓

    • I guess you did not get what the post wants to point out.
      Charging bull, the one that’s on the brick of losing its original meaning, was not a commissioned piece, it’s a guerrilla art.
      Fearless girl is the commissioned one, which seems to be a feminist representation but actually it’s not. It’s a just a marketing tool for a corporation and their ticker symbol is SHE, indicated on the plaque.
      Fearless girl subversively changed the context of Charging bull, from being the strength of American people into a patriarchal/misogynistic one. Ironically, showing off a symbol of feminism (a girl) yet propagating a different agenda.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply ↓

  7. I didn’t create the sculpture of the bull, so we may not share the same perspective. But I like the tension between the two objects– a symbol of raging capitalism being stared down by a brave little girl. Seems like a perfect metaphor for the moment we live in.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply ↓

  9. Art changes all the time. The context changes all the time. The MOna Lisa once hung in Mona’s husband’s living room, now it hangs in the Louvre– and on a few thousand walls in various re-imagined works as well. Di Modica can be glad– he’s in good company.
    https://www.google.com/search?q=mona+lisa+parody&newwindow=1&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjTg8XZ4qfTAhXHhlQKHVrlDmcQsAQIIg&biw=1604&bih=851

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

    • But imagine someone decided to paint eyebrows on the Mona Lisa? It changes the art work… that’s what Greg is getting at. By placing a statue of te little girl, it changes the context of the bull, it no onager represents the unity of the American people.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply ↓

  11. Thank you for your nuanced and elucidating article on this subject. I was neither aware that Charging Bull was intended to represent “the strength and power of the American people”, nor that Fearless Girl was an advertisement for an index that focuses on women in business. Personally, I have never interpreted Di Modica’s statue in this way. To me, the bull has always seemed to be an excellent representation of Wall Street, in particular, the power of a bull market, but in general the dominance of the stock market over the overall economy. The bull as sculpted appears aggressive, in the middle of a fight or stampede, ready to trample or gore anyone who gets in its way. I find this to be an accurate representation of what the stock market and entitled investors do to much of the rest of the economy. Publicly traded companies are expected to constantly grow and constantly raise profits. A company whose business covers its expenses, makes a small profit, but doesn’t grow enough, will be punished with low stock prices. Companies are pushed to over-expand, merge, buy other companies, and get as close to monopolization as the government will allow. The whole economy is seen to ride on the back of this model, making investment firms “too big to fail”, though rises in stock market value often don’t lead to corresponding rises in the labor market. This is all very different from the small business “main street” model. The bull has always appeared to me to represent the raging stock market inequality rushing forward to trample those less fortunate and those who lose out when they bet wrong in the market. I have always seen the bull, with that mean look in his eye, as the villain, regardless of Di Modica’s stated intention. We are all just the crowd running down the street away from the bull, exhilarated by the run, perhaps, but also hoping not to make the wrong move and get gored.

    Fearless Girl may be advertising, but it is advertising for something that actively works to counter certain aspects of inequality in the marketplace. The gender stereotype says man’s focus is the money and woman’s focus is the other needs of the family/community. Woman standing up to Wall Street, saying “No, you will not run roughshod over our country,” – this is one of the potential meanings I see in Fearless Girl. In a way, Fearless Girl directly artistically represents the actions of a fund that is standing up to the status quo of market forces, which I believe needs to be done. We need more investors who incorporate company structure and ethics as part of their decision on whether or not to invest in that company. Still, I agree that the statue’s status as an advertisement is off-putting, and the fact that it advertises a stock market product takes away from its potential symbolism as an anti-Wall Street figure. Aesthetically, I don’t believe Fearless Girl matches up to the grace, power, and dynamism of Charging Bull. As a sculpture, I find Di Modica’s work to be far superior. I agree that Fearless Girl derives its meaning almost entirely from its position in confrontation to Charging Bull. Without this juxtaposition, Fearless Girl is a technically excellent – but not particularly interesting or engaging – piece of art, most likely to be seen in a garden somewhere and not garner national attention.

    Liked by 13 people

    Reply ↓

    • I don’t entirely agree with you, but I love that you’ve put so much thought and consideration into your response. That’s a lot more important in a discussion than total agreement.

      Liked by 4 people

      Reply ↓

    • I was beginning to agree with you, right up to : “Fearless Girl directly artistically represents the actions of a fund that is standing up to the status quo of market forces”
      Sorry, but no: SHE (the fund) is not managed by a female, and state street has only three women on their board, an none in senior management that I can find on their web page. In fact: Looking at their web page it is uniformly pale an male.
      Gender diversity is not even a stated value in their Values Section. Their expressed values are:
      * Boston WINs
      * Corporate Responsibility Reporting
      * Economic Responsibility
      * Environmental Sustainability
      * Social Consciousness
      * State Street Alumni Network
      (Note: Gender equality falls under Social consciousness where it comprises a 2 sentence paragraph as the last of 4 sub-headings. Hardly a front and center priority)
      It does not even rate a mention in their own Social consciousness reporting (http://www.statestreet.com/content/dam/statestreet/documents/values/2015_CR_Overview_Final_Web.pdf)
      This is “talk the talk” without “walking the walk”. This is pure exploitative marketing, a ploy to fake sincerity without actively doing anything to solve the problem. Make no mistake, the only reason the firm has a fund like SHE is because they are making money off it. They have no altruistic bones in their bodies.
      So you, like many others, were taken in by a shell game: Look at the statue, not at our board. Look at the street, not our trading floor. Read our press releases, not our diversity stats.

      Liked by 4 people

      Reply ↓

    • You are entitled to respond as you in fact respond to the work and to critique the artist in a penetrating way. You are also entitled NOT to be hustled or manipulated into making a particular response – and so is everyone else.
      Your response is not everyone’s response nor need everyone endorse your response. They are entitled to make up their own minds and should be left to it.
      Your critical comments are interesting and, I dare say, insightful. Thank you.
      Your remark that “Fearless Girl derives its meaning almost entirely from its position in confrontation to Charging Bull” makes the essential point – and acknowledges the theft.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply ↓

    • I think if he objects to the dynamic that his sculpture has found itself to be a part of he should remove it. As you said, she would become simply “confident”. I remember when reproductions of the Mona Lisa with a mustache were popular. It was a passing phase reflective of something at the time…

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply ↓

  12. Regardless of what Di Modica intended, that bull represents the worst parts of late stage capitalism and what I regret is that someone from Occupy didn’t manage to take a baseball bat to it and reduce it to dented slag. And then afterwards move on to those monsters in Wall Street who have been screwing the rest of us for decades.
    Nothing about these oligarchs taking over this country now is noble or worthwhile, they are not humans, they’re monsters. They don’t care about the same things actual humans do, they only exist to exploit us and justify that exploitation well enough to stop us from grabbing torches and pitchforks. They are not good people and frankly Di Modica, who loves capitalism so much, can piss off too.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply ↓

    • Seriously? You’re using the tools of the very “Capitalism” to post this shite?

      How would you like it if someone took that selfsame baseball bat to YOURSELF?

      Not so nice, is it. Keep your bullshit to your goddamn self, k?

      Liked by 5 people

      Reply ↓

      • “My god, Karl Marx, you say you are anti-capitalist and yet you write with a PEN on PAPER, you hypocrite.” Also a statue is made of BRASS. Also you write like a Russian troll, bye k

        Liked by 2 people

    • No it doesn’t. You can’t say “Regardless of what Di Modica intended” and then simply proclaim your own meaning.
      And being that the “oligarchs” didn’t like nor want the statue there in the first place. what empty nonsense of a point would your desired destruction of his personal art serve other than your own simplistic gratification?

      Liked by 4 people

      Reply ↓

  14. Here’s the thing, she’s not guerrilla because corporations have commodified the supply chain of art. Artists have been exploited for their ideas ever since Karl Marx figured out what exploitation was in respect to capitalism. Its been going on in advertising for centuries. Any artist who seems to have their “finger on the pulse” for lack of another hackneyed phrase has been approached by advertising folks to see if they can use them. The time lag amoung anonymity fame and has been status has shrunk to milliseconds. This piece, reguardless of its origins is a great riff on the original sculpture which, let’s face it, was boring as hell. The best thing about it was that he didn’t have permission to do it. The best thing about the girl is that it not only exists in it’s own right but also totally updates a worn out idea. All art is commodified now with the exception of outsider artists and the ones who haven’t been bought yet. He should stop complaining and realize that she makes him matter again.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  15. Seriously, the guy’s a jerk. Works of art are displayed together all the time. And they are often placed to juxtapose. IMO, it’s rather arrogant for this guy to think he can hog the stage. The manspreading artist?

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply ↓

  17. This: “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.”
    is a debatable point. Most landmark instances of Appropriation — Baudelaire and Parisian street culture, Duchamp and the Readymade, Warhol, Richard Prince, Jeff Koons — are powerful entities leveraging the status of art to exploit the labor and class cultural habits of others.
    It is a myth that appropriation is subversive. The affect of subversion is merely cover so that the powerful can remain powerful.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  20. You raise some interesting points here, and with your permission I would love to share this with my students. The one point of feedback I offer is that citing your sources with more than just an in – text link will lend you more credibility than the average person and enhance the legitimacy of your point — thus defending your argument from someone trying to play the “troll” or “alternative fact” cards. It also means that someone reading this on a mobile device (like myself) doesn’t have to flip through all those in – text links to see where you get your information because most people won’t. Sometimes we as writers on the interwebs have to appeal to the laziness of the masses if we want to encourage fact-checking: it is one of the few tools that remains for us to keep the growing climate of ignorance and fear at bay.

    Otherwise, this is an interesting and enlightening piece with powerful debate potential at heart and its conversational tone keeps it from being a dry read.

    Regards,

    A teacher who grades too many of these.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  21. Art takes on different meanings based on where we are as a society… it evolves just as we do… Charging Bull once reprensented that this country needed to unite and overcome an obstacle. Now our country needs to do this once again, his work combined with this new work will help unite us once again for a new obstacle. If anything I believe this has once again brought the Charging Bull to life, with a new purpose… like a living, breathing piece of art…it has evolved!

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  25. Well, she has permission to be there and he never did. So the way I see it, he does have a point. And based on his opinion, and his point, his only and best option in a free nation free market is that he has the right to remove his work of art.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply ↓

  26. Frankly, both statues were “gifts.” One can not control what people do with gifts. Some artists when they gift a piece are very specific, in writing, how the gift should be displayed. It looks like neither really did that.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply ↓

  27. I don’t think the artist has much standing here – successful public art is percieved/consumed by the public, the motivations of the artist & patron can ultimately mean very little although in this case it does take the shine off the girl but like the Statue of Liberty being second hand will people care. The Bull has become a globally recognised symbol of Wall Street – theres probably more association with the golden calf in the Old testament then the energy of the American people. Someone mentioned the Sistine Chapel, there is compelling evidence that the Franciscan Popes who commissioned the place believed that Saint Francis was the second coming and that the discovery of the Americas was the rediscovery of Eden, they thought they were characters in the Bible and the ceiling besides the final panel painted 30 years later is preparation for Revelation. None of the patron’s demented fantasies are known by the public – the skills & affectations of the artist remains but what happens is largely projections by the public – a skilled artist allows for this or at least accepts it

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply ↓

    • Except that Dimodica is still the OWNER of the Statue. He is the owner and possessor. The fact that Fearless Girl is an advertisement seriously insults a still living artist.

      In most creative fields, the commissioner/presenter/designer, when involved with another creator, ASKS the first creator “Can we do this?” if they have any concept of respect for the artistic community to which they belong.

      This didn’t happen.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply ↓

      • I understand that perfectly, they can commission what they like. Are rich people not entitled to piss people off through art just as much as middle class hippies wrapping wool around lampposts?

        Liked by 2 people

      • What rich people are or are not entitled to has nothing to do with what I wrote. The fact remains that there is a fundamental difference between commissioned works and noncommissioned works in this context.

        Liked by 2 people

    • I do not know if I believe the Artist dedication story . Think about it. Wall Street didn’t want it. Because they interpreted it negatively. So the Artist placates them by making up a story , a all American story or lie that gets his wish fulfilled and at the same time let’s them off the psychological hook ,because now they can relate it’s attribution to a lie . Satisfies both parties . However the truth always gets revealed 30 years later true, but now we know the true significance of the original art by the imposition of the second regardless of history or the present attitude of the artist he just doesn’t like that his lie has been unmasked . His is they’re same pride. Doomed to the truth . There is nothing in this world that will expose you for who or what you really represent in your lifetime like a woman. Anybody Brave enough to argue that point?

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply ↓

    • When the Bull was placed there, what other sculpture had its significance changed in consequence? There was no theft then as there undoubtedly has been by the placement of the Girl.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply ↓

  29. I don’t disagree with the idea of this post, but I go a little Roland Barthes on the subject. The intention of the artist is not important. That global investors used global advertisers to fake a piece of guerilla art is unimportant to the question of his claim or the social dialog of the moment.

    The average person is not going to know that SHE isn’t just some awkward capitalization. The average person is going to bring their own experience, views, perspective and knowledge to their experience of the artwork. That the bull was intended by the artist to become a symbol of X, does not mean that is the symbolic meaning it holds Artists don’t get to decide the symbolism assigned to their work, that’s not how semiotics works.

    Intentions don’t matter. Fearless Girl was intended as a shameless promotion masquerading as guerilla art. Charging Bull was intended as an ode to the power of American capitalism. Those intentions don’t permeate the objects themselves, and the narrative they tell on a broad social level is very different.

    As far as your claim that he has a point… no. He doesn’t. HIs claim is not that they are using the power of his piece. It is that they are altering the meaning of his work by having placed their statue nearby in a manner which violates the Visual Rights Act. That is not the spirit of the law he is citing. If they had defaced his artwork. If they had modified his artwork to change the meaning, then yes, he would have a point. Placing another statue nearby is the heart of the communication that is art. They didn’t modify his statue. They didn’t alter his artwork. They didn’t place their statue in any way that makes it seem as if it is part of his piece. It is clearly a reaction to the piece. In dialog with the piece. They entered into conversation with it. And even if it was a tawdry marketing stunt, it doesn’t matter. Because that isn’t how the world is reacting to it. No one cares about the stock, everyone cares about the message they read into it. Whatever message that is. That is art. Art doesn’t happen in the form of physical objects, it’s an internal, individual and highly personal experience.

    Sorry, that was all a bit of a soap box. But there we go.

    Liked by 8 people

    Reply ↓

    • They didn’t place their statue in any way that makes it seem as if it is part of his piece.

      Are you kidding? That’s exactly what they did. Everything from the location to the orientation to the material was specifically chosen to make Fearless Girl part of the piece.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply ↓

    • The average person is not going to know that SHE isn’t just some awkward capitalization.

      I agree with much of what you say, including the comment above. But it’s important to remember that the marketing strategy isn’t aimed at the average person; it’s aimed at those who invest big chunks of money in index funds. They know what SHE stands for, even if the average person doesn’t.

      As far as your claim that he has a point… no. He doesn’t.
      They didn’t modify his statue. They didn’t alter his artwork.

      Fearless Girl changes the context of the work, and by doing so changes the meaning of the work. I’m okay with that personally (although I’d be more okay if Fearless Girl had been a true work of guerrilla art). Before, the bull wasn’t charging anything in particular; now it appears to be charging a sweet little girl in a dress and ponytail. That makes a difference.

      Sorry, that was all a bit of a soap box

      Fearless women shouldn’t apologize for taking a place on the soap box. You made a thoughtful, cogent argument, some of which I happen to disagree with. Ain’t it great?

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply ↓

      • Then I would question what exactly is wrong about marketing for a fund that aims at improving the diversity of an industry dominated by men. Marketing is simply a tool to help spread the word, and it does not make anything more or less sinister. It is the ultimate intent of the marketed product that defines it’s morality. In this case the advertised product may indeed bring positive impact potentially. And if the target audience of the symbol SHE is the Wall Street traders, that’s great, because they do need to learn more about diversity, and in a language that they will understand.
        Second, while it certainly does sound cooler that Do Modica sculpted the bull and installed it himself, I don’t think it’s necessarily any less cooler that an advertising team has to wade through numerous red tape of bureaucracy to make the fearless girl happen. America certainly tends to have its crush on vigilantism and downplays the importance of cooperation, which in a way is an interesting contrast between masculinity and femininity, imo.

        Liked by 1 person

      • maybe the first artist or a third party could “readjust” the meanings of BOTH works, by placing a third work, between them, on which they’d both be focusing their strength… something like a giant bronze dollar, or stack of money, perhaps, something to give them a common focus… something that restores the artist’s original intentions without subverting the best interpretation of the girl statue. Fight fire with fire…. sort of.

        Liked by 1 person

    • The apparent intention of the placement of the Girl is to manipulate people into viewing the two pieces as one work. This IS vandalism.
      If it were just a matter of juxtaposition to facilitate comparison that would be quite a different matter. Perhaps that could be considered to contribute towards the communication that is art. The manipulative intention evinced here is the antithesis of that.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply ↓

  30. Actually, as someone that’s made a living as artist for many years and has continued to study art, I’ve always thought the bull statue was rather bland. Now that “Fearless Girl” has been added it’s much, much, more interesting, even if (or especially if) you completely ignore the statement it was commissioned to make. And by “especially if” I mean it would open itself to a more personalized interpretation for each individual viewer.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply ↓

    • If the statements made by the two pieces can be ignored the combined piece presents as rather CUTE. Is that what pleases you?

      Like

      Reply ↓

  31. The girl should be removed. She is doing three things; one-misrepresenting the female and her great many reasons for why she is confident. I don’t need a statue to speak for me as a woman. I’ll do that myself; two, the companies are using the super imposed female disposition created by the patriarchy to make money. Money that won’t help me or any other person who’s female. It’s not for US it’s for they and them and their money, their gain and to shut us up with a resounding condescending “Look what we did! We hear you but we’re not listening. You should be grateful it’s a girl and not a boy, right?” And finally, it does change the meaning of the Charging Bull piece and should simply be removed.

    An additional reason is the fourth; the statue is representing the entire female power with the body of a little, under developed, naive child. That is insulting. Women are more than “girls,” address us as women, lady, our names, but ESPECIALLY what we tell you to. Yes-TELL you to. You will listen to us.

    That’s my gazillion dollar change.

    Liked by 6 people

    Reply ↓

    • “Women are more than “girls,” address us as women,”
      Well what I get from their choice of the little girl rather than a grown woman, is to remind people that our conditioning and assumptions begin early in the expectations we place upon our young. As well as to accent her bravery in the face of a much larger, crazed animal.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply ↓

  32. I have to agree with your sentiments here. If your work of art manipulates or changes the meaning of my work of art, through simple placement or proximity, you have co-opted my intellectual property and I have to right to object. Whether or not that will matter to the marketers who placed the work there is another story.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply ↓

  34. I think this could be filed under: “misappropriation of soul”. Di Modica really should take that power away and just move it…directly behind the girl .That would be like stealing back it’s power. Like it’s saying the people (the original meaning of the bull) are behind this female figure. Then put a bust of Trump in front of the girl. It would be like art imitating life.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply ↓

  35. if the company purchased the bull from the artist how would that change the meaning of the work?

    i get that it is advertising but for the public it has its own meaning. the same or similar to that of the bull origionally. if the artist sold the work so that the whole both the girl and bull together still stood for the origional purpose would that be enough? guess the artist will always be fucked over!

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  36. Reality check on some of the leftist comments
    The little girl is a paid advert, a marketing tool of a huge international corporate global asset fund mamager which exists to create massive profits and are the cornerstone of extreme raging capitalism symbolised by the “Bull”
    If anything she should be standing in front of the bull protecting / leading it forward to greater profit.
    Trying to put a leftist progressive spin on it is so just so much ……Bull.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  37. A decent solution would be for someone to get a crowbar and in the middle of the night remove the SHE plaque, guerrilla style. It would subvert State Street Global’s objective without disrupting the meaning people will inevitably take away from the imagery itself. Keep the art and let people discuss its meaning, but get rid of the ad for an index fund.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  38. A decent solution would be for someone to get a crowbar, go out in the middle of the night and remove the SHE plaque, guerrilla style. That would subvert State Street Global’s objective without disrupting the inevitable meaning that people will take away from the imagery. Keep the art and debate its meaning, but at least get rid of the ad for an index fund.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  39. Foul. Just foul. The other artist wants to modify the original artist’s creation to suit his own vision. Instead of creating a separate piece and sculpting his own bull, he wanted to ride in someone else’s established and popular work. Regardless if the resulting work’s message is cool (“a girl can stand up against anything”) it is obvious that the girl’s sculptor just wanted to ride in someone else’s hard work to gain milage points. He hides behind a message when he’s just actually being a a-hole and wants publicity. Sculpt your own bull, place it somewhere else and don’t change someone else’s work.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  40. The artist who made Raging Bull placed his sculpture specifically on Wall street. He claims that the sculpture represents the American people. He also claims that Fearless Girl changes his meaning.
    I would argue that when he placed the bull on Wall street, that context changed its meaning. It speaks now only about wall street and not the American people at large. He is ignoring this fact while now saying that the context that the girl adds matters. It cannot be both ways.
    Wall street now has a somewhat negative image and Raging Bull seems to carry the negative aspects more than any positives these days. The context of the time it was placed perhaps gave it a positive air of resiliency and strength in a dark time. Now however it seems out of control. Untameable. Reckless. Dangerous. And yes a bull is all male and symbolic of male virility and sexual prowess and toxic masculinity. Add this to the context of wall street and to an extent the idea of business. There you have the exclusion of the female power in business, finance, leadership, wealth. It’s a tricky business, the way symbols change meaning over time and di Modeca wants to cling to his intent devoid of context.
    It doesn’t work that way. Art does not exist in a vacuum. Especially art specifically placed in a context.
    This is why I do not sympathize with the artist here. Times change. Attitudes change. Context changes. And Fearless Girl is a welcome comment to the symbolism of the bull.
    Actually I think Fearless Girl helps bring a universal feeling to the bull that was lacking before. Without her, the bull is primarily a symbol of wall street. With her it’s a symbol of many different challenges women and girls must overcome, both on Wall street and business and in other aspects of everyday life.
    So yes. Fearless Girl changes the meaning of the bull. But some of that meaning was there before and just hidden by male privilege. It’s natural that art evolves. This is how it stays relevant.
    Now. On to your point about RG being a commissioned work designed as an advertisement. This actually doesn’t trouble me that much. The work stands on its own and has so much power in a larger context that again changes that intent. Additionally as someone else has noted, the advertisement failed because few people knew there is a product being pushed here. And as others have noted, commissioned at is just as valid as non-commissioned work…

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  42. I do not know if I believe the Artist dedication story . Think about it. Wall Street didn’t want it why? Because they interpreted it negatively. So the Artist placates them by making up a story , a all American story or lie that gets his wish fulfilled and at the same time let’s them off the psychological hook ,because now they can relate it’s attribution to a lie . Satisfies both parties . However the truth always gets revealed 30 years later true, but now we know the true significance of the original art by the imposition of the second regardless of history or the present attitude of the artist he just doesn’t like that his lie has been unmasked . His is they’re same pride. Doomed to the truth . There is nothing in this world that will expose you for who or what you really represent in your lifetime like a woman. Anybody Brave enough to argue that point?

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

    • I do not know if I believe the Artist dedication story . Think about it. Wall Street didn’t want it. Because they interpreted it negatively. So the Artist placates them by making up a story , a all American story or lie that gets his wish fulfilled and at the same time let’s them off the psychological hook ,because now they can relate it’s attribution to a lie . Satisfies both parties . However the truth always gets revealed, 30 years later true, but now we know the true significance of the original art by the imposition of the second, regardless of history or the present attitude of the artist he just doesn’t like that his trying to hide the truth in plain sight thru a lie has been unmasked . His is they’re same pride. Doomed to the truth . There is nothing in this world that will expose you for who or what you really represent in your lifetime like a “good” Woman. Anybody Brave enough to argue that point?

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply ↓

      • The Artist deserves a great commendation for successfully​ hiding the truth in plain sight for over thirty years. He and his friends just underestimated a “good” woman’s ability to sniff out the truth and snuff the liars. However when that Woman is actually a little girl who will grow up to be a Woman it’s time for the liar’s to start thinking about Elimination of the weakest principles, but to they’re own chagrin how do you preemptively strike at a little girl without unmasking yourself further? I love Good Art.

        Like

  43. A lot of great art through the ages was “sponsored” by wealthy people as a form of propaganda. But a lot of it hangs in the Met. Advertising can be art. And this was a brilliant concept that someone got a corporation to pay for, that’s how advertising works. It wasn’t SHE that had the idea, it was a former art student who is now an art director. I love that these two pieces have come together and started a dialogue, inspiring different interpretations. Isn’t that what all good art does?

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply ↓

  44. I totally agree with you and I got spanked, too.
    I responded to a retweet of de Blasio’s tweet by a well-known director and got into a discussion about this. I was surprised he responded. I was more surprised how people and especially other creatives were willing to dismiss that Arturo Di Modica may have a point and a right to defend his copyright. More surprising was how forcefully they argued that the Fearless Girl was not purposely created to be paired with Charging Bull and was not dependent on it for her very existence. We tweeted a bit back and forth. After I posted a link to a Guardian article that included a video of a representative of the investment firm stating that it was commissioned and put there to interface with the Charging Bull, I was blocked by said director. Maybe it was that link. Maybe it was just the persistence of the discussion, i don’t know.
    Feelings are very strong about that little girl. I guess the PR firm did their job.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  45. The meaning of the capitalist system has changed, the bull became, even before the girl was installed, a symbol of capitalist oppression, trampling the helpless in the name of financial greed. Fearless Girl just stripped the last threads of illusion away.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  46. The girl doesn’t change the meaning of the bull. It still represents economic progress and prosperity. Placing the girl there, says women oppose progress and prosperity. It is a terrible, terrible, terrible, message and the girl should be removed.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply ↓

  47. Sure, he has a point. But his point doesn’t supersede other, probably more important points. He wanted to make a public statement. That has drawn a public response. So it goes.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  48. > State Street Global Advisors, which has assets in excess of US$2.4 trillion.
    No it doesn’t *have* those assets, it *manages* them. They *belong* to millions of ordinary people, in pension funds and the like.
    It’s those ordinary people who get swept up in a raging bull market, and get crushed by the bear.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

Leave a reply to Ray Womac Cancel reply