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 
It’s sad to hear the girl is a marketing ploy.
Di Micas argument about his work symbolizing the “the strength and power of the American people” kinda comes off as bunk to me. The work is a big strong bull… in front of the stock exchange. I can’t imagine anyone who looks at it thinks “that perfectly symbolizes the strength of the American people to me.” His original meaning was lost the second he put it there. Noe it stands for the markets, and in this time, the big men on wallstreet all of which are often far too cruel to the humans in their path. And putting it anywhere else removes that meaning and just makes it… a big statue of a bull. While it would be impressive to see in a park in rural Ohio, it looses what makes it culturally important there.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I knew all of this context and history. Doesn’t matter. Art is about context not the authors. At the moment Fearless Girl was installed it became art, or important social commentary at the least. Doesn’t matter what either artist intended. We the recipients of art determine its value. Fearless Girl is priceless. Until it isn’t.
LikeLike
Hm. I see that there are two valid sides to this argument, but the way I choose to see it is that you shouldn’t mess with another person’s art. Ever. In any circumstances.
Where I’m from, street artists (the ones who are actual ARTISTS not just taggers), have a code they follow when it comes to painting over another person’s work.
This is practically the same thing to me, but on a bigger scale.
Putting a new statue in place that changed the meaning of the original is like tagging over someone’s art. You just don’t do that.
They should have, at the very least, contacted the original sculptor and asked his thoughts.
I find this whole thing very disrespectful.
I’m all for artwork that advocates for women, especially in a male dominated space like Wall Street, but not while, ahem, trampling on another artist’s work.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on sami, curiously and commented:
nothing is ever as simple as it seems.
LikeLike
I didnt kbow the history of the bull, but I am very familiar with the bull. Tofay it is nothing more than an expression of Wall Street aggression and everyone knows it in this way. The statue of the girl stands up to what it means now and not what it means then. Apologies to the original artist, but the art he created took on a life of its own, as happens, and its not a globally positive one.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on NC SunDog and commented:
This is an excellent examination of the issues in this situation.
I come down solidylagainst the commercialization of another artist’s work without their expressed permission. That is stealing copyright.
I also think the original artist knew the risk he was taking by abandoning his work in the middle of an extraordinarily busy public place.
LikeLiked by 2 people
And that is a solid point too!
LikeLike
Put her beside the bull – they don’t need to be adversaries to make the point.
The bull already has an adversary, the slumbering or grumpy bear. Economically, a symbol of malaise and hopelessness during hibernation that can hurt you when awakened at the wrong time. Add a bear that they may overcome together.
The Charging Bull is a symbol of the collective strength of the US economy.
The Fearless Girl , a symbol of growing strength as we grow diversity in America.
In a face off they cancel each other out, but side by side they overcome the bear.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Yes, that seems a wonderful idea.
I am not sure if I understand everything about the commerce and the partisan art in this as English is not my native language. But while reading this thought popped up in my mind as well. Add some female strength to this very masculin bull and let them walk down their path together.
LikeLike
Love the idea! Don’t know about the bear part, but these two statutes together will have enormous power of strength, persistence and self esteem! It will be good for men, women and PETA lol
LikeLike
What about asking Di Modica if he agrees on this? It is his art what is being used without his consent. The “marketing girl” is IMO something to be ashamed of, not proud of.
LikeLike
Completely agree! strength is in numbers and multiple minds, talents, and actions combined.
LikeLike
Yeah, that will go over well, Then people can get bent out of shape because the bear will be said to symbolize Russia.
LikeLike
Again, hijacking the original artist’s work.
LikeLike
Simply place a plaque that explains the history and intended meaning of the Bull.
LikeLike
If the statues where facing the same direction…..what a different message it sends. Together facing what my come each as powerful as the other…..together.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great Idea!!!
LikeLike
If what you’ve written is correct, her reason for being there is freshly… but the meaning now is a good one. However the symbol of the bull, made by the love a man for his new country, is beautiful and a proud symbol of America.
Neither meaning was revived as it should have been, but why is her current meaning more important than the bulls? Are they not both about strength? Are they both not about perseverance? Are they both not about respect for oneself? She (not SHE) should be allowed to remain with the bull, but remove whatever signage is on her. Let her meaning speak for itself.
She and The Bull should be placed side-by-side… to symbolize their unity in their fight. They should show they are united in their meanings… not that one is more important than the other.
One should not step on the back of another to raise oneself up or ones cause. If she cannot be moved to show strength and unity innAmerica, She should be moved from the area.
LikeLike
i said the same thing. we should do something about this
LikeLiked by 1 person
If what you’ve written is correct, her reason for being there is freshly… but the meaning now is a good one. However the symbol of the bull, made by the love a man for his new country, is beautiful and a proud symbol of America.
Neither meaning was received as it should have been, but why is her current meaning more important than the bulls? Are they not both about strength? Are they both not about perseverance? Are they both not about respect for oneself? She (not SHE) should be allowed to remain with the bull, but remove whatever signage is on her. Let her meaning speak for itself.
She and The Bull should be placed side-by-side… to symbolize their unity in their fight. They should show they are united in their meanings… not that one is more important than the other.
One should not step on the back of another to raise oneself up or ones cause. If she cannot be moved to show strength and unity innAmerica, She should be moved from the area.
LikeLike
You made some good points right up to the part where you said “I’m not a big fan of capitalism”. That made my think the Girl should stay! Maybe they can somehow incorporate “SHE” into the statue. Then it would be perfect!
LikeLike
Okay, I take your point. History and context change everything.
LikeLike
Di Monica should just remove the bull and let that little girl statue stand there looking dumb all by herself. Can’t really be confident and meaningful standing all by yourself in the street staring down nothing. I think it would make a refreshing statement back at the people that installed the Fearless Girl.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I like a comment made on a page that shared this. Have Arturo should replace the bull with a chalk board with math equations on it.😂
LikeLike
First, as an American woman, I reject the idea that an enraged bull represents my “strength”. All you have to do is put something soft and feminine in front of it to illustrate how deeply patriarchal and aggressive the “charging bull as national symbol” is. The artist’s outraged response to Fearless Girl reflects the depths of his cluelessness about women’s experience of the world. Had he swallowed his outrage, recognized that many great works of art have been created with a commercial imperative (as well as piggybacked on other artists’ work) and taken a moment to share the stage with Fearless Girl’s creator to talk about meanings in art, how they can be interpreted and reinterpreted over time, and highlight new issues, Fearless Girl the McCann-inspired marketing ploy would have been removed in two weeks, just as originally planned. But by acting like, well, an enraged bull, about it, failing to recognise how Fearless Girl resonates, metaphorically, with 50 percent of the world, he’s turning her into a symbol of resistance, and dare I say, a piece of performance art. Foolish man. Sometimes greater strength is derived from softness.
Second, Fearless Girl isn’t advertising just any product, she’s advertising an investment fund that tracks companies with the greatest gender diversity on their boards, on the principle that more diverse companies are more profitable, in aggregate. In the absence of political will to legislate gender equality, some feminist scholars argue that such market-driven initiatives, which advocate the “business case” for gender equality, offer the best shot at breaking the glass ceiling. So, Fearless Girl the marketing ploy is not as shallow as she first appears.
Third, Di Modica has sold version of his bull — symbol of the strength of the American people — to stock exchanges in Amsterdam and Shangai. By the author’s logic, how is this not co-opting the purity of his art to capitalism?
I love the layers in this story. I see the ambiguities. I see Di Modica’s point. But I still hope she stays.
LikeLiked by 2 people
To answer to your post in a way you understand.
I agree with about everyone who commented here, but you.
The girl should stay, but complete the bull, not be in opposition.
As it does not preset YOUR strength, it represents Americas strength.
It is proud and does not back down.
The girl in opposition cuts of the balls of the bull.
Now the comparison that you can relate to:
It would be, as if you would be bond to a chair and your facial and armpit hair would be shaved and you get a tattoo: “i am a good housewife” on your forehead.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Spoken like a true sexist. So afraid that allowing females to exhibit any power or courage will automatically “castrate” men, putting them in the position women have been in for millenia.
LikeLike
Advertising crap.
LikeLike
First off, as an American woman myself I can find my own strength in both the enraged bull and the fearless girl. That should be the point of the art. That no matter race, class, gender, etc., your strength as an American is valued.
LikeLike
“greatest gender diversity on their boards”
Lol a invest fund is more closed to genocide diversity than a gender diversity evry day people surfer and dead becuse of their accion on markets.
LikeLike
If the companies are so diverse it should just be a fearless child (let the individual decised the sex) or a boy and girl? A lot of feminist scholars seem to preach misandry not equality and diversity in any case. There’s so much talk of toxic masculinity and the patriarchy and it’s nonsense in the western world in this day and age. If anything the matriarchy is the issue. Teaching is dominated by females and children are indoctrinated by thr matriarchy from an early age. Women are already protected by more laws than men and the law is generally scewed in their favour; especially in the family courts and sentencing.
LikeLike
There’s always the notion, simplistically, that what’s good for the goose, he plopped down art where ever he wanted why not anyone else. But I also hate corporate commercialism.
LikeLike
he did the first time, but had it removed, and impounded by the state, the people of new york, asked for it to be put back….
LikeLike
The meaning transformation of the Charging Bull could also be seen as a symbolic metaphor to the whole patriarch issue.
LikeLike
that’s the power of capitalism you guys. it takes the meaning of something good and twists it to fit it’s own agenda. if you want to support only more of that evil go ahead. but i won’t stand for a historical peice of activism having it’s meanign destroyed.
LikeLike
I think this article should be put on a brass plaque, some appropriately between the two pieces of art work. And let the people decide, like they did by the Bull. Information is power.
I don’t know what the “right” decision is either. I know I am biased slightly towards one. But I guess I might be an exception
LikeLike
Fearless Girl should be removed. But SHE will not be removed so Arturo Di Modica should send Charging Bull to a museum where future generations can look at the symbol of american strength and a time when the GDP grew by more than 3% per year.
LikeLike
So can i make a bronze statue of a 10 yr old overly confident girl getting easily gored by a bull?
LikeLike
If you have a trillion to back you up, yes, you can.
LikeLike
I find your argument quite persuasive.
LikeLike
Side by side, equality and fearlessness.
LikeLike
Yeah there’s nuance. Such is life. For instance, The US founding fathers were misogynistic slavers. By our standards today, EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. WAS. TRASH. Purity politics are nice in theory.
LikeLike
Or turn them away from each other.
Just as ordinary people and the markets are diverging in entirely different directions.
LikeLike
“completely without permission”. and the public support for the statue led to its permanent installation.
i know you say this guy has a point, but what is the point? why does he have more of a right to the space?
LikeLike
Maybe read his response to have a better understanding? I do not think it is very responsible to post a question asking the author what the point is when he clearly outlines the point in the blog post.
LikeLike
“the Fearless Girl has basically hijacked the meaning of his work”. That´s the point. And not only that but also “the marketing girl” is playing with everyone on a delicate topic. It is a really good viral idea but a bad joke for everyone.
LikeLike
Fearless Girl represents those who are trampled by the American Bull. That may not be the intent of SHE, but there it is. She needs to stay and remind people that there is more to our country than the raging capitalism that tears through the world, and our own communities, and rips them asunder such as happened in 1987 and again in 2009. It’s interesting that since the placement of that bull, we have become a country with less and less of a conscience about our “strength and power”. It needs the Fearless Girl because staring down the face of the powerful is also quintessentially American.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Capitalism in it’s true form is the best economic system the human race has ever seen. However, the problem we have today is that we do not have true capitalism, we have Corporate Capitalism and in all honesty I think if certain political parties had their way, we would move closer to Anarcho-Capitalism.
LikeLike
Pingback: Modern perspective | Is history written by the victors?
Even if the fearless girl statue DOES hijack the meaning of the bull, for those who say “what if someone put a statue there patting the girl’s head making her look foolish” … hijacking the meaning of a man’s statue should be allowed. Hijacking the meaning of a woman’s statue should not. Some comments here have mentioned that museums display works of art side by side all the time. However, they DON’T place them so they intentionally reinterpret each other. But in cases like this they SHOULD, even where they reinterpret each other cartoonishly. Because art shouldn’t have such lofty value. If fact, we would be better as societies if the ridiculous amounts of public money spent supporting museums went to creating better public toilets for women. As for making the artist pay to move the bull … he, and then when he dies his estate … should go broke moving it an infinite number of times when an endless line of people in the future appropriate the meaning of his statue again and again. Men have had all the rights in society for too long. To make things fair, male artists should have all such rights to respect suspended. And being created by a man, the bull as art should not be respected either. Some might call this a lack of respect for art, but art is not important, and lack of respect is the best part of pride, it uplifts us all as women.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s utterly stupid. There is NO REASON to put down one gender in order to uplift your own. That’s not equality. That’s not helpful. That’s not what anyone needs. I hope to god you were being facetious or purposefully inflammatory (troll)
LikeLike
“hijacking the meaning of a man’s statue should be allowed. Hijacking the meaning of a woman’s statue should not.”
This is ignorant
LikeLike
What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
LikeLike
Man that’s deep on so many levels. The more you analyse it the deeper you go into what’s wrong and right in society. These two statues can stand for and represent so much – so many different topics – it all depends on the colour of the glasses each individual is looking through. I find the girl statues real motivation for being their deplorable – but at the same time what an amazing depiction of what this generation represents in consumerism and corporate marketing genius. However it gives genuine inspiration to half of the population – potentially representing the atrength and contribution that woman can make – making its greater good far out weight it’s evil side… ?? but is its negative connections even evil? or just an amazing piece of awerness art that actually highlights corporate ownership of everything.
LikeLike
Maybe they could move her to stand beside the bull! Even a bit in front to his right. Like she’s going to protect him! Or lead the fight! Join the bull, keep her power, and as a nasdaq SHE, it kind of makes sense for her to be on the bull’s side as he barrels into the future of a strong US economy. Win/win!
LikeLike
This statue is bullshit lol woman has more rights then any man does in this county, if this statue wanted to make a point, bring it to Iraq, or any third world country….
LikeLike
Hahahahahahaha!!!!! 🤣🤣🤣”I’m not a fan of capitalism”…. The author of this article likely typed these words while taking advantage of free WiFi provided by a profitable company, while he himself refuses to do work that advances or supports society, and thinks that blogging is a career.
LikeLike
There are plenty other places where more girls are likely to see it.
LikeLike
The fact that I had absolutely NO idea that SHE meant an investment fund and wasn’t just in capitals to emphasize the word within the sentence makes the statue a total failure as an advertising stunt. Although I already knew it was commissioned by a Wall Street firm, but the articles that I read did not mention SHE at all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The fact that I had absolutely NO idea that SHE meant an investment fund and wasn’t just in capitals to emphasize the word within the sentence makes the statue a total failure as an advertising stunt. Although I already knew it was commissioned by a Wall Street firm, but the articles that I read did not mention SHE at all.”
Uh, no, it doesn’t. Your ignorance has no bearing on the issue at all, as you are not the intended audience. The stock traders who pass those works every day, however, who are the intended audience, know full well what the reference is. The only people who have any relevance as to the success or failure of the piece are the target audience, and that ain’t you.
LikeLike
Nice entry.
LikeLike
Surely, if it’s an advertising campaign, it’s a terrible one, because so few people knew the history? Meaning is not entirely dependent on intention. Luckily.
Yes, a commercial entity hijacked the artistic method to produce this piece. However, in doing so they took a risk, and it did not pay off, because the surrounding culture hijakced it right back and ignored their involvement.
As for Di Modica, if I were him, I would be pleased that my art was still inspiring discussion and conversation, even if it is not the conversation I intended. I would participate, and say, “Well, when I made it, it was a protest, but that was literally 30 years ago, it has become normalised and somewhat institutionalised, and now it has become a symbol of that which I intended it to resist. That in itself is fascinating and worth discussing, and I understand why it would then itself become something prone to opposition.”
LikeLike
I have an idea.
Since this is about two distinctive pieces, I think I have an idea that could satisfy both parties. Since the stock market is often seen as both a bull (when it is good) and a bear (when it is bad), have standing girl face a bear instead. Just add another statue… perhaps between the two. 🙂
LikeLike
Now Di Monica could make a statue of an evictioner in front of the girl as a representation of NASDAQ, and the bull was to protect the girl 😀
LikeLike
You can’t just take someone’s meaning full art and change the whole concept of it for commercial gain. Certainly not without the original artists permission. It turns my stomach.
LikeLike
Charging Bull artist Di Modica has made money off of his statue for decades. If you want to photograph the bull for commercial use, you contact his lawyer and you pay up. I haven’t been able to afford it. Sure, it was originally guerilla street art, but it’s pure capitalism now. The Girl statue is capitalist, but that is only a valid argument if Charging Bull is first gifted to the people. Right now, both are capitalist symbols owned by private for profit businesses. By Di Modica’s argument that the girl violates his copyright, I’d like to counter that the bull violates the copyright of the statues personifying the continents behind the bull in front of The National Museum of The American Indian. Those however are in the public domain. Nevertheless, a work’s copyright does not extend beyond its’ borders.
LikeLike
Thank you for the detailed background story that changes what we see.
LikeLike
Hi! I’m from Russia and I want to say the following(sorry for my bad english). I was completely ignorant about the history of those statues, but when I saw the whole composition, the first impression was – the composition symbolizes the strength of human beeing spirit. The bull is a power of nature, and the child is power of human’s spirit. Yes, the girl changes the meaning of Charging Bull, but the she doesn’t change the meaning in whole – the power of human beeing spirit.
LikeLike
I would really turn the girl against them. Use her as real guerrilla art. Take the little girl and place her in front of State Street Global Advisors offices to demonstrate that she is indeed fearless of those who wanted to manipulate her and use her for their own benefit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A few points are missing:
1. Santa Claus has the look we know because of Coca Cola. Doesn’t make him an ad. Because the image outperformed the brand and became a thing of tis own. Same thing happening here – unless you insist on perpetuating the ad by writing about it, which you do.
2. The Bull may have been intended as a symbol of the American spirit. Many things that seemed to represent the beauty of the American spirit have actually become symbols of an oppressive, cruel America that bullies others around the world and its own citizens. Today the Bull is controversial, to say the least. The FGirl only underlines that – she makes it obvious.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Beautifully written and well articulated.
LikeLike
Far more power is in our hands – the onlookers, viewers, readers of art – because we are the creators of meaning once the moment of the artist/sculptor/poet/writer has passed. The Artist-God creates a one-off, then steps into history; our interpretations go on and on, every time we confront a work of art. That goes for both the bull and the girl in this case. The Artist-God’s intention slips away and our reading takes over. If a corporation funds a statue of a girl as part of an advertising campaign, and WE subvert it by interpreting it as a symbol of feminism or some such, then tough luck for the corporation! That’s how art works.
LikeLike
I think what is interesting here is both artists intentions and even the commercial intention of NASDAQ are not widely known. Fearless girl has become a symbol of not only for gender equality, but a symbol of the power of the people. She cares and she will stop the bull, now the symbol for wall street, (as appropriated by the Occupy Wall Street Movement), the home of white collar thieves and people who are destroying the planet for profit, from taking the wealth of the nation and crippling the economy. This kind of double edged meaning reminds me of the painting ‘Oath of the Horatii’, when it was presented to the king, whom had also commissioned it, it was seen as a sign of loyalty and the pledge to the continuation of his reign, but for the rest of the population it was read as a call to revolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jacques-Louis_David_-_Oath_of_the_Horatii_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg
LikeLike
Place fearless girl next to the bull, facing the same direction and she takes on a whole new meaning; she or SHE (however you want to look at it) becomes united with the bull (the people). It’s not perfect, but it’s better.
LikeLike
I have a solution. Erect a third exposition there – a plaque that has the text of this blog article inscribed on it, with the headline “Look beneath the surface”.
LikeLike