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. At least the fearless girl taught me the author of Charging Bull and its story, which meant for me nothing but the aggressiveness and threat of the financial world. One thing is for sure: even though the bull is already worldwide known -mainly because of its location-, the girl made it even more famous and, thank to this article, better understood.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  2. How about removing the SHE plaque, would Modica agree? If the bull was a thing I created and then somebody or some big corporation comes and just interacts with my own work I would just love that. I think gives more meaning and power to the whole thing, the bull was so powerful and attratcive representing whatever Modica wanted to be that it attracts others to make a fine sculpture and put it there too, isn’t that just wonderful?

    Like

    Reply ↓

  3. Thank you. I too like Fearless Girl for her (almost too) obvious meaning – but have always felt uneasy with her position in relation to the Bull, somehow usurping his thunder (apposite to both genders). Now I know why.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  5. I see people suggesting they be placed side-by-side, I’d say something different. Put the girl behind the bull, as she is now, facing away (rather than at its butt.. :D).
    A representation of the strength of America standing back-to-back with a representation of women and girls, that’s a powerful symbol to me.
    And yes, if this wasn’t a advertising scheme, but someone genuinely trying to make a statement, I’d see this in a vastly different light.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  7. I think she should just be moved to stand WITH the bull instead of against him. Then it’s the strength and power of America and its little girls charging together.

    Liked by 8 people

    Reply ↓

    • Standing with the bull also hijacks Di Modica’s work. To properly solve the problem is easy. The Fearless Girl statue should be moved to another location. The corporation should hire Kristen Visbal to make another version of Charging Bull for her Fearless Girl statue. ( or another representation of America) This should satisfy everyone involved, except the corporation as they would have to shell out more for another statue.
      SHE should also be un-capitalized to remove the marketing from the sentence, “SHE makes a difference”. This is where the company hijacks an important message with a double meaning. Would the corporation do that? After all, is the company more concerned with women’s strength or selling SHE stock?

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply ↓

      • Disagree.. it does not take away from the symbolism at all . And unless you want to go into the national Gallery and remove all pieces except for one , understand our art live harmoniously together. This has to do with the male ego, I guarantee if it was a little boy people would not be giving it such an issue . Any argument that that the girl gives the poor or negative connotation you can easily say the same about the bull. Unless you want to remove both. The little girl symbolic meaning that stands behind a new part of Wall Street .

        Liked by 1 person

      • That’s what is great about freedom of speech. Being able to freely disagree.
        When you see the bull and little girl together does it send a message? When you see the bull alone do you see the same message? No, obviously not. I rest my case.

        Like

      • So by your point of view it would be acceptable to put a moustache on the Mona Lisa to promote prostate cancer awareness?

        Like

      • This isn’t a gallery where one is expected to move from piece to piece so your comparison is flawed. The Fearless Girl was clearly placed to draw meaning from Di Modica’s work and that’s wrong.
        As a last resort, if I were Di Modica I would turn the bull to face the other direction.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Contra Amber victoria, I guarantee that if the statue was a little boy (advertising a stock with the symbol HIM), no one would be defending it. SHE has gained support and publicity by exploiting a legitimate feminist message for commercial purposes.

        Liked by 2 people

      • I like your answer best. It’s a good solution to a difficult situation, created by SHE. So SHE should pay for relocation and whatever beast SHE should face.

        Like

      • I agree with you Richard. Amber, I can guarantee that the artist would be raising the same complaints if it was a little boy instead of a little girl. I’m sorry that your ego is so fragile that you attribute opposition to this to the male ego. As the author of the post above points out, the inclusion of the girl isn’t just a simple appropriation of the original work but causes a redefinition of the original work. The statue needs to go. All the more so because it’s nothing more than a publicity stunt my an investment fund that doesn’t even live up to what they’re pushing.

        Like

    • Little girl is about to get her butt stomped by an angry bull, and she is not smart enough to realize this. That’s what I see.

      Like

      Reply ↓

  9. Pingback: Fearless Girl - @andymci

  10. Great article and I appreciate the history because it changes for me everything. If I were the artist I would take my bull and place it somewhere where it still had meaning. I always thought the bull was to represent the bull market since it was on Wall Street. Thanks for the history lesson.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

    • my thoughts exactly! Then the girl looks like she is pouting about not getting the bull’s attention. However it is appropriate where it is; Women lust after money, power, and control as much or more than men do and that is what the bull stands for.

      Advertising and marketing are not fine art. The bull is high conceptual art.

      Like

      Reply ↓

  13. This is a fascinating story and a brilliant piece, thanks for writing it.
    I’m with Di Modica (and you).
    Context (and story) is everything although these days somehow it has less and less weight. This was going on before Trump and before Twitter but both Trump and Twitter have certainly added a lot of fuel to the fire.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  14. I absolutely agree. I love the message and the idea of “fearless girl”, but hate that she is an advertisement for a mutual fund. Would people still be supportive of some new art if it used Di Modica’s bull to sell Red Bull?

    Like

    Reply ↓

  17. Would we be okay if Absolut commissioned an artist to add a hand holding a Cosmo to the Mona Lisa?
    It could portray a comment on how modern day women are confident, and independent, and have found ways to deal with the stress of being leaders.
    Would we be okay with the fact it fundamentally changes the meaning of the painting?
    …And, at least we’d know what she was smiling about.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply ↓

  18. I say remove the girl. Leaving it supports the idea that businesses can just come along and use the bull (or anything else) as part of their free marketing campaign. If you keep the girl, where do you draw the line when the next thing comes along? “Oh, it’s OK to have a girl for International Women’s Day, but not a little black boy for Black History Month?” (et al)

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  19. I appreciate your point. And I would add this: all art is a reflection of society. Charging bull has meaning in the context and times it was created. Time has moved on, and fearless girl is a reflection of today’s context. The funding for it is irrelevant, we should simply enjoy an enormously meaningful work of art, relevant to the world today.

    Like

    Reply ↓

      • Agreed. This artist. This living human being who is an artist, created this bull for a reason. The fact that it’s not written on his right side doesn’t change it.
        Time doesn’t change it.

        The scripts on a wall of a cave doesn’t change their meaning just because our society changed. We use them to study the times they were painted.

        Art is, when ready, unchanging. The bull was created for reason A. It should be recognized for this reason until the end of times.

        If they wanted a Fearless Girl statue to demonstrate the power of women truly (and believe me, that is a statue I would take a whole day watching carefully just to enjoy each detail), they should have made a Fearless Girl and another treat, like a car, or boat, or anything like it.

        The Fearless Girl can still be Fearless if she is facing anything potentially dangerous, it doesn’t need to be the bull. It doesn’t need to change the bull’s reasons to be created.

        But it did.

        Liked by 1 person

      • potentially relevant in court, concerning ownership or copyright… but not in public space where his piece will take on different meanings depending on the eye of the beholder. ;) in other words the meaning of his piece does not belong to him… Can you imagine Picasso suing people over misunderstanding or misrepresenting his work??

        Like

    • This is why many people dislike this kind of feminism. Basically, you ask for respect but you don’t have respect for others. The man is still alive and you already cannot wait to vandalise his work? There are more than one way to prove that you are fearless, why do you choose to step on a man’s romance?

      Like

      Reply ↓

  20. In 2004, Di Modica announced that the bull sculpture was for sale, on condition the buyer does not move it from its present location. Di Modica continues to own the artistic copyright to the statue.[3] In 2006, Di Modica sued Wal-Mart and other companies for illegally benefiting from his copyright, by selling replicas of the bull and using it in advertising campaigns.[15] In 2009, Di Modica sued Random House for using a photo of the bull on the cover of a book discussing the collapse of financial services firm Lehman Brothers.[16]

    Like

    Reply ↓

  21. Agreed. Personally, as a strong and fearless woman, the statue of the girl conveys more defiance than fearlessness.
    It would have been more powerful if the little girl stood alongside the bull, fearlessly…like Big Daddy Bioshock and Little Sister. (Ok I’m a nerdy, strong, fearless woman) 😉

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  24. As an artist, Who had this idea over 20 years ago when looking at the bull for her first time. I was talking to a wall street man when I had the idea and I told him about my symbolism an idea about it. Everyone views the little girl this week precious and fragile where did it break . I feel a little girl strong agile tenacious the ability to stand her ground and proceed forward. This is it no threat to the bull. the little girl has no weapon and she is definitely not scared. It’s not a threat to the symbolism either they’re two completely different things metaphorically. If you were feeling it nonmetaphorically and negatively then it becomes with the artist of the bull is transpiring. I remember the man saying that’s a creative great ,when I make my millions he’s going to put that girl there. I asked him how i would hear about. He said trust me you will. So artist of bull fear not . Your symbols about Wall Street so is little girl.. so unless your saying bull is wrong symbol I suggest leave the little girl alone or both be removed. And but big plaque on ground explaining it inbetween them. We people stand in pen anyway.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  25. If Di Modica never received permission to install his work, and if he does not own or have any official rights to that public space, then what point does he have exactly? Sure, the new statue alters the effect of his bull, but so what?

    Aside from the control issue, it’s fine that he had the motives that he had, but I doubt most observers see the bull as a symbol of the American people. They likely see it as a symbol of Wall Street and American capitalists only, not the general public.

    I don’t really see his point. Not at all. The girl changes the meaning of his statue but he doesn’t have any rights to control that public space and most people likely misinterpret the meaning of the bull statue in the first place.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  26. Well. That’s the funny thing about art. Once it is out there, once it has left the artists hands, its interpretation and meaning are left to,the viewer. One cannot control how art is viewed. One can have intention, but it exists only as a starting point for us to wander from. Sorry. Advertising or not, placed where she is SHE has meaning for a large segment of the culture in which she exists beyond that intended by any of her creators.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  27. Like all public art, particularly sculpture, it’s location, location, location – a sense of place. The sculpture plays off it’s surrounding, and vice versa. In this case the power of the bull represents the power of financial world, (for better or worse), figuratively its power is diminished by the girl, it even appears to be swerving his charge to avoid her. And if she was there by herself, the power of her defiant stance would be greatly diminished, she might be viewed simply as fun or playful. Viewed together, and in that location, they take on a significantly different meaning than if they were separate. They need each other, just like the financial bulls need the rest of us, but how often they try to avoid us!

    Like

    Reply ↓

  28. Could not agree more. I think it was great that “She” was there for the March and now it’s time to move her to a different place. As an art piece, “She” will still stand strong.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  29. Fearless girl is a misnomer.

    Woman live in fear, why do you think they want to get married so badly?

    Answer: SECURITY.

    The writer fails to mention this is basically CORPORATISM run amok.

    Corporatism is the unholy alliance of Big Government and Big Corporate.

    The fact DeBlasio supports this piece of corporate art, simply because it supports his political agenda, should be a red flag to those who support this mayor and his hypocritical ideology.

    Politician LOVE big corporations

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  31. You see that’s the thing about public art…. it’s public! whether and artist finances his own exposure or wether it was funded by public money… it’s there making a statement that will find different echoes according to the environnement/society/culture it’s exposed in… A fearless girl confronting the idea of a “raging machist capitalist american bull” is exactly what public art is all about!! A slap in the face of an idéology that has no more sustainability in a new world… it’s not a compleasant glorification of everything that’s wrong in our financialized world disorder.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  32. An artist cannot own the meaning or interpretation of their artwork. They can say how they see it and what they meant by it. But they cannot define other interpretations. In Wall St, a bull will be and has been associated with a bull market. The charging bull is also associated with being headstrong (‘bullish’) and careless (‘bull in a china shop’). In the light of rampant short-termism in the stock market and associated irresponsibility of investment banks, the bull can be interpreted as a sign of a ‘financial system out of control’. The SHE fund is calling for more women on boards of publicly owned businesses. The evidence is that a more mixed Board makes for better management – and perhaps more long-term thinking. So another interpretation of the two statues facing each other is: this fearless girl is standing up to the charging bull of mainstream stock markets and calling for a fairer world with better run businesses. Yes, State Street is a commercial capitalist venture. So is all of Wall Street, including whatever he intended it to mean, di Modica’s bull. (I covered the fearless girl on our company site: http://junxion.com/womens-day-2017-courage-leadership-equality/).

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  33. Why can’t they both represent America? Just because a plaque says something doesn’t mean we can’t take our own interpretation of its meaning. We have a strong bull figure (masculine) and a fearless woman figure( feminine) facing off in a time where our country is divided in so many ways. Each represent our people in many ways yet gain power on both accounts being involved with each other.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  35. Good Story. “…not a fan of capitalism…”? as in not a fan of crony capitalism? or are you opposed to true capitalism and free markets that have done more good for more humans on earth than all other efforts combined?

    Like

    Reply ↓

    • Also the same capitalism which is responsible for all of the computers, mobile devices, Internet networks and web sites which allow for the author’s self righteous platform to be propagated.

      Like

      Reply ↓

  36. The writer is assuming Di Modica’s stated intent is relevant. DM said he wanted the bull to represent “the strength and power of the American people”. However, the bull also represents Wall Street greed and excess, and also symbolizes the divide between the financial sector and the greater American public. Even if that wasn’t DM’s intent, that’s where we are.

    Similarly, although the new statue is meant to advertise a fund, it has taken on additional meanings which add to its value. I would guess that almost all of the people who interact with the statue will not end up buying shares of the SHE fund, and they will not move positions from Vanguard to State Street. In other words, since the statue is ineffective advertising, maybe it’s something entirely different.

    The writer also points out that the girl’s presence by the bull is the only thing that makes her significant. He forgets to mention that the bull’s presence in the financial district is the only thing that makes it significant. The bull draws its power from Wall Street, just like the girl draws her power from the bull. The criticism works both ways.

    Should the girl be removed to appease DM? Hell no. No. Absolutely not. If he doesn’t want his piece next to a new piece, he can take his home. It’s not the Statue of Liberty. It’s not the Liberty Bell. It’s not Mount Rushmore. It’s a cool part of NYC, and NYC will move on if it leaves.

    If the grumpy old artist is really a fan of the strength and power of the American people, he should celebrate anything that promotes that ideal.

    The writer repeats that DM has a point, but never states what he thinks DM’s point is. The writer also passes on the chance to make a position of his own – he safely straddles the fence. Maybe that’s why he is getting metaphorically spanked.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

    • I absolutely agree. You’ve said exactly what I wanted to say, and I would like to especially agree with what you said here: “the bull also represents Wall Street greed and excess”. That’s all the bull has EVER symbolized for me. I’m in my late twenties, and the only instances of the bull I’ve ever seen in pop culture are ones negatively associated with greed, shady Wall Street business practices, and power at any cost mentality. The artist’s original meaning has been completely lost for a large number of people.

      And art that is left to be interacted with by the public is subject to the public’s view of it. If the majority of people view it in a different way, then the meaning of it changes. Yes the girl statue is payed for by a corporation, but the public’s knowledge of this is not widespread. And I agree that people visiting the statue are not going to go out and buy shares. So, once again, the public’s view of the girl statue is different from the artist’s (or in this case the financial backers). And it’s the general public’s collective view of the art that really matters.

      If DM wanted his bull statue to never change meaning or purpose he should have sold it to a stodgy museum and put a big pretentious plaque explaining exactly what it means next to it. It could have remained unchanged and become irrelevant in peace.

      Like

      Reply ↓

  38. Art is representative of life (and vice versa). In the real world nothing remains unchallenged and the status quo never remains the status quo. So why should Charging Bull be any different. The placement of Fearless Girl certainly changes the dynamics of the original exhibit…and such is life. The piece is well done even if it done as an advertisement. I, for one, got more out of the discussion of the interaction between the two art pieces than I will ever get out of the interloper, SHE, as an advertisement.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  39. This is not “Fearless Girl” this is “Stupid Girl”. Taking on a charging bull is ridiculous. Respect nature. I get the symbolism but agree it detracts from the entire, original meaning of the charging bull.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  40. The only problem I have with this is one of the main points is people claim that it changes the meaning of the bull. (Main point in this article)
    Except the girl doesn’t change the meaning of the bull. For that to be the case the bull would need to still be seen in a positive light.
    There is not a single person I know in my age group or younger who views the bull in a positive light. The Bull has come to represent capitalism and corporate greed. I have never been shown this bull and been told positive things about it simply that it represents Wall Street. And in many cases people say it is exactly what is wrong with the country now.
    So saying that the girl changes the bull into a negative image when it has already been changed into a negative image by the Changing Times makes it a false statement.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  41. The fearless girl, while it carries positive message, is wrong in my eyes. It has, as the writer has said, hijacked a piece of art that was created by a single artist. And it was created by a company as part of a market campaign.
    It has stolen something and changed the meaning of a genuine piece of art. I’m with the artist of the Charging Bull in this one; it is his art, and he own it, and most importantly he clearly didn’t want the message it holds to change.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  42. The fact is that in people’s mind the bull’s meaning is not the strength of US people but the strength of Wall Street… The Bull market. Di Moca’s original meaning has already changed. Long ago.
    The fearless girl should stay even if she has been commissioned and is there to sell SHE.
    Most of the people have no idea what is SHE. They think it is “she”. The two statues are telling a story.
    Just because of their expressiveness. It becomes a dialogue between a bull (market) and a little girl who has enough confidence to face it fearless. Or another story.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  43. And that’s the **entire** point. Being a fearless girl is ….. complicated. Only with the approval of the “establishment” does she get to be there, but homegirl doesn’t care who the hell sponsored her or what anyone says, the only way in is through some subversive infiltration of some board of dudes, knowing that if they believe they can commodify & exploit her for their own means & gains they will install her & use her. But she’s there and here is the impact: MORE FEARLESS GIRLS. So who is the fool here? I can’t wait for the day this kind of infiltration is wholly unnecessary but unfortunately this is (still) one of the most effective ways to get to places where power plays. The message she sends is worth the price she paid to get there, and your demonization of her ways and means.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  44. Pingback: “Charging Bull” versus “Fearless Girl,” and Ideological Diversity in Legal Academia – In A Crowded Theater

  45. I can’t believe I’m saying this, but leave it as it is. I hated that statue until I read your article and now I’ve completely changed my mind. It represents the delusional, politically correct, identity politic nonsense of generation V (vapid) standing directly in the path of American greatness. The irony of these clowns rallying behind an advertising slogan and a PR ploy is truly priceless.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  46. DiModica does have a point but I think it has more to do with his ego than with art. His “guerilla art” has become a part of the scenery. Although a subversive advertising ploy, Fearless Girl is just as much guerilla art. The two together make for interesting debate, conversation, narrative, and quirky NYC history. DiModica should enjoy the fresh attention to his work.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  47. I totally agree with you, your point about the irony how Fearless Girl came into existance is really interesting and remarkable.

    But in the end I would prefer that a piece of art that takes its own share of public space should be,,well, open source (I term I borrow from software engineering). If it’s in a museum, okay, it is conserved and it’s meaning documented in the official catalogue. But standing on the ground that should be here for the people, this people should have the freedom to re-interpret it – without consideration if this interpretation comes from a poor artist with high moral standards or a greedy hedge-fonds (just for the example, no parallels to the current case).

    Nobody is forced to follow the re-interpration, even not di Modica, and the application of, in my humble opinon, shady law tools to protect art from re-interpration is nothing I would support.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  48. So, what we basically have here is art taking on commerce in the Temple of Commerce, and commerce taking on art in A Public Space.

    I think that both artists (and the capitalists, and the public) are well served by the disclosure about the commercial aspect of the second statue.

    If anything, it makes it a more nuanced and rich debate about the contradictions of art, commerce, power, gender, and public spaces.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  49. You didn’t explore what the Gender Diversity Index is. It’s a mutual fund that invests in companies with a high ratio of women executives. “State Street Global Advisors launched SHE to promote gender diversity and to harness the potential long-term outperformance of firms with gender-diverse leadership,” according to its own description. Does that have no value? The fund invests in all sectors of the economy; the tech sector can certainly use whatever boost a fund like this could give it to foster gender equality. Of course there are a lot of complications around a mutual fund making money off people who want to “invest with a conscience,” but it’s at least worth exploring.

    Like

    Reply ↓

Leave a reply to rwanderman Cancel reply