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 
De Modica could also simply turn the Bull around and completely negate the aim of the blatantly corporatist bastardization of his art. Then the girl would only be braving the Bull’s dust!
LikeLike
Turning the bull around would negate the other artist’s work which is also unfair to her. Maybe that would be fair as she hijacked his work but I do like her message. She just needs to re-locate it somewhere entirely different out of respect for another artist. Of course, she isn’t the one calling the shots. It’s the big corporation that hired her.
LikeLike
Seriously, he can go to hell.
Fearless Girl DOESN’T change the meaning of Charging Bull. SHE REVEALS IT. Charging Bull stands for the American ruling class, who have been working hard at CRUSHING the American worker for nearly 40 years, under the guise of representing “the strength and power of the American people.” To hell with that. Wall Street isn’t “the American people” and doesn’t give a damn about “the American people.” AND IT’S ABOUT TIME THE AMERICAN PEOPLE STOOD UP TO THEM.
If he doesn’t like it, let him take his BULL and go home.
LikeLiked by 1 person
First, we all thank you for assuming the position of flag bearer of truth. Where would we all be as a species without you declaring for others what their art means?
Second, good job not RTFA. The statue that can best be said to be standing for “the American ruling class” is the one commissioned and paid for by them: “Fearless Girl”.
LikeLike
Fearless Girl’s meaning changed soon after she was placed. Charging Bull’s meaning also changed. It came to represent Wall St and money & power… the 1% essentially. It is our Davida vs the Goliath – so apt. The beauty of art is that it has the ability to change with time & perspective.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And this is why a statue of cowering KKK members should be placed directly behind the girl so that it looks like the girl is protecting racists from the bull. In this new appropriation, the girl would be the defender of white supremacy and the bull would be heroic in trying to take down bigotry. By making this practice of revisionism legit, everything is fair game.
LikeLike
What about simply moving the bull behind the girl? It is his art at the end,and it is illegal –>> therefore,moving it a few meters closer to the stock market would both keep the original intent as well as remove the current (added) context of charging on the ‘fearless girl’. At the same time, it would remove the power that the global adverstising company is feeding on from the bull,while not actually removing (or directly opposing) the statue of the little girl and “girl power”. Simple as.
LikeLike
Why would you move the art that people had fought to represent! Move the advertisements!
LikeLike
Its easy- make a nice bronze statue of a fan and install it in front of the girl facing her- now she’s merely basking in the breeze from the fan.
LikeLike
I thought, for sure, this would be a temporary installation. It makes more of a point that way. Permanently, it loses its statement, because a girl OR a boy should be fearless. Plus, it’s a marketing tool, which is usually not supposed to last forever.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The obvious solution, that takes nothing from either and gives power to both, is is to simply move the girl to the bulls side facing the same direction that he does… a duo of force…
Respecting both, providing unity in meaning….
It is just that simple.
Look for what they share in their intentions….take the intended confrontation from the focus, unite them in the fierceness they represent…
LikeLiked by 5 people
See my solution would be to re-do Fearless Girl as RIDING the bull, pointing onward, teamwork of the fearless and the strong steed.
Of course that’d be a modifcation of the original artwork and cause other problems, heh.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Ideas. Shots. Imaginations..
LikeLike
Great article. Generous and well written. If public art, guerrilla art, and at its best clever advertising is designed to make you think and draw you into a narrative why not cast the basic points of the history and dilemma laid out above – including the comment “Men who don’t like women taking up space…” in a series of plaques next to charging bull and fearless girl. It would allow each party to have the point of their work presented and for people to be challenged to think differently.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well put Jolyon: Art doing what it should ,engendering discussion and debate
LikeLiked by 1 person
I applaud State Street for putting the girl there. I knew who put it there right from the start, and I still found it inspiring. For any corporation or politician to stand up for women’s rights, which are taking a bashing right now, along with so many other groups, I have to applaud.
LikeLiked by 1 person
They aren’t standing up for women’s rights. Otherwise it would read “She” not “SHE”.
LikeLike
So instead of the bull representing power and strength of the people you demonize the bull?
What do you have against animals? The bull doesn’t even represent man or woman but their strength as Americans, and this little girl is trying to stop it.
LikeLike
There is much art in the world that was corporate funded. “Fearless Girl” is still art and as I’ve heard of this installation before yet I never knew the back story. I think many or most never will. What they experience is a Fearless Girl standing before a charging bull. Each will assign meaning, I also sympathize with Di Monica that the meaning of his guerrilla art has been replaced with something different. As a lover of guerrilla art I hope he will embrace this other work as an evolution of thought. Perhaps the symbolism will rise above whatever circumstance brought it into existence,
LikeLiked by 1 person
Since it’s (Charging Bull) guerrilla art,
& still owned by the artist, can he simply move it? As long as the bull is charging towards to right destination, it still retains its message. But, if Fearless Girl isn’t in the way, it doesn’t subvert his work.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have an idea, have another Statue about to push the girl out of the way saving her from danger.
The girl may be fearless but she’s also overconfident, she’s going to get killed and for what? She isn’t protecting anyone, the bull was there first so she clearly got in it’s way, why is she bothering the animal?
Having a statue about to push her out of the way will show that you shouldn’t put yourself in danger to be brave but to save someone else’s life.
LikeLike
It totally subverts his work. If the bull was meant to be the symbol of strength and power of the people (not a gender) despite hardship, then the fact that a gender equality based statue is facing it down with hands on hips changes that meaning drastically. It immediately makes the bull an antagonist in this drama, something to be stood up to. What is the girl standing up to? “The power and resilience of the American people”? I doubt that’s the intent, because that makes the “fearless girl” a terrible image. Who would stand up to such an objectively good symbol? Maybe ISIS (and no, I’m not comparing the fearless girl to ISIS). But if this clearly feminist based symbol is fearlessly standing up to this bull, there must be a reason right? Could the bull (a male of the species, representative of power) be a symbol of the patriarchy now? That forces perspective on the bull’s artist’s work. It’s less open to interpretation and doesn’t allow it to align as well with his original meaning.
The ‘fearless girl’ was also placed there well AFTER the bull statue. By an organization worth $2.4 TRILLION. This isn’t the Sicilian immigrant sculptor who defied restrictions and used his own money and time to create it. And, despite the fact that the corporation could afford a thousand “fearless girl” statues and place them almost anywhere with that kind of money, they chose this spot. And they still used it to market a product.
Maybe you’re right and this doesn’t subvert his meaning. It does something worse. It hijacks it altogether.
I hope that one or the other goes. Maybe they’ll put the girl next to the bull, but I doubt it. There’s a stand to be made, a message to uphold. I’d be upset if I was the artist as well.
And, no, this isn’t a “I or anyone else feels threatened” comment. You could have put this anywhere to make a stand. Face the White House for the next four years, face the Supreme Court, face the stock exchange and big corporate. But the bull? Eh.
LikeLike
I would place the girl next to the bull.
LikeLike
The city has said it’s not permanent. So, you can feel proud like you’ve done something when they remove it.
LikeLike
Pingback: Art Doing What Art Does - Fearless Girl Makes Us Reflect, Evolve | Kallmaker.com
Appropriating art work from the original design idea is good for all of us to understand why it changes the meaning of the original. In this case, the charging bull has a different meaning as the fearless girl came on to the pavement and interacts with the bull. Since they are both public art works, no one owns the space and it becomes a matter for the owners of the work to decide if they want to leave or stay.
A living room can take on a different meaning according to the wall decorations and furniture placed in the space. The owner of the home, owns the space.
What this does for all of us is open up conversation about public art work and how it is valued, devalued, requirements, and appropriation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Flip the bull to face the other direction. 🙂
LikeLike
I think the “girl” sculpture has been denigrated by making it a feminist issue. She represents a great compliment to the Bull and being a so much better executed figurative piece it is no wonder the bull sculptor wants it removed as it shames his effort. I’d say, though that the two pieces work very well together and to me the girl represents a resistance to the brutish nature of modern capitalism – She is a much needed icon these days.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for your article – it’s good to get “the rest if the story.” Fearless Girl needs a different home, so she can morph into people’s ideal vision of what she can stand for, even if they do not know her history. Time for her to show her own worth without piggy-backing on that of another. Isn’t that part of the “idealized” point?
LikeLike
I think The God who brought this country into existence has a sense of humor. The proud He will humble. That’s what got Lucifer kicked out of heaven. America has become a very arrogant country, not all people, against God. It has been lifting itself up above and against The God of the universe for a long time. Pride goes before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall the Word of God says. That is what we r seeing in this country today. And the bigger they r the harder they fall. Yes how ironic, a great big bad bull symbolizing what “WE” have accomplished, not Our God’s blessings, because we put Him first in our live and country and a small child boy or girl having faith in God to face the bad giant. Yeah I think my God has a great sense of humor. The stupid things we quibble over. How childish. Grow up and serve God Our maker. Up for the challenge? Go for it, see what God can and will do in ur life. Without Him we r nothing but lost souls headed in the wrong direction.
LikeLike
God didn’t bring this country into existence any more or less than an any other country; God doesn’t care any more or less about this country than any other country. You don’t appear to understand the first thing about God.
LikeLike
Your god had literally nothing to do with bringing this country into existence, tired sloganeering notwithstanding.
LikeLike
What if Fearless Girl was standing to the left of the bull, a symbol of strength together?
LikeLike
Greg, I agree with you. He indeed has a solid beef. (excuse the pun) If I were the bull’s artist. Since it is on loan. I’d remove it to a place where it would be appreciated for its intrinsic value.
LikeLike
I think the Utah State Aggies should offf to buy the bull
LikeLiked by 1 person
This guy totally has a point. But I will say that the fearless girl doesn’t necessarily change the bull’s purpose to “an aggressive threat to women and girls — a symbol of patriarchal oppression.” (Possibly this misperception could be conceived by some, maybe even most; but generally artists know better than to come in clearly to the masses) I think the little girls’ presence maintains the artists intention of the bull; the strength and power of the American people. The little girl literally serves as a reminder that women stand up proud and reserve the right of inclusion in that strength and power. Her stance doesn’t suggest her ability to defeat the bull, as much as it suggests that she can learn to charge with him and hold her own while doing it. If only she wasn’t an installed as an ad, that is super lame😕….
LikeLiked by 1 person
I appreciate this explanation of the history of the original statue and the origin of the new one. But I cannot agree that the charging bull ever simply represented “the strength and power of the American people.” A charing bull IS a symbol of patriarchal oppression.
LikeLike
Never has a little girl–real or fictional–so threatened grown men.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Project much?
LikeLike
proof? joan of arc?
LikeLike
It is also threatening women, but that is offset by the empowerment it supplies as well. To man, the empowerment is beside the point and the commercialization and the context irks – the strength of the American people is set as opposed with women’s interests (yes, interests). Why are these two things in opposition?
LikeLike
I guess you didn’t read the above article.
LikeLike
Guessing is usually unwise. In two earlier comments, I noted that the author missed crucial context: The bull is an ill-advised choice of symbol for criticizing Wall Street. Di Modica isn’t much of an artist if he thinks Charging Bull stands in opposition to bull markets. It stands in sympathy. A 1901 cartoon depicted JP Morgan as a bull awaiting eager investors, and when share prices are rising and encouraging buying, it’s called bull market.
If Di Modica were sincere in his opposition to capitalism and Wall Street, he would support this new context, which in part reaffirms what he claims was his original intent.
Aside the historical context, Charging Bull now symbolizes Wall Street’s dick-swinging awesomeness. In my opinion, Fearless Girl might put a different spin on Di Modica’s vision, but the spirit of his artistic intent is honoured.
LikeLike
The “guess” was being charitable! Your response shows a marked ignorance, supplemented by unwarranted, baseless assumptions, that, if you actually read the text, are even more inexcusable.
“The bull is an ill-advised choice of symbol for criticizing Wall Street.” Um, no one, especially the author, and most certainly not the artist, EVER claimed that was the purpose of the piece!
“Di Modica isn’t much of an artist if he thinks Charging Bull stands in opposition to bull markets.
Uh again, NO ONE SAID THAT!!!
“If Di Modica were sincere in his opposition to capitalism and Wall Street, he would support this new context, which in part reaffirms what he claims was his original intent.”
Altogether now: neither the author nor the artist EVER SAID THAT.
“In my opinion, Fearless Girl might put a different spin on Di Modica’s vision, but the spirit of his artistic intent is honoured.”
You are in no position to make that decree. You know who is? The artist.
LikeLike
Well, then. Here’s a gift for you, b/c of your passion for the topic. From the sculptor’s website: “It’s this symbol of virility and courage that Arturo saw as the perfect antidote to the Wall Street crash of 1986.”
And later: “Of course, only one place would do for this gift of encouragement to New York and the world. In the early morning hours of Friday, December 15, 1989, Arturo with a few friends dropped the Charging Bull on Broad Street right in front of the New York Stock Exchange.”
I “guess” I can understand your confusion. Di Modica didn’t literally say the phrase “I criticize Wall Street!” But for conversational purposes, “Wall Street” is an obvious shorthand term in place of “the late-stage capitalism that the NYSE most emblematically represents,” which seems to me to be what he meant.
Unless you know different? If so, say what you think it is, or what someone else thinks it is, rather than whining about how much I’m wrong.
LikeLike
First, you can’t whine in comment after comment and then complain about other people whining.
Second, that you don’t realize that nothing you wrote actually backs up your statements is telling.
Far from it, your continued commentary only serves to support the original “guess” that you failed to read the original article in the first place.
LikeLike
Be sure to include a perspective of your own next time, if you have one.
LikeLike
Um, why?
LikeLike
I wish you had read the article…
LikeLike
Who is threatened? Certainly no one referenced in the current article. Manufactured faux outrage suits someone duped by the corporate establishment that commissioned “Fearless Girl”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would like to see the Fearless Girl repositioned so that instead of the two standing in opposition she is standing fearlessly with the bull by her side. I think it would be most amicable resolution.
LikeLike
By placing them side by side you remove the meaning of both artist’s work. Having two separate art installations in two separate places is the only real answer.
LikeLike
Perhaps they should arm wrestle for it…
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are quite right; we could not give a rat’s ass about the aging artist’s indignations ; the fact of the matter is everybody and everything benefits entirely from the juxtaposition of the two sculptures , a right of way and unquestionable balancing act, no matter the motivations; people like the ”confrontation” and made it theirs to observe and enjoy; who cares if some artist’s ego has ”been ” cluttered.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dude. Holy shit. I have no clue who you are but good stuff bud. I like that you share all sides and let readers make their own choice. BRAVO
PS @heartbread on gram shared your site only reason I’m here.
LikeLike
She should stand next to the bull..food for thought.
LikeLike
First, I couldn’t agree more with your valuable perspective here. Thank you. Secondly, I think I may be one of the 5 people who, while loving the Fearless Girl for all the innocence, confidence and nostalgia she invokes, feels her presence to be completely irritating and way too easy. After all, little boys and girls are full of confidence already; it’s sort of a birthright until we as a society step in and begin corrupting their sense of self. What gets in the way of women being successful on ‘Wall Street’ isn’t the fact that we’re women, it’s the fact that we’re the ones who become mothers. We have children, and it is once we have children that we begin abandoning the workforce (those who are lucky enough to have the choice to abandon). As a former Wall Street female who was once told by the CEO of a small German sales and trading branch that he thought I took my career more seriously when he found out I was pregnant with my second child, I can assure you that what would have been far more inspiring in this case was a guerilla work of art sculpted in the beautiful shape of a powerful and pregnant female. BUT THAT is simply way too jarring. Just venting for the sake of it. Thanks again as I really valued this article.
LikeLike
I just gotta say, I admire the tone and content of the comments here. Usually I hate myself for reading comments, but I’m actually feeling a bit edified after skimming through these. Thanks for the civility, thoughtful commentary and good grammar and spelling (in general).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Spot. On. My husband And I were just having this same discussion, although you state more eloquently than either of us could. I _love_ the Fearless Girl statue, but it’d be powerful on its own, without relying on Charging Bull for context. Her posture is strong enough to stand alone.
LikeLike
Is the statue of the girl of any value or merit without the Bull? I venture to guess she would be no different than the boy and girl statues at the local park here in SoCal. The artist who dropped the “fearless girl” statue is riding the coat tails of the Bull the entire way and it does little to advance a female agenda as it says clearly that the work cannot stand on its own and have value, it must be next to the Bull, the male.
LikeLike
I agree with you. He has a point. The problem is, that over the course of time the bull has ceased to represent the power and glory of the American people and has come to represent the power of the those in the Financial district to do whatever the F*&k they want to and with the American people with NO repercussions. Perhaps the sculpture they funded can remind us that we should be fighting back.
LikeLike
Outstanding article! I love it because it is the truth from all angles. If it were up to me Fearless Girl would go. That is a change from my previous opinion, the opinion that was formed without knowing the facts. I had to research it before I responded because I this time I wanted to be sure. No offense.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on The Not Fake News.
LikeLike
My first ever re-blog. Damned fine read.
(from The Not Fake News)
LikeLike
The girl needs to be charging with the bull as an American person not confronting it. It’s defeating the statues purpose to represent something just as important. It’s not about standing up to people as woman it’s about standing together as a people.
LikeLike
The fearless girl and the charging bull has a lot of people talking about art and meaning. Furthermore they are conversing philosophically. That is a beautiful thing. I understand the artist’s frustration with the situation. He has the choice to move his art piece as he owns it though. The problem I have with the situation is that he has that choice but he doesn’t want to take it because of pride. He wants that space for his art in the way he wants it to be perceived. It’s about him. People love the fearless girl and they love the charging bull. No one appreciates the bull any less than they used to and in fact many people probably appreciate it more. Marketing has a bad name but magnificent marketing is often times done by talented artists. A talented marketer will be able to get people talking and make a mark in their life. This is not an inherently negative act. And in this case – People are attachiing themselves to the meaning of the statue not the company who commissioned it. So in that way the artist has done such an amazing job that the art is the talking point not the marketing campaign or the company that commissioned it. As a marketing director I would call that a win for the artist and not so much for the company ;) I am not sure what the right thing to do is but I do love both pieces separately and love them even more together.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I so totally agree with you regarding the importance of checking into any source of information, news. Today everything is sensationalized to grab the attention of the ever attention deprived reader. So much truth abd facts are lost because of this.
The danger and I mean danger to our society in fact beyond is the serious impact the “quick fix of fact” thinking has on our lives and values.
LikeLike
I fail to see the point here. In the global economic crisis being a manifestation of the heads that run the specific district the bull was initially placed–I assume for the message to be, that the american people are greater than the perception that that america is only great as a ‘bull’ economy’… they are the charging bull, regardless of synthesized economic trends.
so if this is a defiant attempt at expressing disdain for the district the bull was placed and allowed to remain probably because those businessmen who inhabit the area could relate to the bull in their own fickle way.
what of the girl? can’t this just be thought of as a collaborative piece??? where-by seeing the bull as a representation of defying this figurative financial collapse bringing people down. the girl is another symbol of defiance… and contra-spectively… just as the ‘guerilla’ bull was accepted as a positive symbol probably by the people involved in that ruse…. the girl… funded by the corporates… can easily be seen by the american people as a symbol of defiance against the often emotionless and unempathetic financial market syndrome.
I can’t really see how–who funds the art, governs peoples interpretations of it and there is enough room for interpretation with or without the girl for the bull to mean nothing to the intended people and be a positive force for those using the market to their own ends. the girl just adds another dynamic, regardless of who initiated/funded it… I personally think she can help the bull embue the initial meaning intended by the sculptor… to show a strength in american people.
if the guy really hates women then I would have something different to say about the so called ‘guerilla’ artist. but if he is just angry that his ‘artistic intention’ has been changed… then he should have been angry the moment he placed it in the street…because it is so fairly ambiguous… his intention was irrelevant from the start in the eyes of people on either side of the losses and gains in the manifest financial destitution/excuse for ripping people/investors off.
LikeLike
Di Modica can’t sue for removal of the girl because his own simple city contract makes no concession for the context and placement of his bull sculpture or surrounding installations. Strong art installation contracts specify these details, but his doesn’t. You’d think an asshole capitalist would have a better contract. Why not get a copy of the artist’s contract?
Besides, anyone who spends $350,000 on a golden statue can hardly be called “guerilla”. It’s elitist, capitalist thuggery. There’s nothing revolutionary, populist, transcendant or underdog about the bull. That’s like parking an unwelcome Lamborghini in Trump Tower’s atrium and calling it “guerilla art.” It’s not guerilla, it’s just more of the same opulent shit.
Also, there is no evidence that as the blogger states, “The assholes who ran the New York Stock Exchange, for some reason, didn’t.” Any property manager or real estate attorney would remove any unvetted sculpture from private property for insurance and safety reasons at the very least. So, no. Besides, I’ve worked at the stock exchanges, and these are some of the most thick-skulled, unenlightened thugs who ever walked the planet. Foul mouthed, ass scratching single celled animals who wouldn’t understand the meaning behind this or any other statue. So, no. The exchanges didn’t consider the bull statue offensive, it was a liability.
Portraying the bull statue as some kind of underdog guerilla art installation, and that the girl is ruining some salt of the earth people’s art is agenda-driven.
LikeLike
It is art, it is meant to inspire discussion, move the girl (occasionally) to inspire further discussion and/or confusion.
It is art, it is meant ti inspire.
LikeLike
it seems simple … Just turn the bull around…
LikeLike
There are a number of valid points here and I’m no fan of art AS advertising BY STEALTH even if clever and well done.
But, bottom line: it’s PUBLIC art. To control his Charging Bull brand entirely, he’d need to put it in a museum. Yes, he can say that Fearless Girl requires Charging Bull for meaning. But Charging Bull requires Wall Street for meaning. And Wall Street requires NYC and its place in the world.
Public place, public art, public participation.
So: Rock on, USA! You are not a toothless old gummer yet! Your people love you, your public squares, your guerilla art, and your big, grungy heart.
LikeLiked by 1 person
They need to team up. Everyone is too interested in condemning and separating two good things. I would say if she stood directly in front of the bull with her back facing it, these statues would have a powerful message instead. She is still be facing the unknown making her fearless and the bull still represents power and strength of America. Together they make a statment that she can be in front of the power and strength. She is more confident if she has him standing behind her on guard instead of them facing off. Together they can take on anything because they are fearless and powerful together.
LikeLike
“…It’s maybe the only significant work of guerrilla capitalist art in existence.”
Incredibly broad and typically American statement. Have you ever heard of, for example, Banksy?
LikeLike
While I can understand the artist’s conundrum, he needs to understand that the art, once created and displayed, if for the audience to interpret and analyze. He may have intended it to represent, as he says, ” the strength and power of the American people”, but many – including myself – see rather, an image of the capitalist system rum amok. Seen in that context, the “Fearless Girl” is not only appropriate, it’s necessary!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Stop trying to change the relationship intended in the art by both parties. forget the symbolism they are financially and socially. You don’t need that to retain the tension present between the two. It makes it an artifact of eacb piece. It is present by nature i n each piece. The only option not proposed is 》the girl turns her back on the bull 《 is this exactly what is happing? Not conflict, but change?
LikeLike