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. Di Modica should just flip the bull and have it point away from the girl. Let it protect her against an unseen foe further off and become the reason she’s featless: her very masculin protector. Now *that* would be an awesome retaliation!

    Like

    Reply ↓

  2. My nickle on the subject, a proposition for action so long as we are talking about guerrilla art:
    Deface the plaque next to fearless girl by removing the second sentence so that the dedication to SHE is gone (if a girl is so fearless, she wont need the full inscription) and add an inscription to the bull reminding people that it represents “the strength and power of the American people”.
    Everyone can be happy, except the corporations.
    Good?

    Like

    Reply ↓

  3. Another bit of data (from Wikipedia): “The company [State Street Global Advisors (SSgA)] services financial clients by creating and managing investment strategies for non-profit foundations, businesses, corporations, associations, governments, educational institutions, and religious organizations.”

    Like

    Reply ↓

  5. My suggestion to him is to fight fire with fire. Create more sculptures, consisting of multiple fat men in business suits, standing left and right of the bull, holding onto a giant yoke placed around its neck, while the beast struggles. The men look to the little girl, as if asking what she wants them to do with it. Fearless girl is recast as a spoilt brat, not willing to do her own dirty work.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  8. While I see this point, I’m not sure anyone is paying more attention to SHE because of the statue, in fact, I haven’t heard of it until this article. If the original artist wanted to represent the American Power, it is still part of that conversation and is even more appropriate since most women see their position in society as they are in the shoes of this girl facing everyday life.
    The bull is magnificent, powerful, menacing and male. It very clearly defines what many think about America….until now. No one is talking about “SHE”, stop giving it air time and put a rug over the sign. “Fearless girl” has her own message. It may have taken some creativity to get this message out but it’s out now. It’s important. Read THAT sign!

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply ↓

    • Being a woman I would like to say I *do not* see my position in society in this girls position. If you want to view this statue as woman empowerment (forgive me if I don’t know the correct verbiage here)then WHY IS SHE A GIRL? Especially considering the artist is a woman.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply ↓

      • Well, that’s easy: what’s considered more fragile and vulnerable than a little girl? A baby doesn’t have cognitive abilities, so the artist choose a female form that is the least likely to have the strength to stand up against the bull’s charge…And yet she can and does. Without fear.

        This is not the first subversive message sponsored by a rich patron in history. And it’s so New York. It’s all perfect, just as it is.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Because a girl is about the least empowered person in society, unfortunately. But this girl has an attitude. She’s giving it back. Not by being a faux male, but by being a strong, fearless girl. I love the statue for that, and for facing down a whole bull-full of testosterone just by her will alone.

        And, you know what? I really couldn’t give a rat’s ass (hey, two more animal references) that it was paid for by an investment fund that no-one outside Wall Street could name before, nor indeed afterwards. As advertising, it’s a failure. As a piece of challenging, exciting art, it’s a spectacular success, and long may it remain.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Dear Terri, women, as you may recall, start life as girls. As a society, we have generally not encouraged girls to be fearless and defiant, but to be soft, accommodating, pleasing, and nurturing, “the weaker sex.” Good qualities but they are best combined with some strength and fearlessness if women are to be on an equal footing in this world. So, seriously, if we want to have women who are strong and contribute in a meaningful way to the s”strength and power of the American people,” we must start with teaching girls to be fearless and strong when they are still girls.

        Liked by 1 person

    • I agree, I would have like to see a statue of a young women and not a girl. It would have been even more empowering to see a woman standing in front of the bull being portrayed as strong without being sexualized. I also resent the fact that the little girl is a white. As a woman of color in finance I resent that I am being reminded once again that the symbols of female empowerment in this country are always white.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply ↓

      • Seriously, Carrie, she looks bronze to me. Yes, her hair is straight and her features are not (whatever you want them to be), but you are too sensitive. Why don’t you comission a second “black-looking” statue, and if it is also female, then men of color (and “white”) can also resent it. I am a white man but don’t dismiss my reply just becaue of that. Be proud enough of your accomplishments in finance to not be so sensitive about a bronze little girl statue.

        Like

  9. I think Auturo should align his Bull with the little girl and maybe make a little boy too so that it still shows the power of the American people and the next generation of powerful and confident people !

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply ↓

  10. Pingback: From the Classroom: Fearless Reading (and Analysis) | write.share.connect

  11. All good points.
    Given the financial industry’s near total disregard for society and ethics, the two statues​ create an interesting and powerful symbol.

    But it is the Bull which awakens the bear, embrace the Bull, for it offers amazing profit.

    But don’t marry it, for inevitably, the Bull is directly followed by the Bear, which when embraced can generate orders of magnitude more profit than the Bull.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  13. Not seriously, I mean come on…. the reality of the situation is the charging bull is not even charging… if you want to get specific. Bulls charged with their horns pointed forward and head down. that bull is obviously avoiding in posture, and his eyes, it looks afraid and full of fear as to be scared of a little girl, which to me represents from the Bulls perspective fear, avoidance, and can’t understand or, can’t take what’s in front of it. That is NOT a charging bull….. But, the little girl, she represents power, strength I mean look at her posture, chest poked out, smile on her face, ready to take on the world, that represents power to me and the strength of true America.

    P.S
    This street art was never complete with the Bull alone but with the addition of the girl it is now complete.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  14. Just have the girl and the bull face the SAME direction. Then they are both fearless… taking on the world together and it’s like the bull has her back. Just saying that could be kind of wonderful.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply ↓

  15. Yeah… And a “bull” market refers to prices rising on securities etc. The fact that the artist sunk $350,000.00 of his own money into the sculpture ALSO says a lot. I’m not sure I buy his explanation. But does Fearless Girl belong there? Sure! It subverts the whole image on it’s head. Since historically women have been economically disempowered. As far as SHE goes, it’s subverting the subversion.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

    • The way it is now its like saying “Girls oppose: Strength, freedom, the american people, guerrilla artistry in general, and rebelling against wall street (since the bull statue was hated by wall street originally)”

      It’s just insane the way it is now. It makes me feel like girls are the source of all evil. If the girl was facing the same direction as the bull, then it would be great and show unity and strength, also it would be in front of the bull showing that girls are leading the american people and freedom not opposing it.

      Like

      Reply ↓

  16. The visitors are layering their own meaning onto both sculptures, which eventually transcends the intent of the originators. It was ever thus.

    Like

    Reply ↓

    • Exactly. And part of the purpose of Art is to attach one’s own meaning to it.
      I think that time will show that the advertising of SHE will flounder because no one will remember it. Folk will find empowerment, meaning, outrage….again, ever thus.

      Like

      Reply ↓

  20. First off, I agree with and appreciate your perspective. It is a multi-layered conflict. “Fearless Girl”, however, is only an advertisement if people know that about the statue. It is still a work of art, and is now a collaboration with the Bull–the initial reading of what the bull might mean has changed somewhat, but to me that is the wonderful thing about Art! Art does change over the course of its lifespan…look at all the statues all over the world that have been cracked or broken during wars or for other reasons. I think it would be sad to see the Bull leave its place—
    I love both of these statues and appreciate them for what they stir in us.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  21. For me this post illustrates why we need to dig deeper into real facts and why we need to be willing to see all sides of a story. I love “Fearless Girl” and I also now empathize with Di Modica’s position that she has changed the meaning of his sculpture. Thanks Greg!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  22. This is a well reasoned well written article and though I love both pieces of art – and even appreciate the need to balance the feminine/masculine (intentionally written in this association), I would add a young boy figure along side the girl and find a different location – the bull has long been seen a a symbol of strength and bullfights notwithstanding, should be respected on it’s own merits. There is an arrogance implied by placing the girl here, an unnecessary ‘dare’ that – in my opinion – misstates it’s intention. Thanks for the history on corporate/advertising greed trying to subvert art as well.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  23. Thanks for sharing this obviously thought-provoking piece. My take is that I agree that the Fearless Girl sidetracks the spirit of the bull, which is the symbol in the financial district of taking a chance and charging ahead optimistically in investments. Odd that SHE chose to challenge the bull in this forward momentum. What would have made more sense is to have had her either leading the bull in his charge or actually riding it, which is likely not going to happen. What I’d like to see is that the girl turns 180 degrees and stands defiant against the uncertain future which they both face with strength and optimism.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  24. I liked the little girl when I saw it. My son had a different take that was interesting. His take was, that little girl is obviously going to get trampled by that raging bull. I think he saw it as more of a “Last great act of defiance” image, remember the picture of Mickey Mouse flipping the bird at the Eagle, as it dove to destroy him. Made me think.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  25. Pingback: Can “Charging Bull” Artist Have “Fearless Girl” Removed? - The Illusion of MoreThe Illusion of More

  26. Both are great pieces of art. I feel that because the city has not removed the bull it has given permission (by default) for it to remain installed where it is. I also like the fearless girl – but not the advertising context – and feel that the location is not appropriate as it clearly is linked visually with the bull and therefore changes its meaning and intent. The girl should be moved so that the two sculptures don’t read as one installation.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  27. Your blog on “Fearless Girl” is well thought out, and fair.
    I am an artist and a feminist in NYC.
    The bull is gorgeous and a wonderful gift to this city.
    I had no idea it is a PR/ad.
    If they want a girl and a bull, sculpt both. Or do a poster or an advertisement. I don’t like tampering with this masterpiece that I enjoy.
    And why a girl? It’s WOMEN who are treated badly and unfairly in the financial industry.
    State Street Global Advisors is so afraid of women, that it uses a child. THAT says a lot! It should be a Fearless Woman!

    Like

    Reply ↓

  28. Ah yes, the bull who once represented power and strength of the American people, is now demonized because one little girl has to stand in front of it, for no real reason by the way she isn’t protecting anyone or anything, and makes it about only about women.

    That’s sexism for ya!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  31. Pingback: What I thought of Batman #21 | My Little Underground

  33. So … a piece of artwork that, in order to have any significance at all, has to piggyback on and then denigrate the efforts of a man?

    Are we sure we want this as a symbol of feminism?

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

    • I agree. I suggest in front of the Freedom Tower to empower women an girls all over the world to stand defiant against oppression.

      Like

      Reply ↓

  35. Your blog on “Fearless Girl” is well thought out, and fair.
    I am an artist and a feminist in NYC.
    The bull is gorgeous and a wonderful gift to this city.
    If they want a girl and a bull, sculpt both. Or do a poster or an advertisement. I had no idea it is a PR/ad. I don’t like tampering with this masterpiece that I enjoy.
    And why a girl? It’s WOMEN who are treated badly and unfairly in the financial industry.
    State Street Global Advisors is so afraid of women, that it uses a child. THAT says a lot! It should be a Fearless Woman! Perhaps they still refer to women as girls.

    This comment corrects the website URL in my comment.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  36. The essence of this argument is that Di Modica created the Bull as an authentic work of guerilla art, whose purpose was to bring strength to American capitalism at its time of weakness.. and the argument is that Fearless Girl is a commissioned work that is more clever advertising for a commercial company.

    However, whatever meaning the Bull originally had, it not longer has. Just as Fearless Girl has the double-meaning of an advertisement seen as a feminist symbol, the Bull has the double-meaning of a guerilla artwork transformed into an advertisement for American capitalism. Most people who see the Bull will never know it was subversive, they see a strong symbol of the American capitalism – which is largely patriarchal.
    My take away is the art in such a strongly capitalism context of downtown wall street will always be appropriated for commercial symbolism. The Fearless Girl is itself an advertisement, but even it’s new popular meaning is the strength of women in the financial sector. Neither is ultimately critical of capitalism per se.

    So, for me, the arguments for or against the removal of either are meaningless – it’s just a power struggle, which capitalism is well known for. The shame here, to me, is that the feminist movement sees it’s power struggle with masculinity in business as a goal. I’m not saying than women aren’t capable of the same roles of men in business.
    I’m saying, why would you want to be?

    Capitalism itself is a perpetuation of a historically masculine-oriented idea of social order via individual competition. An idea I actually disagree with.

    Thus, if Fearless Girl is taken in isolation, the image of a strong young women is certainly positive. But it’s not isolated, even without the Bull, this is downtown wall street. Both the Bull and Fearless Girl are now appropriated symbols for the buildings and meaning that surrounds them.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  37. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again.

    Social Justice Warriors fail to understand the issue with this. The artist who created “Fearless Girl” took someone else’s work and incorporated it as their own, changing the meaning of Di Modica’s vision.

    What they don’t realize is that the vision of “Fearless Girl” can be easily changed from one of defiance towards the “patriarch” to one of indifference by simply adding yet another statue, this time of a drowning child, or animal, to which she’s turned her back too.

    SJWs would be up in arms over this, crying out artistic appropriation. The irony would be lost on them.

    At the end of the day, one artist infringed on another’s art and essentially stole it to build up their own. Not a single one of those trying to support “Fearless Girl” would stand silent if their own art was repurposed for something they hadn’t envisioned.

    Like

    Reply ↓

    • I don’t think I fail to understand the issue here. Some of the objection can be noted by properly attributing the fact that there was ONE artist and ONE contractor.

      When your art is in a public space, you should expect reaction. Most of the reaction is paper or electron based, or is grounded in the emotional reaction elicited when people look at the art. An ARTIST’S payoff is that his work created emotional reaction, and that’s the proper metric.

      In the case of the CONTRACTOR, she was paid to do a job, and she did it. That she did it with an artist’s skills doesn’t make it a work of art. Fearless Girl’s “job” was to sell SHE, and the proper metric is whether or not that happened.

      Once each inanimate object is placed, it’s up to the public to decide if they’re artful or tasteful or graffiti or vandalism. Though one piece came from an artist’s vision and the other came from a committee’s decision, they become art in the same way that the Guggenheim or the Chrysler Building or the Empire State Building or the original Twin Towers were: part of the NYC streetscape.

      I live near Chicago. There was a famous riot in 1886 in Haymarket Square, where a labor rally and march was taking place. Suddenly, some anarchists threw bombs and a handful of people were killed in a clash. In 1889, a bronze statue in honor of one of the murdered policemen was erected at the square. In 1968, the statue was vandalized with paint. The city fixed it. In 1969, the statue was blown up by a bomb. The city replaced it. In 1970, it was blown up again. The city fixed it, and posted a 24 hour guard at the site. In 1972, the city gave up, and moved the bronze policeman to the enclosed courtyard in the Police Academy.

      For twenty years, there was only the pedestal where the policeman had previously stood.

      In 1992, a plaque was installed to mark the site. In 2004, the site, which is a nondescript street but a highly significant part of the history of the labor movement worldwide, was memorialized with a lifesize statue of the wagon where the Haymarket speakers addressed the crowd before the violence began. This public art is now part of our streetscape.

      The violence in the act, and the actions of the anarchists, the police, the community, and the labor movement took almost 140 years to reconcile with the public art in one small insignificant square in Chicago.

      Wall Street will survive. So will the artist, and the contractor, in NYC.

      Like

      Reply ↓

      • The author was correct in the original article and should not have caved to the mob.
        This is about adulterating a piece of artwork for political purposes, and it’s probably illegal under the Visual Artists Rights Act at 17 USC § 106A. Adding a little girl to the overall piece is a modification and distortion of the original artist’s intent – which was to depict the bullish attitude of financial markets. It’s easier to comprehend if you think about moral wrongness of adding a Make America Great Again hat to the Mona Lisa.
        When you think about it, it really is a nasty impulse to take an artist’s vision and turn it into something else, something totally unintended by the artist. It’s the same impulse that lead the Taliban to destroying priceless buddist statues in afganistan or the recent ISIS destruction in Palmyra. Just because it’s disguised in the veneer of Social Justice doesn’t make it any less evil.

        Liked by 1 person

      • You’ve inferred a lot of irrelevancy while completely missing the point. So, yes. You failed to understand the issue here. It’s about appropriation of art and it’s not difficult to understand. The “fearless girl” artist appropriated the bull for their own art. They stole intellectual property in order to make their own art relevant. That’s the point. The rest of your tangent seeking drivel is dismissed.

        Like

  40. Reblogged this on It Is What It Is and commented:
    ‘Charging Bull’ & “Fearless Girl” … now need to be together!
    I agree that ‘the man has a point’ … yet it has now become a ‘YIN-YANG’ … both statues make a ‘whole’! Separated … the meaning would change!

    Like

    Reply ↓

  41. I think a really neat way to solve this issue would be to place her beside the bull, facing in the same direction. It wouldn’t take away meaning from either statue, and they would still enhance one another.

    Like

    Reply ↓

    • All fans are morons. In praising what is good about the object of your fandom, you ignore that which is bad or evil. The Faithful fools that are the fans of religion have this world in a death grip of stupidity; the fans or their country (my country right or wrong) are those most likely to commit atrocities; and the fans of capitalism whilst laughing all the way to the bank ignore the suffering and exploitation that they have caused with a cheery “but I provide employment” mantra.

      Like

      Reply ↓

  45. Modena should turn his statue around and just say:
    OK, its the girls bull. She is taking him to greener pastures, the cowgirl…

    Like

    Reply ↓

  46. “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.” Totally agree. More often than not, our default today is to force a “stance” (no pun intended) only to not hear “their” perspective based our hyper-filtered bias. I wonder if people who love the girl (and her implied meaning) would have empathy for Di Modica’s perspective if the bull was tagged/painted with the colors/logo of their political or social justice cause of choice. My guess is the symbolic “defiance” of the girl would spark the defiance of that particular group and rightfully so—thus Di Modica’s comments about the girl.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  48. it is both ironic and fitting that the guerrilla artist got guerrilla’d. neither piece is what it was intended to be. the history and changed meanings ALL fit the american persona (as do the acts of placement of each) I applauded the placement of the bull. I applauded the placement of the girl. and I will applaud the placement of a new installation if it should come. if Arturo Di Modica doesn’t like it, he can take his art and go home.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  49. I couldn’t agree more with this article. Perhaps a simple solution would be to relocate fearless girl to stand with the charging bull – so as to say, she stands for and with the strength of the American people and in a way, promote equality.

    Like

    Reply ↓

Leave a reply to Junaid Nomani Cancel reply