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. Excellent and well articulated article. What if Di Monica turned his Charging Bull statue around and faced it the other way? Think about it: the girl remains fearless, and the strength and resilience of the American People charges on. And both in the same direction.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  2. I have always felt that “Charging Bull” was incomplete by itself but that it should be facing off against a raging mama bear instead to represent balance both in economics and in life. That the “Fearless Girl” statue, while beautiful and striking, especially in opposition to “Charging Bull”, is actually an advertisement is mildly aggravating yet not wholly inappropriate considering this IS Wall Street.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  3. Has the Artiste ever displayed any of his stuff in a gallery? I suspect he’d be pissed off to discover that there are OTHER ARTISTS in most galleries, and he’d have to share air with other works of art!

    Like

    Reply ↓

  4. As a former New Yorker I can say that the bull never represented the strength of the American people to me or anyone I know. It represented Wall Street. And Money. And the men who seem to control all that. If the value of the statue is based on whether or not it represents what the artist intended then it has always been a failure. Modica should keep his work private if he doesn’t want the meaning created by the physical, mental, and emotional space it is in. So take it away. The girl will still be facing the world and the persona of Wall Street every day and greeting the men and women on their way to work each day in financial institutions.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  7. As an artist I know people will interpret my work to fit their reality. Regardless of what it costs financially or emotionally once I release my artwork into the world it is no longer mine. And this bull is no longer his.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply ↓

    • I get that people will interpret things as they will, but artists are not purely at the whims of others. The bull has an objective meaning and purpose given by its creator. Others may interpret that meaning differently, but the true meaning of the bull lies with the maker.

      As a kid I loved the song “One Toke Over the Line.” It was a fun song with good harmonies and I thought it was about waiting for a train. But my interpretation did not define what the song was about, nor does anyone else’s. That song has a context and an origin that the writer knows fully, whether anyone else gets it or not.

      You are right in that once an artwork is out there people will interpret it different ways, but that does not mean that they are right.

      This artist created the Charging Bull to make a specific statement. We can all argue whether it accomplishes that statement well or not, but we do not get to decide why the bull exists, we only get to interpret. Meaning is not derived from others. Meaning is derived from the creator. The more skillful the artist, the better that meaning comes across. But of course some will attempt to subvert that meaning with their own interpretation. They can do that, but it will never change the true meaning that the creator gave it.

      Like

      Reply ↓

  8. Pingback: You did that on purpose! | Ideas Wanted!

  9. I love the piece, that fact it’s a marketing scheme does make me want to dislike it but I can’t.
    My only problem with the debate about saying that the girl takes away from the charging bulls meaning “strength of the American people” is why are we discrediting the girl? She is also fully representing the American people, in fact I would say she’s is representing the portion of American people that are too ofte. Forgotten when it comes to the stock market and wall st, the children and future generations.

    I do see the many views of te two statues in their positions. It could demonstarate a debate of gender, youth or something else entirely.

    But it’s done something that art is supposed to do, make people think. So keep debating, it a say to honor the pieces.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  12. You were doing so well until you said “I’m not a fan of capitalism.” I suggest doing the same type of introspection you did here on what capitalism has accomplished.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  16. If it was my bull statue, I would move it to the Toronto Stock Exchange and let the investment company do what they want with their girl. I would be offended a trillion dollar company was using my art as part of their promotion.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  17. Interesting take. I would say that Wall Street firms have already subverted the original spirit of the artist. At this point in time, the interpretation of the bull is a clear representation of Wall Street aggressive tactics… globally, even. And mostly aggression is by male led entities. So, alright file, State Street is just another bank trying to advertise. But, I think it is…uh… “nice” to see a fund that believes in women as leaders.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  18. Pingback: “Two Long Years”: Why Katherine O’Neill resigned as PC Party President | The Broadcast

  20. What I love about art / hate about art for this… I always take away something completely different. When I saw the fearless girl with the bull I actually thought it was an Occupy movement piece. Choose the smallest and most vulnerable of us (female, child… Maybe should have been of colour?) and stick it in front of what wreaks to me now of obnoxious, entitled Corporate. (Narly Bull). Without the back story, I didn’t have any reason to see anything other than a crushingly powerful representation of Wall St…. So. There is also that. No two people have to have the same opinion about art. Good art? The very best art just has to get people talking. Which…. is happening.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  21. Art, or at least the interpretive meaning of any artwork, once made and publicly exhibited, no longer belongs to the artist. The viewer, with all their own foibles, experiences, knowledge, ignorance, and flaws to draw on forms their own interpretation of the work and ascribes their own meaning. The artist, the environment, and the historic context of the work all inform, but the interpretation cannot be standardised or entirely owned by anyone. Both of these statutes have meaning for a lot of people, the juxtaposition of the two together had added meaning, and what’s more, that meaning is plastic and has changed, and will continue to change, over the years.

    Btw, not sure if an individual artist wealthy enough to abandon a statute that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to make, is such a heroic comparison with an investment firm. Aren’t they both 1%ers? I mean, American spirit or not, there is a reason the bull is on wall street.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  22. It says so much about the corporate structure doesn’t it. SHE is depicted as a little girl because they cannot cope with the concept of a fully grown woman in her own right. SHE, apart from the tutu is a copy straight from the museum and the past. Perhaps the answer lies in a figure of an ADULT female standing next to The Bull to face the injustices of inequality and corporate power!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  23. Turn the bull over and place it near the girl, as if they were equally defiant, equally representative of America’s population power.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  24. Reblogged this on Ainaq and commented:
    The guy has a point.

    But at the same time.
    A. The first guy did not really do the statue thing only from the goodness of his heart. He made it, sure, with inspiration from the global crisis – but it was still his work. And he was proud of it. And he marketed himself.
    He did something that made stock exchanges unhappy that he got away with because of public pressure. Ironical that the same thing is happening against him now.
    B. The Fund guys marketed themselves by using feminism and guerilla marketing. I take offense to that because it dilutes the thought behind feminism with specific ulterior motives.
    C. The whole controversy is only helping the fund so what is the point of being offended about the mean corporates and marketing strategy. Everyone – the artist, the blogger, the pro-people, the against people are just helping them. Helping increase the outreach.
    D. I think the statue should stay. A better story. Beautiful art. That should be enjoyed by all. The inspirations and motivations behind artists form part of the story.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  25. Yes commercialism has increasingly usurped culture and this is kind of sickening, but culture here is now usurping commercialism as the girl becomes symbolic of more than just it’s commissioned meaning. Let’s hope for the world’s sake culture ultimately does eat up the virus that is rampant commercialism. And the bull’s artist should be delighted at how the girl has made the bull live again and made him central to a new organic dialogue in history. To demand his art stays within the narrow confines of his original intention is surely to curtail its power himself. The wit of this living art banter is wonderful. And btw the girl is good as a girl not a woman as she represents not just the female gender but the feminine principle : the small, the unexpected, the insignificant, the humble. Oh that this balancing element might be found by our culture before it tramples the planet.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  26. Prior to the Girl sculpture there was a large kitsch bull taking up space in a public avenue.Now there is a conversation about context and meaning, that’s a win win for both pieces of sculpture,forget the ‘Artist’s Intentions’ it is now a proper dialogue between Art snobs and the works themselves

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply ↓

  28. I mean. The Medici’s commissioned some of the most amazing pieces of art in the world. So did the Catholic Church. Is David a piece of shit because it was commissioned by evil bankers? People are complex and art finds its ways to be seen. What is more important is the energy that Michelangelo put into his piece than whatever the Medici’s thought of it. They placed it facing Rome in defiance of its power over Florence’s independent city-state. It became a symbol that inspired many to stand up for themselves and for righteousness. It’s not the messenger. It’s the message. You’d think someone writing a piece like this would research art history.

    As far as Arturo Di Modica is concerned, he should take a cue from his Italian progenitors. When you put a statue in a public place, it takes on a life of its own. You can’t remain in control of its meaning anymore than a parent can eternally control their child. Despite its roots and initial Wall Street rejection, it has come to very much embody the patriarchal manifest destiny that is America. Native holocaust, slavery, factory farming, we came here with our heritage of rape culture, and now we rape the very mother herself by bringing our environment to the brink of its collapse. This is what your bull now stands for Arturo. It’s unfortunate for your art, but isn’t the bigger picture to be able to be part of speaking out against what we have become – The systemic psychopathy?
    THIS IS WHAT ART IS FOR.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply ↓

  29. Reminds me of “Tank Man” who stood in front of tanks in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square in a pose of protest demanding political and economic reform, both of which are needed in this country now. You go Girl!

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  30. Reblogged this on Over the UltraViolet Rainbow and commented:
    This article is pretty powerful and illustrates, really all the things that is wrong with commercialism in the western world. Lets face it- Both artists are very talented. But the two pieces together, have a completely different meaning and thats a real shame.

    Like

    Reply ↓

    • “But the two pieces together, have a completely different meaning and thats a real shame.”

      Disagree that it’s a shame. IMO, it’s a tribute to the wonder of artistic symbolism and interpretation that context can change so radically when a new element is added.

      Like

      Reply ↓

  31. Relo
    cate the bull and take away the girl’s statue’s ability to utilize it. Then, as Fallis says, “Fearless Girl” just becomes “Really Confident Girl” and the bull’s creator will no longer have to contend with someone trying to hitch a free ride on his work.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  34. Public art is a challenge at best, so be prepared for others to glean the energy from the initial intension. That’s what public sculpture does. Yes the intended conversation was changed, so respond and change it again.
    Possible Solution – Arturo Di Modica should simply turn the bull 180 degrees. Don’t let the bull acknowledge the girl. This would change the context of the whole senario and another conversation would develop. I find it odd that a public sculpture can just be dropped into place without approvals and permits. Being from an Ad background, placement is everything and someone got paid handsomely for the girl placement – the city? I don’t think anyone has talked about this sculpture for years, so lots of noteriety for the artist and new interest for the public.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  36. Explain to me again how the bull was subversive? Because a rich artist planting a sculpture that is pro-capitalism doesn’t sound very subversive to me.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  37. Heh. I love Fearless Girl, despite the fact that underneath she’s a corporate shill. But I also get that the Bull’s creator Arturo doesn’t like his art’s message being modified by the Girl’s appearance. Instead of removing or relocating the Bull, maybe Arturo should just *reorient* the Bull. I wonder how people would reinterpret the Girl if she’s staring that intensely at the Bull’s balls…

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  39. I agree with Greg.

    But “Fearless Girl” should NOT be removed. It’s sparking conversation and drawing new interpretations — as art should do.

    I understand Di Modica’s outrage, but it’s also bringing renewed attention to his “Charging Bull”.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  40. Pingback: My Male-Pattern Stupidity and Fearless Girl | Typosphere

  41. I appreciate the context surrounding both art pieces that this article provides. However, I think Fearless Girl makes Di Modica’s piece contemporary and relevant again. Any good piece of art will grow with the ages, and “guerrilla” art should particularly reflect the times in which we live.

    I don’t believe that because because Fearless Girl is a marketing piece it is less important. The Medici’s commissioned many masterpieces and we don’t look back on those masterpieces and think they are less important because the wealthy overlords had them made, often in their own image. Besides, until your article I thought Charging Bull was commissioned but Merrill Lynch (obviously I had not done ANY research…). Now I know better thanks to this article.

    Like

    Reply ↓

    • I love this comment and totally agree. Is this endless argument going to end soon – seems to be dragging on? Leave the wonderful two pieces as they are with all who see interpreting and finding wonderful meanings anew. btw, I saw one comment saying this was a white fearless girl. I absolutely saw her as not white! That is strange maybe but that is also my point – we bring to any work of art our own perceptions and maybe projections. She is a bronze girl of any and all colours and peoples. A farmer would know maybe the type of bull. To most of us, he is just a bull – any and all bulls.

      Like

      Reply ↓

  42. I don’t think who creates a work of art or how it is created matters. All that endures is the work itself, not its back story. Having been in a small fenced area with an angry young steer, I’m inclined not to call her “Fearless Girl” but “Stupid Girl.”

    I personally would like to see her somewhere else so the bull could be a bull and she could be at lot more than she is now. She could be “Defiant Girl” “Rebellious Girl” “Bitched Off Girl” depending on the eye of the beholder.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  43. Solution: Turn the girl around and let her stand in solidarity with the bull and not in defiance. The power of women is not just standing up to those who would oppress them but in leading the way with confidence and resolve towards a better future for all.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  44. 100% on point. Fearless Girl, a marketing tool, is changing the artistic statement of Charging Bull. Di Modica’s option, it seems, is to take his bull and find a more receptive environment for it. That’s not ideal, IMHO, as I deplore the stealing of an artistic statement by someone, or, in this case, something.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  46. Arturo Di Modica should sculpt a young girl of his own and have her riding the bull.
    He could rename his Sculpture “Charging Bull” to “Empowering Bull”
    Then “Fearless Girl” wouldn’t make sense as an icon of female empowerment because the bull would now be that itself.
    It would also not diminish the original art’s message as “The Strength of the American People” because what is our Strength for if not to empower our most vulnerable and innocent of citizens?
    Truly, our children aught to be riding upon our Strength.

    Good move right?

    Like

    Reply ↓

  47. I strongly agree with you, and yes HE HAS A POINT. I do love her too and resent her at the same time. Maybe transfer Charging Bull to some place else or Fearless Girl to some place? So they can both exist in the same world but in different places, just like our contradicting societies who can co-exist even with different views in life. :)

    Like

    Reply ↓

  48. Thanks for the insight. I appreciate the history and perspective. Maybe the artist of Charging Bull could turn it and move it to be side by side and facing the same direction as the girl? The strength of the American people working alongside and conjointly with female power, since female power is after all part of the strength and resilience of the American spirit? That way he could reappropriate the meaning of his appropriated work?

    Like

    Reply ↓

Leave a comment