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”

  3. I love your views on this! People are sneaky with their advertising.

    I agree, I want to hate it; but when I first saw it (not knowing what I know now), I thought it was amazing. It made me, as a woman, feel empowered!

    I also love that you were honest about the feedback you received and confronted it head on with an open mind.
    As an artist myself, I can see both sides. I would be upset, but I would also feel that it would attract EVEN more attraction because of the girl. But as a woman, it’s very inspiration. The fact that it is essentially an advertisement is pure genius.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  4. Wow! I knew the sculpture had been commissioned but did not know the commercial reasons for it commission. Thank you for bringing to light the seedy corporate undertone to what is being hailed as a shining beacon to the feminist movement. It makes you wonder what other things have been purloined by large corporations and tacked onto current issues to ‘raise awareness’ whilst actually being advertisements for businesses that actually work at odds to the issue being used….

    Like

    Reply ↓

  5. Why not put them side by side instead of facing each other? That way they aren’t facing off against each other, instead, they face the future together.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  6. Pingback: Opinion: ‘Fearless Girl’ gored by ‘Charging Bull’ | The Sacramento Brie

  7. I had no idea about the background of the Fearless Girl.

    Yes, I appreciate understanding that the original meaning of the Charging Bull has become completely changed. But that is reality of public outdoor art! That is the beauty of art and great art can have different interpretations. The artist must accept this when his work is installed in public outdoor urban space. Yes, absolutely that is a major difference between outdoor and indoor public art space…. there is a real uncontrollable element that reinterprets the original art installation in outdoor art space.

    People can still appreciate the beauty of the charging bull…no matter what it means!

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

    • Complain about which statue? The snowflakes aren’t the ones complaining about Fearless Girl, they love her. Wall Street did originally complain about the bull statue. How did you manage to twist this into a complaint about liberals?

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply ↓

      • I don’t think politics has anything to do with it. I like both statues. I am sure the artist made them in hopes to show people his talents in capturing emotions. Not to where it was placed. Plus different people have different takes. But others would complain if they were hanged with a new rope.

        Like

      • kenh2os, did you read the original post? Your reply to Mark Workoven doesn’t make any sense, given the intents behind each creation.

        Like

  14. Great article. I think if more people were informed who created the statue and what it stood for in creation, not in appearance vs the bull it might help cooler heads to prevail and at least bring a different voice and approach to the discussion. Unfortunately, this probably will not happen and more people will think the artist is just being selfish in his distaste for the new addition to his original piece of art.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  15. Reblogged this on Panamama and commented:
    I know this isn’t about Panama. But it’s so worth reading. I like the way this writer thought through issues that many of us have been raving about – reacting to – furious about. He is observing and his observations allow the readers to draw their own conclusions and think on the multiple issues raised by these two statues in their own, deeper way.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  16. Pingback: Let The People Decide | Creative Resistance

  17. As an artist, I have great sympathy for Di Modica. And not much for Visbal – she should have researched the creation & meaning behind the bull and stood up for her fellow artist instead of taking that corporation’s money. I’ve turned down commissions for less serious reasons; integrity is everything. AND I’m a woman, AND a Feminist, AND extremely left-wing. I too loved the little girl statue when I first saw her (I live in NYC), but now understanding it for the corporate marketing scheme that it is, appropriating such a heartfelt and beautiful gift by a fellow artist to our city, I want it moved to a different location.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  20. I am an artist. I am a woman. I appreciate and thank you for explaining to people the artist’s point of view and also, the history of the bull, which I did not know. It is not much to do about nothing…on the contrary, this is very significant. No one would question removing Fearless Girl, if it was say…a boy or any other statue on any other day besides International Women’s Day…especially this Presidential year’s upset of Secretary Clinton. Like you mentioned, without Charging Bull, Fearless Girl’s message cannot stand on its own. So, I’ll say it. This is politics at its worst and corporate piracy with a personal agenda. Ergo, Fearless Girl is NOT art. Remove.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  21. So I’m going to make a statue of a mother that interconnects with fearless girl. But the mother will have a knife and be slicing fearless girls throat. My personal interpretation will be the death of humanity. Does that make it OK,?

    Like

    Reply ↓

  24. The owner of the bull should turn the bull around, have it face the other direction. Completely take away thepower of the advertisement statue.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  26. Very eye opening. And I’ve got to say, I’m torn now too. I agree that public art does get it’s meaning from the public it speaks to… of course that includes those who cringe at the commercial usurpation of a symbol. New York has a tough choice to make for sure.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  28. Here’s another interpretation:
    Whether advertising the Gender Diversity Fund, or symbolising Feminism, the fact is that Fearless Girl is standing in the way of, and in opposition to, Charging Bull, which was intended to represent the power and strength of the American people.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  29. I respect your opinion though I don’t know why it is necessary to defend it and I’m wondering why if you are not a fan of capitalism you participate in it. Your talent I think is worthy of better content.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  31. An interesting piece – author. With your detailed explanation. I agree. The sculpture of the “charging Bull” has every reason to be pissed(has a point). By the appearance of the “fearless girl,” His well intended gift- that was to show the strength and fearlessness of Americans was turned into a sign of oppression against women, hence the stance of a young girl whom is courageous enough to stand up to such danger without an iota of fear. To top it all, it wasn’t even from a feminist group or fighters of equality for all…instead was sprouted for advertising purpose. I suggest the Bull sculpture owner should remove his Bull- it’s meaning has drastically changed.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  34. Good points but you seem to strategically leave out the very relevant information that SHE isn’t just an arbitrary corporate stock symbol like AAPL or GOOGL but one for a vehicle which was specifically designed to track companies “that are leaders within their respective industry sectors in advancing women through gender diversity on their boards of directors and in senior leadership positions.” As detailed in the below linked article,”SSGA developed the ETF with Calstrs, the California State Teachers’ Retirement System, and it was originally designed to make a political statement as much as beat the overall market”. Calstrs (which, by the way, serves almost 1 million California prekindergarten through community college educators and their families) was “very committed to trying to create some kind of investment vehicle where people who cared about gender diversity could go,”

    This is a very interestingly complex situation, though, the above points considered, I think the balance of moral high ground here still leans towards the Fearless Girl, as we (or at least anyone aligned with feminism) may hope it should.

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/wall-streets-famed-bronze-bull-has-a-new-companion-trumpeting-gender-disparity-2017-03-07

    Like

    Reply ↓

  37. I’ve seen this statue in other blogs. Without knowing any of the history, I think its beautiful and the truest statement is only made, if both statues remain. Certainly made me smile. :-)

    Like

    Reply ↓

  38. I like the meaning of both statues, ans I understand that you’ve got a point.
    The Fearless Girl loses most of her meaning if The Charging Bull is taken back, but taking back The Fearless Girl would be like saying that girls( and so women ) don’t have their place in this, and would probably totally changed the meaning of The Charging Bull, which would then be remembered as a patriarcal (?) symbol because people probably won’t forget that there has been a fearless little girl in front of him once.
    A solution could be to make The Charging Bull a bronze plaque too, where his first meaning will be recalled, and then the two would still have their point : The Charging Bull would still be a symbol of American’s strength and power, and The Fearless Girl will be here too symbolise the fact that girls (and so women) have a place and a role to play in this power. ( and so the charging bull won’t be changed to a patriarcal symbole ).
    It’s the only thng I can think of to stop one of the statue from be removed, and to keep both original meaning

    Like

    Reply ↓

  40. I think it’s a beautiful sculpture and speaks volumes of what every woman endures in the world. Every girl or woman have had to fearless face a metaphorical charging bull at some point in her life. I think it could remain right where it is. It’s a bold statement depicting reality.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  41. The fearless girl statue intended or not has really made the bull be seen in a different light. Agree with modica’s point of view as it defeats the purpose of his sculpture. I don’t really know which one of the statues should be stored in the truck and transported somewhere else. But you can deny the fact both statues and get piece of art and appropriately place. Wonder Article this.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  43. Great article. I enjoyed the history lesson. Regardless of the reason the little girl was placed there [i.e. advertising scheme]. If both statues are representations of strength. Then why not make them a team? Put the girl beside the bull so they can be strong together.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  44. Pingback: The point! Great read. – Attempting Life!

  45. Wow. I seriously had no clue. I was one of the many who was glad to see the statue remain after IWD. Now? Now I’m really not sure. Now, I’m leaning more to having it removed. You have a point Di Modica has a very real and valid point. Thank you for the thoughtful piece.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  46. I’ve shared this with some of my friends + also @ http://fun.freezine.org/activity/p/2470

    IMO — well, in my “gut feeling” — nobody has a right to anything (more or less). I think Rosa Luxemburg said it far more eloquently: “Freiheit ist immer die Freiheit der Andersdenkenden” (“freedom is always the freedom to think differently”).

    So bully bully for calling BS on the right to own a public space.

    Not that this answer gets us anywhere, but at least I’m acknowlidging *YOUR* point (and also both artists’ right / lack of rights).

    I guess it’s all a matter of “Stop Making Sense” (am I allowed to say that?) ;)

    Like

    Reply ↓

  48. I understand why Di Modica wants the girl removed. What they have done is change his artisitc vision on him by adding, in effect, to his project. Any true artist would be upset. I thought it was the same artist and he was making a new statement. That is unfair and infringement in my mind. I love the girl; she just needs her own space is all. If the two artists didn’t work together, or agree on this, the girl should be removed. Who cares if he didn’t originally have permission. What the second artist did was change the personality of the bull into a dangerous one and that was not the original intent. It’s the public who should be making these decisions in support of the artist. If someone painted over part of a painting that original artist would be furious. Same thing. :)

    Like

    Reply ↓

    • Bad analogy. Painting over a painting destroys the painting. Since Charging Bull still belongs to him, he can move it to another appropriate location of his choosing, leaving Fearless Girl and its recontextualization behind.

      Remember, Di Modica planned to make a handful more Charging Bull statues on commission for different locations around the world. He might think NYSE is the “perfect” location for Charging Bull’s debut, but it isn’t the only location he thinks is acceptable.

      Like

      Reply ↓

    • His statue wasn’t commissioned, so it arrived on the corner in the same “dark of night” manner as the Fearless Girl. It’s very hypocritical to demand one to be removed and not the other. An artist doesn’t get to dictate how his work is interpreted, especially in a public space. Any good artist would appreciate the fact that their piece is still relevant after all this time. If you want to create something that only has one function and you can write the manual, then perhaps scupture and visual art is the wrong field for you.

      Like

      Reply ↓

  49. Intentional or not, the bull is also the logo go Merrill Lynch. And I’d bet that most people did not know the actual back story and thought it was sponsored by the investment firm. So like it or not, the whole thing has it’s roots in marketing. That said, I think the whole thing has done what art is supposed to do, make people think. And I don’t think the girl really negates the meaning of the bull. After all, she’s clearly not going to defeat the powerful animal, she’s just not afraid of it. You can read all sorts of meaning and gender commentary into that but I think the overall power of pairing these two sculptures together is a positive impression and should stay as is.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

    • True that a bull is Merrill Lynch’s logo, but associating a bull with economics goes back at least as far as a 1901 cartoon depicting JP Morgan as a bull awaiting eager investors.

      BTW, Merrill Lynch didn’t sponsor Charging Bull; according to CNN/Money, once upon a time ML did consider buying it.

      Like

      Reply ↓

      • The point is moot whether anyone received or didnt get sponsorship…The Moulin Rouge ‘sponsored’Lautrec to make posters in the 19th c.Didnt make any difference to the quality.

        Like

  50. Beautifully written, you have some skill there! You really seem to know how to change people’s opinions, very persuasive. I’ve just started my blog and really don’t know a thing about how to promote it and all that, so I was hoping for some advice? Keep up the brilliant work!

    Like

    Reply ↓

Leave a reply to revpennybrandtgmailcom Cancel reply