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 
That’s a very interesting series of eventualities.
I just would say a thing: a good work of figurative art cannot be hijacked by any further intervention. The bull’s installment has been a nice thing in that peculiar moment, but here comes my point: it’s just a bull on charge, nothing else, really. Besides its story, that a stranger couldn’t deduce just by looking at it, it is what it is. This narrative weakness is something that figurative art should be worried not to produce, but the artist probably isn’t aware of thoose perception functionalities, if he would be he wouldn’t get angry either.
LikeLike
Thank you!! This was a great piece on both points of view. I say move the statue in front of the White House if you really want to make a statement.
LikeLike
If feminism was truly about gender equality, the girl would be standing side by side with the bull, not opposing it. For the record I think that’s where he should move the bull
LikeLike
I agree with you. Thank you for sorting it out. I had no idea.
LikeLike
I appreciate the history lesson. Both pieces have power regardless of their juxtaposition. I would love to see Defiant Girl abreast of Charging Bull combining the power into a United front.
LikeLike
I love the fearless girl statue, but you have to admit it looks like she’s meant to be in an antagonistic pose to the bull. It would have been more effective (and less confusing) to have the girl riding the bull.
LikeLike
Pingback: El toro y la niña | Tipologías Orales Inglés V
His point isn’t valid or new: Everyone agrees that public art responds to and affects the environment it inhabits. That’s no reason to remove either statue.
LikeLike
What if we just turned her around and put her next to the bull instead? Then we could root for both of them!
LikeLike
Charging Bull: A symbol of American strength
Girl: A confident girl
Opposite each other: A girl standing against male oppression
Together: Unified strength
I’d like to point out that if you take the original context of both, its a confident girl standing AGAINST American strength. You can then read this as even a little girl has nothing to fear from the strength of America, essentially showing we are not meant to be feared or taken seriously on a global scale.
To show unified strength, the pieces should stand together. Im pretty sure normal people would be a little freaked out standing next to a tempermental bull in reality so the confidence of the child next to this hulking symbol of power and stength would should them standing on even ground, unified in their strength.
LikeLike
Pingback: Endangering the Life of a Child – The Conservative Insider
Why not move her next to the bull…perhaps they could be viewed as allies in the same cause…but then that still suggests that the pieces are somehow different than intended. Yet, time has moved on, and women do deserve recognition. Hmm…more questions even as I respond…
LikeLike
I think we should just put up a sort of sign at the spot, with the story that Greg just shared on it, so people who come to watch understand. Problem solved. ;) :)
With Greg’s explanation I now really understand the underlying facts of the statues. I still just love the composition and meaning of it, from both sides now; the bull representing strength: good and (maybe) bad, and if bad: someone is going to show strength too – in fearlesness – and face what’s coming. The two statues each represent courage and I can’t help but love it. :)
LikeLike
A few thoughts (from another country) … the meaning of a work of art will change over time as physical and cultural contexts change; an artist has no control over the interpretation of the work; once made and put out there, it ceases to be there’s, regardless of any legal arguments to the contrary. I didn’t think Charging Bull was a symbol of American resilience. It looks more like arrogance. Perhaps men would think of it as resilience. Advertising campaigns are allowed to go viral and become more than the sum of its parts. We look for our inspiration where we can find it.
LikeLike
Pingback: the comments | gregfallis.com
Great piece of work here, Greg. Thank you for shedding light and adding perspective.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on GirlVestors and commented:
Wow. This man spit some facts that I wasn’t even ready for! Check it out and tell me what you think. I’d love to chat about this.
LikeLike
My daughter, Chanda, suggests: move her NEXT to the bull! Thank you so much for writing this clear and succinct article about the truth behind the statue. The whole situation is incredibly frustrating and seems to be a symbol of the recent craziness of our political landscape.
LikeLike
Good info for sure. I originally saw a balancing effect created by the juxtaposition of the two figures. Maybe she could be seen to contribute to the power of the American people and not turn the Bull into a symbol of patriarchy. I don’t like why the sculpture was created or what it means to the folks who commissioned it. But art has its own life once it is viewed. I don’t see the two figures at odds. Maybe she reminds the bull that it can be more like Ferdinand and appreciate innocence and beauty. Guess I am a sap. haha
LikeLike
Keep those rolls if you have a camera. You never know what someone else might think of when you snap photos you may believe are worthless.
I once took a photo of a man taking shelter in a bus stop, and in his sleeping bag he lay under a billboard reading “Anything Less is Second Best” (The company was selling homes. I think it was Remax). But he made that shelter his home. No one saw, that I know of, but he wasn’t invisible.
If only I could find that film…
LikeLike
Interesting. I didn’t know the story behind index fund until you told it here, so Innoway you’re doing the marketing job for the marketers. Until today, I knew the story of the charging bull and a cute girl standing up to it. I actually thought the charging bull was commissioned by Wall Street so thank you for educating me. See? I had the story all backward.if you want to criticize the little girl you might say it’s a pity that she has to be a little girl and not a full-grown woman. Anyway, both pieces are interesting and beautiful.
LikeLike
Pingback: How to fail. – sam[ ]zdat
“QI AD 3102, the dissembled head of Alan Davis pushes the buzzer and replies; ‘the underdog'”
*WEOH WEOH WEOH WEOH*
Live and let live I say, there are many stupid corporate stunts around, and that bull was gaudy to begin with(a feeling which I mitigated slightly due to this story)
thematically and esthetically its nice, and you only need to stand in front of the girl to enjoy an unmolested frustum.
LikeLike
What if “Fearless Girl” were placed alongside “Charging Bull,” as though they were in it together, partners against the world, dreamers of success and strength?
LikeLike
Just turn the bull around or turn the girl around so they are facing the same direction. Problem solved
LikeLike
How much is SHE contributing to global female entrepreneurship ??
LikeLike
Couldn’t agree more. Thanks for a tightly reasoned point of view. I’m much better off for having read it.
LikeLike
Neither sculpture was put there for some “approved” message, so I find it hilarious that the bull’s artist wants Fearless Girl removed. Is that not just the PERFECT representation of the American mentality; do as I say, not as I do.
LikeLike
“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.”
That’s my complaint about the opposition to Fearless Girl. The ignorance in that sentiment appears to be completely lost on men. Regardless of why the Charging Bull was created, it has become something more. That something more is a representation of a systemically patriarchally oppressive and predatory environment. For Di Modica to deny how its meaning has changed is exactly the systemic denial of men and what is perpetuating the oppression and that further enhances the need of Fearless Girl.
Does it matter that Fearless Girl was commissioned? I don’t think so. Does it matter that it’s an advertising tool? It detracts but doesn’t deflect. Organizations and people can be philanthropic for selfish reasons. What matters is how balanced such a win-win scenario is.
But just like Charging Bull is more than its original intent, Fearless Girl is already far more meaningful than it’s advertising intent. It’s important and I think strengthens Charging Bull. The two are iconic together now.
LikeLike
Maybe he should pick up his bull statue and simply turn it around. That way, both the girl and the bull will be facing the same way, to the presumably fearless future.
Plus, tourists can then take a single photo of both the girl and the bull’s most famous parts.
LikeLike
Strongly enjoyed reading this article, amazingly written and (at least seemingly) well reserched it shows how complex art can be – with it’s relations to it’s locality, function, interaction with other artworks and so on … and on and on … By the way as an arthistory student I cant understand people refuse history’s importancy too ;)
LikeLike
Things change, symbols change, meanings change. The swastika was once a symbol of prosperity, would you think someone who wanted to display it would “have a point”?
A lot has changed in the 30 years since the Charging Bull statue was first placed on Wall Street. 30 years ago corporate CEO’s paid themselves about 27 times what they paid their average employee. Now they give themselves 204 times what they pay the workers.
30 years ago the aggression and masculinity symbolized by the statue may have been welcome. Today we are dealing with the cultural and financial fallout from celebrating those ideals
LikeLike
Art is about conversation
LikeLike
Pingback: The Week’s End // A Roundup of Important Reads – ZEN AND PI
The commercial agenda of the funder is irrelevant to the artist’s intention and the meaning of the piece. Fearless Girl only adds contemporary context to Charging Bull, reminding us that the American quest for money must be tempered by consideration of those who aren’t in control, whose voices must be heard when decisions are made on our investments and allocation of resources. The issues of equal pay and more women executives are popular political notions that needn’t be seen in the work at all.
LikeLike
Pingback: Why Fearless Girl is Bull – janetawel
Wow, what a tricky situation. Here’s my idea for a solution that I think both parties could be happy with: That fearless young lady should go on tour! She could stand next to the bull like a teammate for a while, then maybe stare down City Hall for a bit…Surely there’s no shortage of contexts where Fearless Girl would be thought provoking, and she needn’t limit herself to NYC, either. And the more places she visits, the more effective the advertising campaign.
As for Di Modica and others whose art Fearless Girl might re-contextualize, I suspect they wouldn’t be nearly so unhappy if the appropriation were temporary. They might even be happy to temporarily “lend” their art so that another important and permanent impression can be made in the minds of viewers.
(And my apologies if anyone else has already suggested this; at some point I gave up reading all the comments.)
LikeLike
The intention of the artist is never the last word. Once any piece of art is put on display, those who view it inevitably and invariably give it new meaning. The artist who made Charging Bull had his say, and now the artist who made Fearless Girl has also made a statement. The public debate is a good thing in itself. At every stage, people are exchanging ideas. All good. The next individual who comments here will ensure that I don’t get the last word, and that’s good, too.
LikeLike
Great post!! I heard about the girl statue when it was put up, but never heard much about it afterwards. I never knew the bull statue ever existed, which makes me feel bad. Di Modica worked hard on it and he spent a lot of his own money. I see both sides of this topic and they are both very understandable. I think women want to defend the girl statue because it is..well a girl. I think they are both great statues and stand for their own topic. Great post!
Please check out my new blog and subscribe to it. I will be posting every Wednesday, starting April 26. I would love for people to check out my future posts! :)
http://www.nivbeauty.wordpress.com
LikeLike
As a tour guide, I want to point out just one of the things I like about Fearless Girl: it has moved the focus of many tourist photographers from the back to the front of the bull!
LikeLike
Reblogged this on .
LikeLike
Very interesting and very insightful post.. I too think he has a point. Definitely food for thought…
xx
https://colourpotblog.wordpress.com/
LikeLike
I’m not familiar with this type of art, but seems to me that an alteration like this, even though it may seem as an improvement for many people, it’s still a disrespect for the original artist, without his or her approval it’s an insult, so many concepts are alterated that the work gets destroyed, I can’t believe the city allowed this to happen, is like adding sunglasses to the Mona Lisa just because some people think it will look prettier that way. How can art grow when artists are the first to disrespect each other?
LikeLike
I totally agree with your views which represent the truth and nothing but truth. The fearless girl has reduced the bull to a travesty. Let the girl stand guard at the 9/11 memorial. Would that enhance her attribute of fearlessness or reduce it to dust?
LikeLike
Pingback: IONTW – April 23, 2017 | 2m2t
Di Modica should replace his Bull with an Easter Bunny or Santa Claus statue and see how that plays.
LikeLike
She could be moved to stand beside the bull to show solidarity with the bull’s strength and fearlessness in supportive the message of the bull!
LikeLike
I love your story and it completely changed my view of should she stay or not. Thanks to my son to opening my eyes to a different view of both statues. Let her move to a new corner. She will still be fearless by her attitude .
LikeLike
If the Bullish sculptor doesn’t like it all he needs is to erect another sculpture of the girl lying in her gore, maybe 20 feet behind this one with the plaque “God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.” I’m all for women empowerment but if you stand in the way of the market it will gore you to death without a thought, no matter who you are: man, woman, or child. A better sculpture for the girl would be her dressed as a cowgirl ready to ride thing … Better message too.
LikeLike
Context creates the meaning. It makes all the difference in the world! Thank you for framing both these works of art and how the message is changed by their history and juxtaposition.
LikeLike