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. Very well said. While I think the girl is fantastic, there’s still some discomfort in the back of my mind knowing that the driving force behind it is an ad agency appropriating a cultural movement. It is the exact same idea as the Pepsi/Kylie Jenner ad, just a much better execution.
    Maybe it’s more realistic to accept that advertising pays for everything now, and we should just be happy that there are corporations willing to put out a message that empowers women… Moreover, if most people don’t even know that it’s advertising, and are able to draw meaning from the sculpture, then the outcome is worthwhile.
    Hats off to Mcann though, they better win the Titanium Lion at Cannes for this one.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  2. The majority of people don’t know that it’s a marketing ploy so it’s symbolism over-rides that aspect in my opinion. Women and girls need symbols to reinforce their power in standing up to a patriarchal society. Hope it stays.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  4. Art generates responses. The artist is NOT guaranteed a safe place of silence. The article assumes the artist’s integrity is determined by either his intent, his heritage or his monetary investment in his work. Art does not work like that. A speaking artist id not in the void, but the world where responses happen, some welcome and some not.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply ↓

  5. To Wall St traders, the bull represents human optimism and upward movement through the future. The bear represents pessimism, oppression, and it “keeps the bull down”. Were the Fearless Girl to oppose a bear, then the metaphor of women rising through the opposition would be much stronger.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply ↓

  6. I agree with both sides of the a disagreement/controversy. But I have never seen that bull as the artist intended even after the history lesson. For me it’s always been a symbol of maleness, bull market, the cut throat means of maintaining the Wall Street state of mind, 2008 … I don’t know what Di Modica was thinking because I was never included in that ‘American people’, he speaks of. He made it public art.
    Public art like language changes over time and it is expected. The community defines the changes by living with it, using it, interacting, perceiving. That is the difference between museum art and public art (in this instance guerilla art). Once put in the public arena his intent is gone, he needs to let go. And that includes the SHE company, their subliminal message is lost. In actuality, both pieces have created a greater masterpiece overcoming time, events, intent, and space.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  7. One question has been strongly knawing at me the whole time I have been looking through this article, actually two; the first question is how long has the bull been a symbol of a strong financial market? The second is did modica really think that the bull would read Solely as a symbol of the strength and resistance of the American people? His choice of symbol, his choice of pose of the animal, his choice of size and material, and most importantly his choice of location of the Piece, all speak more to a sort of veneration of the financial markets as opposed to a symbol of subtle or outright resistance to them and the culture they pro-ject. To the non informed with regards to the motivation of modica, for the vast majority of people walking past the statue every day, the message is likely to be one of veneration. An artist can say whatever he chooses to say about a symbol he chooses, where he chooses to place it and why, but in this case before reading the story, I tended to instinctively see the placement of the girl as a resistance to the veneration of the financial culture and it’s sexist nature

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  8. Sincerity is a non-issue in art. It simply does not matter how or why the art was made – irrelevant when considering art in its purest form. Art should be judged standing on its own merit and this girl works much much better as art than any kind of advertising.
    People think and discuss important concepts on many levels because of this piece.
    And it is beautifully and thoughtfully crafted.
    It promotes social justice and equality.
    Bravo!
    I think 99.9 % of people will engage in socially important discussions rather than think, “oh, I should invest my money with (whatever firm paid for this).”
    I wish all advertising were like this- creating greater awareness of social problems and promoting equality. We all benefit from that. Alas, given how poorly this works as advertising (I can’t remember the name of the firm who paid for it and couldn’t be bothered to look it up) this is unlikely to happen.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  9. I think they should stay together or she should don a red flag while they’re at it….and thats a reality too,,,, the fact that we exist seems to be a red flag….maybe thats why they want to eliminate 2thrids of us…..

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply ↓

  11. We need another guerrilla artist to end all the bickering. Simply uproot the girl, place her a few feet in front of the bull with her back to it. With the bull standing just behind, peering protectively over her shoulder our perception should change. The ‘Fearless Girl’ now stands even stronger with the support of the American people behind her – which the ‘Charging Bull’ was originally supposed to represent.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  12. “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.”
    The Fearless Girl didn’t _change_ the meaning of the Charging Bull, she _revealed_ it.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  13. Dear Author. I did appreciate very much the contents oy your article. Coming to the point: I have a solution to be proposed to NWC Municipality and to the artists, through you if you want, since I live in Milan and that would make it complicated. Simply indicating me as inspirer, nothing more, if you want to adopt it as a basis for an open discussion. The proposed solution is: removing Fearless Girl from Bowling Green Plaza and locate it in Battery Park together with a faithful reproduction of Charging Bull, at the exact distance and position. At costs of Fearless Girl promoters of course. I think Modica would accept it. Ready to interact from Milan, if required. Kindest regards, Paolo Bertaccini

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  14. Move the Fearless Girl to face the same direction as Charging Bull. It takes just as much bravery to stand anywhere near a Charging Bull. Let them be Fearless together.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply ↓

    • If the girl were turned to have her back to the bull, at the same distance she now stands facing it, she would become a symbol of obliviousness to danger, as in card zero The Fool. She would also need to be moved closer to give the impression that girl and bull stand together.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply ↓

  15. Wow, what a rant.

    Infantilizing women is never a good strategy. It’s part of why we are “here” in the first place.

    The statuette is in a dangerous spot. That reason alone is enough to necessitate its movement away from there. Staring down The New York Stock Exchange would be more fitting.

    Of course, SHE doesn’t have the “b***s” to do that because that would mean they’d need to bite the hand that feeds them. Much better to go up against the little guy. And yes, he’s a small, tiny entity compared to a firm that handles Trillions of dollars.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  16. The creators of both works, the interests that commissioned and/or placed them, and the writer of pieces like this one are missing a crucial point: once art is placed into the open it relinquishes control of its meaning. Museums in a sense attempt to let works exist and be appreciated in their own context, but these works are in a public street. Time and the world passing by will decide what these statues mean.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  19. Leave the Confident Girl!! Take away the Bull. The girl does NOT only have significance because of the Bull. The Girl will still be confident forever after the Bull is gone!!

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply ↓

  20. If DiModica feels his art is now compromised, he should rescind the city’s right to display it. NYC should tell him to remove his UNSOLICITED artistic contribution, if he’s unhappy with the way it’s displayed. As an artist myself, I learned long ago that the artist’s intent and the meaning one applies to their own art is forfeit once you concede to display it. If the artist wants to reclaim the piece’s identity, then he must reclaim the piece itself, and put it in an environment that is under his own control. Also… He could just try sucking it up and not being a baby.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  21. I always thought the bull was without a partner…the bear. It shows the U.S. is shamelessly off balance if it only reflects a bull market. The addition of the girl warps the theory altogether, fun. What I think might be happening is more regular folk are seeing Wall Street as approachable and a fair subject for comment. It is, after all, the biggest Casino in the world.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply ↓

    • Of course it’s unbalanced–it’s purely talismanic. It’s intended to invoke and evoke wealth through the free market.

      Now, I disagree with the notion that capitalism is the ne plus ultra of economic systems. Yet in our current system–where Wall Street serves as the temple row of our modern Rome–the Bull standing alone makes perfect sense.

      As an artist, the symbolism of the girl in juxtaposition to the bull struck me as deeply wrong. I didn’t like it. It felt all wrong and it still feels all wrong.

      To me, the idea of a cowgirl riding alongside the bull on would signify the power of women in the market today. It would also be a classic image hearkening back to strong women like Annie Oakley, Amelia Earhart, and even Bennie Elizabeth Parker.

      It’s not the idea of women sharing the space, but this strange symbolism that alters the space of the Bull so significantly. It shows a lack of artistic awareness–and of course it does, because it’s an ad campaign. It’s a shame that it’s a mock installment and not genuine–and were it genuine, it’d be a natural fit.

      Now, as someone else suggested, if we took this girl and placed her facing the White House, we’d really have something….

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply ↓

    • “shamelessly off balance if it only reflects a bull market” Why is that? The bull itself is a display of public art. It is the artist’s calling card, and the publicity that surrounded the placement of the bull could only help him make money. A 7000 lb. calling card.

      The bull was placed there to satisfy the artist’s need of expression, not as a direct representation of the markets. The market adopted it as their symbol because of the popularity the statue’s image had.

      I don’t know the history of the little girl statue, but she would be a lot easier to put in place than the giant bull. And she changes the meaning of the bull statue, just as the bull changes her meaning. The girl is meant to appear defiant, but out of context that reaction could be caused by anything, and the meaning would be different. The bull represents Wall St. and all that name implies (particularly corporations), but the girl adds another meaning – the unbeatable America Spirit against rampant capitalism.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply ↓

  22. “Good” art in public places should always generate discussion. I would love to see an instalment of explanation by both pieces prepared by the artists in addition to a statement from “SHE’s” PR firm.
    The public then has a chance to consider and reflect on the pieces with greater awareness. And who knows… perhaps appropriation of the Fearless (Marketing) Girl will be next.

    Liked by 5 people

    Reply ↓

    • What if someone put an American flag next to her and installed a black bloc antifa glowering over her with an upraised fist?
      Damn right there would be uproar over the fact that her positive message of empowerment had been appropriated and subverted.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply ↓

  25. What about all the works of art in the past that were commissioned by wealth and power? Does the fact that someone with deep pockets make Michelangelo’s work less compelling? I think you nailed it when you said art by its nature is subversive.

    Liked by 5 people

    Reply ↓

  26. Yes, Arturo has a point. It’s a lame, selfish, egoistical point. He thinks that once he creates art and releases it, we all ought to bow down, kiss his arse, or whatever he demands.
    I for one am sick of artists who do this. The playwrights who will sue you if you change one word in a script without permission even if the production requires it. The music producers who (as Todd Rundgren put it in a complaint similar to mine) would come into your living room and adjust the settings on your audio.
    Quit being a whiny little “art-esst” dude. Your work is out there. If someone puts another work nearby, be glad you made a living doing something you enjoy. If people smear your bull with ice cream or put a Yankees cap on it, take it in stride and show some good humor. Or die miserable, I don’t care about you.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  27. The funniest part of this is that I’d never have known”Fearless Girl” was a marketing scheme until you told me, and it still fails on that front.
    The raging bull symbolism has also changed over the years… Now a symbol of Wall Street greed and corruption, not quite what his artistic designer originally intended, eh?

    Liked by 6 people

    Reply ↓

  28. When the author says, “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.” I have to disagree.
    This is typical male thinking that the girl is nothing without a male counterpart as if women need men to define who they are or to give them meaning. Women are fearless with or without a man, in fact they have to be fearless in this male dominant world. This author proves it.
    Get over yourself, man!

    Liked by 5 people

    Reply ↓

    • The point is that the Bull gives the statue context, which would be completely different in another location, say Central park facing a tree. If someone places in front of “Fearless Girl” a statue of a mom presenting a plate of vegetables, her context changes. Also, the artist who sculpted “fearless girl” would have a right to be pissed off about the unintended, intentional change in her context. If context didn’t matter, as you seem to imply, why choose the spot in front of the Bull for installation?

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply ↓

    • “Male dominant world” is more YOUR perception ma’am. Any Biology/Anthropology 101 student KNOWS there are more women than men in “our” world. Just another victim mentality rises to the surface here.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply ↓

    • I disagree. Seeing one’s adversary is always more provocative than imagining what the adversary could possibly be. A strong, confident girl fiercely staring down a menacing bull is more provocative than a strong confident girl staring down at a tree or a sidewalk. With no visible risk facing her, the girl may even be considered cute or precocious. With the bull (the risk), she becomes fearless, courageous, and strong.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply ↓

    • Except that she’s not facing a man, she’s facing a giant violent animal.
      The bull was placed there to show the strength of the American way of life, and a defiant child shouldn’t get to steal the show or be allowed to alter the meaning.
      DiModica should turn his bull and put it’s raised tail over her head. If that’s not allowed, he should ‘guerrila-artwork’ his way on over to the White House with it. I’m pretty sure our current POTUS would LOVE LOVE LOVE to have that in HIS new front yard!

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply ↓

    • It’s not about the bull. It’s about context. Without any danger to face – bet it a bull, an avalanche, a meteor, a bus – she’s just not Fearless anymore, because there’s nothing to fear. She’s just generally defiant. I think you’re trying to see “male thinking” everywhere.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply ↓

    • Had it been called fearless boy, it still wouldn’t be “fearless” without the bull. It has nothing to do with gender, rather with the statue standing up to an outside threat. Without the “threat” posed by the bull, the fearless statue, no matter the gender, does not carry the same weight or meaning.
      You’re letting the corporation that created this statue manipulate you and others as they co-opt the concept of a strong girl to push their product.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply ↓

    • Are you stupid? Let’s put her in from of a wall then, in front of a giant ice cream cone, is not that she is “nothing” without a “male” counterpart, is that the meaning changes depending on the context, the statue has made to be facing something, thus, it is important what she is facing, independent of it’s genre, like I said, put her in front of a giant ice cream and it looses all seriousness, put her in front a another status but of an adult woman and and has another meaning, can you see that at least?? Stop thinking about genitals for once look at the bigger picture.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply ↓

    • Brian, you are wrong in thinking that a girl has nothing to be fearful of other than men. Men, themselves, are not the enemy … the enemy lies within the whole system of how men and women have been raised and stereotyped for centuries.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply ↓

  29. Let’s have them.standing side by side facing the world. Each strong and confident.
    I think the girl could go anywhere… she could be moved around. She stands on her defying whatever is trying to hurt or stop her.
    Unfortunately the bull has come to symbolize a bull market. Maybe it should be moved so it is solely tied to wall Street. Because now it symbolizes those that control the market which today has bad connotations…. oppressors.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  33. Charging Bull has not been a symbol of the strength and power of the “American people” for decades.
    Let the “market” speak for itself:
    https://smile.amazon.com/Charging-Stock-Market-Bull-Statue/dp/B004RB8E4C/ref=smi_www_rco2_go_smi_g2609328962?_encoding=UTF8&%2AVersion%2A=1&%2Aentries%2A=0&ie=UTF8
    “This bronze charging Stock Market bull is set in a classic pose and ready to take on any challenge. This bill makes for a perfect and affordable gift for any occasion. These make great incentive awards too!”
    It’s the “stock market bull.” Most anyone outside of your small circle of friends would identify it as such. It is a symbol of wealth and the financial markets, specifically in NYC. The rich, and the “1%.”
    This is the most disingenuous pile of bull crap. Yes, you have a point, but it’s insulated by the company you keep. Keep self-justifying, keep it classy, lol.
    Shava Nerad
    retired, but formerly listed in Inc Urban 100 and a number of other Inc indices, 50 best companies in Oregon to Work For, 3rd Fastest Growing Private Companies in OR, nominated for Woman Entrepreneur of the Year by reporting staff of the PDX Business Journal.
    Not exactly anti-capitalist, just calling out your culture bubble

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply ↓

  35. Men have been deriving their power from repressing women for centuries. Why shouldn’t a symbol of a woman be able to derive power from a symbol of a man? All I see are excuses here. The media depicts him as a whiny little boy, because he is one.

    Liked by 6 people

    Reply ↓

    • While I agree that it would be much easier to have SHE placed facing the same direction as the bull, perhaps the simplest solution would be to turn the bull around or to one side or something so they don’t look like they are squaring off against each other. All arguments aside, someone intentionally changed the original meaning of the artist’s work and I think he has the right to be unhappy about it.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply ↓

  37. Maybe it’s important that both pieces remain as a way to force people to reconcile the two emotions you described- I feel the love/inspiration and simultaneous resentment involved in looking at the statues individually and together forms a microcausim for how we might all feel about the United States.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply ↓

  38. Thank you for this commentary. Well done. I agree the artist has a point. Indeed in Canada (where I reside) a similar case some years ago is used as a benchmark for such artistic infringements. That said, removal would be a shame for the reasons, and others, that you suggest. I am naive, but I don’t know why a new encompassing narrative could not be created encompassing the gestalt of both pieces. Everything seems so polarized these days. The embrace of both, even in juxtaposition, in a political and financial evolution of modern day norms would be powerful. Anyway, just an opinion.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  41. Pingback: I like Fearless Girl now – i have this fantasy that blogging isn't dead

  42. I think Arturo Di Monica should make new statues behind fearless girl of business execs smoking cigars with stacks of money falling out of their pockets handing a giant case of money to a statue of the artist that made the girl statue to put it all in perspective.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply ↓

  43. Thanks for the very helpful and educational historical context, I learned something new!
    It is indeed easy for emotions to run wild on both sides if one does not have the historical framework as a backdrop!
    Very well written article as well.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  45. Here’s where I take issue with the (interesting, illuminating) point you’re making here: You ignore that the SHE fund is specifically selected companies who have been shown to give women real positions of leadership and participation. To reduce it to an “ad campaign” ignores that by supporting the SHE fund, the campaign serves to encourage people to support companies who support women in leadership. To me that is not a fraud, the mission is congruent with the message. Here is how the SHE fund selects the companies in the fund:
    “The eligible universe is ranked by gender diversity within each sector according to the
    following ratio-based criteria, based on an analysis by an independent third party of
    information included in regulatory filings such as annual reports, press releases and the
    corporate website of a company (“company communications”), as of the most recent
    practicable date.
    (i) ratio of female executives and female members of the board of directors to all
    executives and members of the board of directors;
    (ii) ratio of female executives to all executives; and
    (iii)ratio of female executives excluding executives who are members of the board of
    directors to all executives excluding executives who are members of the board of directors.
    “Executives” comprise each employee disclosed in company communications that holds the
    position of Vice President and above in the organizational structure of a company, except that
    “executives” of companies classified to the Financials sector comprise each employee disclosed
    in company communications that holds the position of Managing Director or above in the
    organizational structure of such company.” (via SSGA.com)

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply ↓

  46. I read an interpretation that Fearless Girl represents moderation of capitalism. She’s the checks and balances, the regulations on capitalism, reminding the financial sector of our humanity. I like that.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  48. I love that statue and that it’s added to the way the Charging Bull statue is viewed. I didn’t know that it was intended as a piece of advertising. I do like that it’s started a conversation about public art. It seems to me that it’s intended meaning will get lost in time, I think it already has. As for the sculptor’s complaints about the meaning of his statue, he said it’s a symbol of the strength and power of the American people. But because it’s a male bull, a masculine symbol, it doesn’t include feminine power. You can’t symbolize a society of male and female with only a masculine symbol. That ignores women, it assumes that their purpose is only to support the men. Women have been fighting to get out from under that assumption since the suffragettes from the turn of the century. Over a hundred years and men still aren’t getting it.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  49. Thanks for the background. What it demonstrates to me though is that both works of art have failed in their initial purpose. For me, the bull represents the aggression of wall street and not the ‘indomitable american spirit’, whilst the girl represents the ordinary person, only able to express their power through their courage. Until you had told me that it was part of a campaign for an investment fund, I wouldn’t have known and in all the commentary I have seen about it so far, this hadn’t ever been mentioned.
    As artistic expressions though they work so much better together and create a living message to the american people. There are 2 things that make a country great – its indomitable spirit and its compassion for the weak.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

Leave a reply to Cameron Su Buster Cancel reply