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 
Interesting, but I don’t buy the premise. Art museums are full of well curated collections presented in deliberate sequences that often create synergy for the individual pieces that the original artists could not have anticipated. That doesn’t invalidate curation.
Mozart wrote his Requiem as a commissioned piece. That doesn’t lessen its artistic merit.
The creator of the bull has no reasonable claim on the space surrounding his work. He placed it there without permission, and the city ultimately accepted the work. But that gives him no right to claim jurisdiction nor aesthetic control over the space.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry, I am trying to stop getting dinging email notices in my non-WP email and can’t find ANYthing or option. I had previously checked “notify me” below – never again ;-> – & now the Sorcerer’s Apprentice’s minions won’t shut up or stop!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Without reading too deep into the meaning of these two beautiful works I say they both look good together and everyone can draw their own conclusions. Don’t always look to others for the answers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for your piece and your opinion! People often want to define truth and meaning as good v. evil, cut and dry, headline-only-please things. But things are almost always more complex with layers and nuance, which makes some uncomfortable. I think the girl should be install next to the bull, as allies and partners. The combination of power, fearlessness, expectation, strength, and optimism would be riveting. However, even though she is lovely to look at, she is not something of substance; she is a pied piper- a spoon full of sugar to make the medicine go down, if you will. Those who chose to not investigate or understand the complete context and history of both pieces are dupes, drinking the corporate Kool-aid.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I read your article through end to end. I rarely do that anymore. Either the content isn’t worth the time or my Smart Phone evolved brain doesn’t have the attention span. I value what you say here and agree with all of it. IMPORTANTLY (underline) I don’t like it BECAUSE I agree with it. The most important lasting point you made here is that opinions can be opposing AND be valid. We tend to forget that these days, opting for an – ‘if I am right, you are wrong’ defense. This is probably especially prominant in situations that require resolution by a physical action. Move the statue or not? Or? Put her in a box? wall her off? Surely we csn be more creative. Anyway, thanks for laying out the knowledge stones that pave several paths of perspective.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The placement of the girl is simply wrong. Instead of opposing the bull, she should flank him, facing the same direction, both on-looking to the world that challenges them. As if the bull was her pet…
LikeLiked by 1 person
The best answer could be relocating her next to the bull facing the same way. They are together facing the challenges.
Or
Put her facing the New York stock exchange
LikeLiked by 1 person
“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.”
This is true, but reductive. I think putting the two statues in conflict with each other didn’t unceremoniously change the meaning of Charging Bull, but rather complicated and questioned it. The “strength and power of the American people” is a concept that has long been tied up in masculinity, in capitalism, in selective exclusion of certain demographics. Was Di Modica including young girls when he talked about “the American people” and the spirit that made them great? Given that his chosen symbol is a highly masculinized, aggressive, imposing animal, I’d guess not.
Fearless Girl asks us to look at all the bull represents from a different perspective — from the eyes of people who have traditionally been excluded from or hurt by the “strength and power” mentality that built and pervades on Wall Street.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I disagree with the assertion that the Fearless Girl draws it’s power and changes the meaning of Charging Bull. They were both installed, they can be un-installed at any point. You can take a picture of both, or exclude one or the other. They each have meaning independent of the other. Regardless of the original intent, that’s what makes the whole thing genius.
Now if someone were to install a bronze rodeo clown between the two of them. That would be outstanding.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very tough to read…. zzzz
LikeLiked by 1 person
fair point, but, 90% people are not going to read the line or even notice that SHE refers to a stock symbol. so it fails as an ad. in terms of deriving power from existing art, isn’t the raging bull itself an unoriginal symbol? anyway, it’s how you look at it, we live in an age where it is abundantly clear that stocks are a scam, this fearless child, is a symbol of hope that money is not god. it elevates the existing art by changing its direction, the wall street bull should always have been a symbol of evil, of greed but it was not, and now it is. so, good! #DestroyWallStreet
LikeLiked by 1 person
that bull needed to be castrated a long time ago…there is still immense greed in wall street…and, the girl a symbol of restraint…and, gee I wish I could make a piece of art worth half a million and just drop it somewhere without permission…that in itself is elitist…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Put chains & shackles all over the bull’s body. Her fearlessness will change to arrogance. Which is what’s happened.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for the education/information/context. Especially regarding the Fearless Girl. Only now I’m as ambivalent and confused as you about the situation and what should be done; you have deprived me of the satisfaction of feeling indignant and self-righteous. Should I thank you for that too? 😏
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wonder how the proponents of Fearless Girl would feel if someone installed a statue facing her of a mother figure (or father for that matter) bending down holding an index finger out and scolding her. It would suddenly change the meaning of “Fearless Girl” into “Little Brat.” Then they’d understand how Di Modica feels about how this addition affects his work. As for what Di Modica could do, I’d simply suggest he move the bull to face the other way, or even sideways.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is a fascinating backstory, though I won’t go so far as to thank you for writing it because I would rather continue assuming that this was the work of some merry prankster, which is something I would fully appreciate. My thoughts on this are similar to your own, I love the statue of fearless girl and I hate the reason she was put there. Is it possible to keep the statue and remove the purpose? Probably not…however, the plaque that explains the purpose could be removed, and maybe that would be a compromise worth considering. Of course the people who placed the statue may decide to remove it if the plaque cannot remain, but that would be their decision to make, rather than the governments. In the end, I think it is the plaque that makes this advertising rather than art. True art leaves the purpose and meaning in the eye of the beholder.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Maybe she should be riding the bull.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m sure that for Di Monica it’s not about the money, but since Fearless Girl is a piece of advertising and since it’s meaning and impact is substantially derived from its proximity to the Bull – shouldn’t he be paid for the use of his image? Seems to me that State Street Global Advisors owes him one hell of a royalty.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I see that the girl changes his art, but society has also changed. The bull is supposed to represent the American people, but it is a bull. Bulls are male. I am not included in the “American people” statue. In the past “he” was the default pronoun for unknown individuals. I hated that 30 years ago.
I see change in our language now. Art can change too. He has a right to want his statue to remain as it was , or he can chose to see how it was never inclusive and either update it or remove it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It needs to be placed in front of the White House.
LikeLiked by 4 people
This.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m a transplanted New Yorker. And in my new city now we have an Art Walk. But not only an Art walk block. We have sculptures and Art on many blocks, some Art works are close together. People who love Art appreciate it. There is no territoriality. It seems petty that this is even an issue. Especially in a great city like Manhattan.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I wouldnt say petty, given the original context of the charging bull and the effort put into it by the artist to convey that message. I think it is a shame that corporate America has hijacked an artists work and changed its context so drastically by putting another equally well done and equally meaningful piece. If they wanted to convey their message, they should have done some other threat for Fearless Girl to face as part of the piece to give it the proper context not hi-jacked the Charging Bull piece. Then placed the complete work somewhere else. That would give the proper context to the piece without hi-jacking another artists work and changing it’s context entirely.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agreed! I don’t feel like a raging bull. But the wacko POTUS does. Are we supposed to fear the king and praise him? No way. Stand up to him. I think both sculptors need to reconsider the true meaning of their own art. It’s in the eyes of the beholders anyway! They GAVE US the images! Now sit down and shut up, and let us appreciate.
“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.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
The difference in this case is they aren’t just close together. Fearless Girl deliberately incorporates someone else’s art and changes the intent of Charging Bull. That is why it’s subversive and some people take issue.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I see why they made you leave New York: you’re a moron. if you go to a museum, you will notice that some Art is near other Art. You will also notice that this is not a problem. Just like the exiting Art Walk in your new town! Now maybe you can see: one thing being near another thing isn’t the crux of the problem.
Good luck in Your Great New Town!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Open streets with individual sculptures are NOT museums. From there, your ignorant and unnecessarily belligerent response falls apart.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m struck by a solution that seems so simple I’m sure many have thought of it and dismissed it, but I’ll say it anyway… what if fearless girl were turned around? With her back to the bull. The bull would still represent the strength of the American people only now having females front and centre. Just a thought.
LikeLiked by 10 people
Better for them to be side by side. If equality is the end goal, it seems most appropriate for that to be the position. The bull maintains itself as a symbol of strength and power of the American people and the girl becomes a representation of how women shall not be forgotten in that power.
LikeLiked by 1 person
May just make people say that she is being followed or creeped on.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think this is a brilliant idea. This way they’re forming a united front. She’s still fearless and determined, the bull regains his determination and strength, as well as his original meaning. Everyone can be happy. So simple! If you start a petition, I’ll sign it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think the fearless girl should be riding the bull.
LikeLiked by 1 person
but that still appropriates the older work of art. i think what another commenter suggested: place the girl next to the bull (or the bull next to the girl) so they are both facing the same threat alongside each other. i think that’s a powerful message.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You could put it behind her…which would make her look like an idiot.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, this girl is an idiot. “Trying to get the bulls attention”? She’ll be trampled underfoot by a power she challenged without understanding what it meant.
Fearless Girl is the perfect symbol of our idiot society poisoned by feminism. It is the fitting representation for the myriad of women that were told they could have it all and are then crushed by the toll life inevitably takes. The bull will not care “how brave” this girl was. He will run her over and she’ll be lucky if she only gets bruised and not crippled for life. And then the crying would begin and people would demand that somebody should have protected her. I ask, why? It was her own stupidity. She did not fear the bull, so she had to learn the hard way – and it is all her own fault, as well as the people who told her she could do it. Everything has consequences, everything has a price. Make damn sure you are willing to pay it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
He doesn’t have a point, and here’s why. This guy is trying to make the case that because “Fearless Girl” was part of a marketing/advertising plan, it’s not “real art”. That’s just bullshit. There are many examples of marketing/advertising that also make incredibly important social and “artistic” statements. Which this does. Also, the bull artist may have intended his statue to represent “the strength and power of the American people” it doesn’t anymore. It represents Wall Street. Which people have intense feelings about. It represents what the Occupy movement was fighting. The artist may not like that, but that’s what happens to art/design in the world. If you had a time machine, go back and ask the poor schmuck that originally designed the swastika as a symbol of good luck in India. Sorry dude, it doesn’t mean that any more. Same with the bull statue. Because, otherwise, the Fearless Girl wouldn’t make so much sense, as art.
LikeLiked by 6 people
Just a small point… To most Buddhists and Hindus in India and Tibet and Nepal the symbol which westerners recognise as the reversed swastika still very much retains its original meaning…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just because you disagree with it, that doesn’t mean the artist doesn’t have a point. Too often we think only one side can be right, but the biggest arguments are when neither side is completely wrong. As is the case here
LikeLike
I don’t think the main point here is that it isn’t real art. The point is that the inclusion the the girl waters down and twists the meaning of his original piece. The bull stood as a symbol of strength and perseverance. Even as a “wall-street” statue, it still represented that. Now it represents an obstacle, or an antagonist. The meaning of his art has been hijacked and changed without his consent. That is what he has a problem with.
Another artist could build a third statue, perhaps of a man standing beside the girl, reaching out for her hand. This would change the meaning of the little girl. Now she’s a little precocious girl imagining things, and the dad is trying to get her to leave. It’s too bad if anybody disagrees with the third statue, because it was somebody’s artistic vision (corporate or otherwise). The meaning of the little girl has now changed, but that’s what happens with art, right.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Umm.. nope. First of all making statements like “the guy who designed the swastika” shows your complete and utter ignorance. It wasn’t designed by some guy it’s an ancient symbol that appears on carvings and ancient temples and to 1.1 billion people (15% of the worlds population) it’s still an auspicious and religious symbol and is used today. Just bc some lunatic reversed it and bastardized it does not change its original meaning.
He absolutely has a point. You however, do not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You totally missed the pointhe was making in his article. Good job.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Except the Nazi Swastika is, literally, a twisted/turned around version of the “manglik” sign. It has very little to do with the “manglik” — the original sign used throughout South Asia even now. The “manglik” still survives in its true meaning, by the way. Whether you know it or not. It has for 10,000 years and will in the future. It’s the swastika that’s dead.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, advertising can rise to fine art – such as the girl picking daisy petals to the coundown to nuclear blast (Johnson’s ad in the early 60’s). It made a major stink – and an unforgettable impression.
And you’re right, too, that all art that sticks around gets reframed (mona lisa a moustache etc)
Lastly, who has the land to say yes or no to these statues? If Bull’s artist took his statue away, at huge expense to himself, he’d just be the guy who took his toys and went home. He was a guerilla artist… who got guerilla’d.
And to the blogger who’s a nice writer – I don’t buy the idea that the Girl is a ‘fraud” – she’s too good. Derivative maybe, opportunistic definitely, but certainly not a fraud. Every man who made a fortune did it opportunistically – so can she.
So HAS she. And so will SHE, methinks.
LikeLike
Sorry, dude, but I bet the people in India don’t really care what YOU think of the swastika. Di Modica also doesn’t have to care what other people think of his statue.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No it doesn’t. It represents what the original artist intended it to represent. And your analogy of the swastika is a false one. The original swastika is different from the Nazi swastika. There is no version of the nazi swastika that exists anywhere before the nazi’s created theirs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I read the article and didn’t come to the conclusion that he thinks its “Not Real” because its part of a marketing strategy. He just made the point that it is very ironic that the girl is being seen as someone standing against patriarchal corporations when it was in fact commissioned by one, and the bull was never intended to be seen as such. The artist is annoyed that another artist hijacked the original meaning of his art. It would be like if another artist came along and installed an older guy fondling the girl. The girl statue would then be seen as a pro pedephelic peice. The artist’s have every right to be annoyed.
LikeLike
We are all in context to the world around us and contextual meaning evolves through time. Di Monica created a symbol of the strength of people but, in it’s context, it was a symbol of a market that could bring fear and/or wealth to both investors and non-investors. The fearless girl shows strength in a way that the bull cannot. Together the sculptures move viewers to consider the interaction of markets and people, cultural change, the power of fearless girls, and more.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Di Monica’s work was contextual as well. He didn’t install it in Des Moines Iowa, where it would have no meaning – or a different meaning, in that agricultural zone.
LikeLiked by 3 people
In my own opinion she just represents how the current Wall Street is fearless at the sight of a possible market crash. Thanks, Obama.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Simply turn to bull to face the opposite direction. This would return the artistic meaning to the charging bull and would leave the fearless girl still, fearless. Although in a different overall way. And, both pieces can coexist.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I don’t think he (author) has much of a point though. The actual funding and commissioning of the Girl is so obscure that no one will ever read the plaque and think, “Ah! A NASDAQ fund!”, they will see only what anyone has seen, capitalism being faced down, especially by girl/woman power. So by leaving it that obscure, the commissioning fund basically undid their own objective, and handed over the art piece to be an anti-capitalist statement, kind of opposite to what they intended; that is, it backfired. And the added fact that both sculptures were allowed to stay because of public acclaim, not any official body’s approval, really levels them out regarding one another.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The girl is the capitalist stooge, the bull is the free-spirited artist, each representing their opposite.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If I were Arturo Di Modica I would simply turn the bull around so it’s showing it’s backside to the fake, pandering, corporate advert called the “fearless girl”.
I think that would be the most viable solution.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Agree
LikeLiked by 2 people
If only Di Modica’s work hadn’t also been plopped down as a derivative, opportunistic piece, then dissing the girl for being these things would have some worth. Problem is, everything “wrong” with the Girl is also wrong with the Bull. They’re both there as top-notch contextual art works.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why can’t we turn her around and stand her beside the Bull so they are both charging/facing the same things, just for different reasons and in different ways?
I like them both and maybe not for the intended purposes by the folks who placed them there but for my own reasons. And isn’t that what Art is all about? Interpretation?
LikeLiked by 5 people
fantastic idea. the girl alongside the bull.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It could become an interesting turn of events if the bull were to turn – okay, that was a weak attempt at a pun – away from the girl. He’d still be charging, someone or something, and the girl would pout and defy his behind, looking cute as she tries to make herself look important.
LikeLiked by 2 people
As she tries to make herself look important, I think you miss the point of fearless girl.
LikeLiked by 2 people
All that being said, I like seeing the FEARLESS GIRL! I have 3 daughters. I think it has so many meanings to so many…..on so many levels. That’s the beauty of ART. Or Art, it’s interpretation remains personal to the beholder. No matter who paid for it or created it or their intent…..you make the meaning however you want to interpret it. And it still empowers WEMON!
LikeLiked by 3 people
Actually the bull is owned by Joe Lewis, as are the copies. But good article.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I usually don’t comment on pieces like this, but I think in this case I am safe to do so. First, I love your thoughtfulness in considering both sides of the argument and I love your approach- civil discourse. You have beautifully articulated great ideas and demonstrate critical thinking. I do find that after considering your points, I am all the more inclined to feel that Fearless Girl should remain. Di Modica owns his piece- privately… while it may represent the American people, his ownership conveys a message as well. And for me, interestingly, that may be exactly the reason Fearless Girl should remain. If Di Modica is so enraged by the differences of opinion that are brought about by art and people’s response to it, he may need to re-evaluate the ideas his piece represents. Whether Fearless Girl was commissioned by and is currently owned by a corporate giant or was owned by an individual, what the art represents to others has significance. There are many pieces of art that others find offensive (for one reason or another) and some of the greatest art in the world has been commissioned and funded by less than altruistic means and ideas. In spite of that, the art takes on new significance for people. And finally, I would say that Di Modica’s piece does, in fact, still have the same meaning. No one can take that from the artist or those who agree. But the America of Di Modica is decidedly masculine. And now, perhaps, there is time for all Americans to be represented as strong and to stand on the same stage. It may be a time for reflection, as so many girls are entering an era of days past- where they might find themselves wondering at their right to think, speak, or even occupy space in the very presence of the nation’s leadership and the masses who do not openly recognize their potential and worth. I find it fitting that Fearless Girl derives some of her strength and power from Charging Bull- as women have often found themselves standing firm and demanding to be seen or heard in the presence of men and ideals that do not want to concede the smallest space to them. However subversive her origin, she is here and has sparked hope in many for whom that ember was dying. And SHE, like Di Modica, chose to share a message (advertise) through art. And like great Americans, Fearless Girl and Charging Bull can share the spotlight without destroying each other.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Beautifully said. Thank you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
and that is why, as suggested by a comment above, it would be a great idea to place the girl next to the bull (or the bull next to the girl) both charging at and facing the same direction.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If they moved the statue in back of the bull and gave it a scoop. . .
(when humor fails go for truth)
LikeLiked by 1 person
This article and the artist are inconsistent. How does the girl’s mastery or confidence force the bull to be evil?
Inconsistency in art interpretation is fine, but not in determining personal rights. The parties should stick to the former.
LikeLiked by 2 people
So you see the bull, in this context, as a positive representation then? Because that would make the girl’s defiance come off arrogant and misplaced.
Artists also have a right to tell you that your interpretation is off, which is a sign of failure of either the piece’s execution or the viewer’s visual literacy. If both stick to their guns, someone is doubling down on being a pretentious twit.
Modica most definitely has a right to say, “Hold on … WTF?” considering the girl is obviously placed to *change* the context of the Bull almost completely. As the article said, without the Bull, the girl stands in defiance of nothing. For the narrative of that interpretation, that everyone is so in love with, to work, she must have opposition.
Modica is in a lose, lose situation. If he does nothing, he’s allowing powerful people to destroy the soul of his piece. If he does anything (changes the statue’s position, removes it entirely, etc.), it’s seen as a petty move in a fight he’s been bullied into taking part in.
A fight generated by people pushing their agendas, looking for easy targets to either boost as heroes, or tar n’ feather as villains on the Internet. Modica and his Bull is this month’s target.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Is she a fraud though if you don’t know the total backstory? Or even if you do? Few people will look at the Statue and think “Oh another attempt by big stock market to influence public opinion”!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Agree – she’s no fraud. She’s too good. Derivative maybe, opportunistic definitely, but certainly not a fraud. Every man who made a fortune did it opportunistically – so can she.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Comrade, you’re not allowed to question the feminist narrative. There’s nothing complicated or nuanced involved here, just the patriarchy being punished for its evil oppressive statues. Stop thinking for yourself before someone gets triggered!
Thank you for this thought-provoking piece.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Had the author of the article been a child in 1930, he would have needed Mother or big sister to get a way to feed and put a roof over your head regardless of Wall Street activity. A genuine capitalist knows rainy days come to all and we still rely upon women to create life amongst the ruins.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s compellingly written; the addition of historical information about the artistic (and marketing) intentions is especially illuminating.
That said, once an artwork is in the world it becomes “property” of individual viewers who each give it their own meanings. For example: to my mind the bull symbolizes a market which demands constant growth, a constant charging ahead; the girl positioned as she is (facing the bull, surrounded by the big city on a receeding sidewalk) suggests to me rising opposition to an established paradigm–one which may herald a new, hopeful, and possibly feminist shift.
My interpretation is entirely valid even where it runs counter to the intentions of the artists. In fact, these objects are arguably only elevated to the level of “art” when subverted by such observation. Thus, objects become art in the subversive minds of their beholders.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Could the fearless girl statue be rotated 180 degrees so that instead of detracting from the symbolism of the bull she adds to it. It would be like saying “Here I stand, ready to face the world, with all of America at my back. I lead the way.”
It would change the tone of interaction between the bull (American people) and a little girl.
LikeLiked by 2 people
But it is as simple as it seems on the surface. For me though there’s no need for the history, even though it is fascinating stuff I never knew before, and even though it’s a good way to bring folks around. For me it’s very simple: one doesn’t mess with someone else’s work of art. Even if the bull did represent capitalism, patriarchy and every bad thing about Wall Street, it’s still a work of art. If someone went ahead and placed a companion panel near Picasso’s “Guernica” mural would people think it’s okay? Suppose this new panel even went so far as to undermine Picasso’s anti-war message somehow? No way, and the same would apply to any number of works of art we assume to be protected from such tampering. Why not make a Goliath to stand next to Michelangelo’s David? That might look kind of cool!
LikeLiked by 2 people
OK, fine, I see DiModica’s point. Public-space art is fueled by context and interaction. And Fearless Girl is appropriating context from’s DiModica’s bull. And … guess what? The bull itself requires the context and proximity of the NYSE. Who is he kidding? If his bull was in my front yard (for example) DiModica’s “symbol of strength and power” would be a code violation, rather than an icon. Art, and purity of intent, sure as hell reside in the eye of the beholder. One might see shameless pandering in the commissioning of Fearless Girl; one might also find it interesting that the nasty company bothered at all, rather than drop cash on another skybox somewhere. Similarly, where some might see “guerrilla capitalist art” in the story of DiModica’s statue, I see “egotist who plopped a big piece of metal into the financial district when nobody asked him to.” Under the circumstances, I find Fearless Girl’s party-crashing, and DiModica’s snit fit, pretty deliciously funny.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Another valid point made!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I call it like it is- there is and always HAS been patriarchal oppression of women in the US- and there STILL is. How about Equal pay? Women are still not getting anywhere near what a man makes in the US. And how about the fact that 3 in 5 girls and women are rapped or molested in the current day!? What about the continued attack on our God given reproductive rights!?
Now tell me again- that the US isn’t a patriarchal sosciety that to this day isn’t suppressing women? Get your facts straight.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The answer to provocative art is more art. Let Di Modica install another bronze statue right on top of and blotting out sight of the PR firm’s “SHE” plaque (right in front of the girl), in the shape of a large cow flop.
LikeLiked by 3 people
It seems to me that the best course of action for Di Modica would be to do what he did in the first place: move his statue in the middle of the night. If he moves his statue elsewhere, he both restores the meaning of his piece, and, as a little bit of revenge, neuters the other piece.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ha! Or more likely makes the point that the big, tough bull got chased away by a little girl.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think she should stay right where she is! The nice thing, in a strange way, is the the vast majority of people have no idea about the history of either statue, or what the girl was intended to represent. But both are wonderful and the contrast of the two is very representative of the world today.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Put her outside the White House gates, looking in. And when we finally get a woman President, then she could return to New York, or she could stay on the White House grounds….inside the gates. Girls need role models too….
LikeLiked by 2 people
Bravo. Thanks for the background on this. I had no idea SHE was an advertising ploy. Coup actually. Kind of glad I didn’t know which means that the advertising intent has been subverted to an inspiring message. Still and all. You’ve made an excellent point. Things are rarely simple. And it is a good idea to know what you are talking about (looking at you, politicians everywhere) before you denounce something or someone. I feel much better about DiModica and his intent.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Okay, I see where you’re coming from. I guess I’m not sure I care how Fearless Girl came to be or was paid for. As with all artwork, what she represents to those who see her can be completely and utterly different from what the artist or marketing agency intended. In this case, I’d say that the direct message of the girl standing in front of the bull is much more powerful than the “Buy SHE” message the marketing agency may have intended.
As for Di Modica. As I see it, he has exactly 2 options. Suck it up or terminate his loan of the Charging Bull. But as long as its being displayed in a public place, I don’t see that he has or should have any say in what else is displayed nearby.
I’m sure it would sell for a ridiculous sum of money if he wants to pull it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I would just remove the caps on SHE and leave them both. Remove the advertisement and admire the art.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The raging bull also derives its meaning from its location. Drop it in a field in Connecticut and it means what? Put it in a park in the Upper East Side and Eh. That’s why the original artist did his stealth act of coopting public space without permission to put up his bull statue in the first place. So if he can use can play off public space that had meaning long before he came along to give a message, then why can’t others play off the public space–which now includes his statue–as well?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Loved your thoughtful essay. Made a lot of sense to me. I completely understand Arturo Di Modica’s point of view, even though I loved the dynamics of the girl and bull. Perhaps there should be a call out to other sculptors to make something that could go between the two to change the meaning once again and make it even more powerful. A kind of wall perhaps?
LikeLiked by 1 person