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. I’m glad you told the history here. I have always associated the bull with Wall Street, because from afar that’s what I’ve seen. I’m glad to know that it does not represent what so many myself included, thought it did. The media portrays that bull as a symbol of wealth and power over those that are less than. The real story is quite beautiful. If I were the artist I might move the bull to another location where it’s true meaning might be more recognized. If I were the artist I would be angry that my beautiful work of art was associated with Wall Street and all that is stands for. I agree with both of your points. It sucks how Fearless Girl came about, but she is inspiring.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  2. The artist who created the bull does indeed have a point. I feel angry that the people behind SHE, commissioned the girl to be created, not for alturistic reasons, but to advertise a product. It’s a cheat plain and simple. They knew the reaction it would have and the interpretation most people were likely to attribute to it. It is fake! It’s not there to empower women or send a message that girls and women can stand up and face anything​ that gets in their path; everything is ruined when you read the plaque. It is an advertising tool. It did not come from a pure spirit who wanted to send a strong message; it was created by a woman who was paid to make exactly what some crafty business execs had told her to do.

    Part of me hopes not many people have read this article and they can continue to believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus. The other part wants everyone to read this so they can, not only understand the controversy, but the reality of the company SHE, what it truly is. After reading it, I felt extreme anger that my balloon had burst. I will never be able to walk by it or see a photograph of it and not be reminded of the true intent in creating this piece. It has lost its magic.

    I hope that SHE, whomever you are, will remove the statue of the girl. She should be put elsewhere so people do not associate her with the bull and attribute a meaning to it which was not the artist’s original intent. The bull has stood alone proudly for many years. He deserves to maintain that particular spot, undisturbed, for many more. He was created to represent the Americans as heroes and it is not fair to change him into the bad guy who is threatening a young girl. If the girl is not removed, either a short fence should be erected around the bull to distance him from the girl, and a plaque of his own with an explanation of his reason for being. Failing that, sadly, I think the artist should remove him and put him in a place where he will be respected and admired.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  3. Thanks for thought-provoking article and very thoughtful comments generated. No easy answer, but we’re all richer I think from listening in and adding a thought or two. And I like the idea of the square continuing to expand with other work that continues the official/unofficial dialog.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  4. I think the artist (I already forget his name, sorry) should take it and set up elsewhere. There are other just as impacting where his bull would make a wonderful statement about the strength of America. The other person had no right to hijack his work and change its meaning like that. The bull should be taken somewhere else. Leave the girl. Turn her around and point her at the New York Stock Exchange. That’s worth standing fearless against.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  5. Ugly Statuette.
    Ridiculous in the context..
    Totally censure the original work.
    Stupid and libtard, as usual.
    She should wear a vagina on her head to make her dumb message more powerful.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  6. What if the Fearless Girl and the Charging Bull stood side by side? With the Fearless Girl representing her confidence and the Charging Bull the spirit of the American people they could actually strengthen their individual messege.

    Simple solution if you ask me.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  7. PFFT. I don’t give a shit if she makes a difference or SHE makes a difference. Don’t see a significant difference. Guerilla art piece facing off against a guerilla art piece. Latter is free is free to sulk and take his ball home is he doesn’t want to play any more.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  8. Pingback: “‘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 subve

  9. Thank you (sincerely) for this a lot of art talk goes over my head but this one was made simple and is so intriguing and even more so because I like them both and what they represent. I had not thought about the context of one needing the other – no solutions just pleased you helped me understand the theory around the discussions.
    Not my area but the origin of art, i.e. commercial or not, does not really bother me it is only about how it makes me feel about it (and feel about what it represents).
    Thanks again

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  10. 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 3 people

    Reply ↓

    • For starters it’s not a symbol of a man, but of America but I understand why some people see both as symbols of oppression so they can keep their victimhood status intact.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply ↓

    • Don’t you mean why shouldn’t a multibillion dollar company be allowed to co-op someone else’s art to market their product by co-opting the very essence of another’s work with a garden quality sculpture of a petulant little girl. A piece (the girl) which has absolutely zero artistic (but high instagram) value other than that it demonstrates how easy it is to change the meaning of a work by altering its context. Kind of like a cheap, cynical, manipulative, heart tuggingly shallow version of IMMERSIONS (PISS CHRIST).

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply ↓

    • And it has nothing to do with the rising expectations of women, their sense of entitlement, and the fact women get preferential treatment in courts? The “Charging bull” is not deriving power from anything, it IS a symbol of strength and power by itself, the “Fearless Girl” however derives power from the bull, so your argument is shit. And so is your diploma in “Professional victimhood”, it will keep you warm in the cold lonely nights when no one will bother to kerp you company because you are misinformed, demoralised, bag of resentment, and I fell sorry for yoy

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply ↓

  11. Di Modica can claim his sculpture represents “the strength and power of the American people” all he likes. That’s the beauty of art, it can represent whatever you like. However, the bull has, long before him, been a symbol of the aggressive power of American Capitalism driven by the Stock Exchange. Hence his choice of settings and Wall Street’s eager embracing of his bronze. That said, it is and always has been a symbol of patriarchal oppression.
    Di Modica choose to create and place a piece of guerrilla art, and now he wants to complain that someone else has done the same thing. So, it is okay for him to make a statement, but not anyone else to answer back?
    True, it was done in a calculated way, as part of an advertising campaign. So was Rosie the Riveter. Does this somehow delegitimize its point? The Fearless Girl speaks to people. It articulates an idea, that of girls and women defying aggressive patriarchal capitalism, especially in its corrupt, predatory form. This is a point a large number of people want to see made. And if it is being made by an investment fund for self-serving purposes, people never the less embrace its message.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  13. (In my opinion) If the Bull truly represents the Strength and Power of the American people then the Bull also represents the girl. The girl represents all women then it would encourage hope and strength. A reminder don’t fear the bull or the Strength or even the weakness of the makings of society, you are the bull, the bull is you. Americans and society grows and evolves so The bull doesn’t mean it’s against women and theirs nothing wrong with celebrating the evolution of equality and step back bull or society that doesn’t realize this is the way it is now. If your individual views haven’t evolved, catch up!! but you can evolve, you have the strength. you are the bull. Just because you look like and angry bull on the outside doesn’t mean you’re an angry bull. It just means don’t cross or underestimate Americans. (but what do I know? I’m Canadian. We believe in everyone)

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  14. My friends and I had been having this discussion also and I, too, had the feeling that the bull artist has a valid concern. Your response is better written than mine, but here’s the analogy I came up with to express my perception of the situation:

    I’ve been thinking about this all day and trying to find an analogy that would best express my uncertainty. To summarize the current situation, the bull artist, Arturo Di Modico, created the sculpture on his own as a gift to New York to symbolize American perseverance following the 1986 stock market crash. He spent a lot of money on it and didn’t expect recompense. He installed it, without permission, under a giant Christmas tree as a gift to the city. City officials tried to take it away, but after public outcry, the sculpture found a permanent home. For the past 30ish years this was a symbol of inspiration. Now today we have a commissioned piece, while admirably done to celebrate women, but it was done in such a way that turned another man’s gift into the butt of a joke. To me that’s rude.

    The analogy I came to: A sculpture that I find personally very inspiring is the Statue of Liberty. It was a gift to America to symbolize our nation’s spirit and to inspire immigrants (like my grandmother) coming to the US. What if another artist installed a permanent sculpture of a homeless veteran sitting right next to the Statue of Liberty? Both are very pressing issues worthy of social concern. BUT, while bringing attention to the plight of US veterans who aren’t getting fairly taken care of for their service to our country, the placement next to Lady Liberty would be a not-so-subtle dig, making the Statute of Liberty to be the bad guy, insinuating that we’re spending too much money on taking care of foreigners rather than taking care of our own. (That viewpoint is not one I subscribe to, but it’s one that I’m aware of.)

    I think Di Modico’s decision to do a press conference is not the wisest course of action, but I do feel that he has a fair complaint.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  15. Interesting story, thanks for that, but… Barely anyone knows any of it. I was familiar with the girl statue and the controversy surrounding it, but had never before read anything in depth about the whole situation. And I suspect that is the case for the vast majority of people. And that SHE written there would be seen by most as just a way to write (and emphasize) the word “she”, so that makes no difference either, except for a handful of people who know the story (and hasn’t forgotten it yet). So, isn’t art whatever the observer makes of it? My layman’s opinion is: yes.

    (I also had no clue about the origin of that statue of a cartoon cow called Charging Bull [also didn’t know its name, heh], and again I suspect that is the case for almost everyone who goes there visit it, take pictures etc.; I guess Di Modica has the little girl statue so thank for us now knowing he exists and how his oeuvre came to be)

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  17. Why don’t they just put them side by side. That changes the meaning to a more positive one. The fearless women with the support of the people beside her. Taking on the world.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  19. Hey, I have as great idea. Let’s paint a mustache on the real Mona Lisa to promote Movember.

    I sure Leonardo won’t mind since the original message he was going for has been lost over the centuries.

    Fearless Girl changes the meaning of the original piece. It’s crapping on the artist and the message he was trying to convey.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  22. Mountain molehill. HIS. Statue is still intact. HER. Statue is bought by men and presents a child a representative of women. The whole thing is being given far more importance than it deserves. Frankly the whole damn situation is a real metaphor for what is wrong with our culture in regards to women IMO

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  25. I’m with Rebecca on this one. Sure, you could say (as Greg Fallis, the author of this piece did) that the Bull’s sculptor has a point. Of course he has one, but he doesn’t have the ONLY one. I think Greg is over focussing on Mr Di M’s point, and gotten overfly focussed on the fact that Fearless Girl was commissioned. The thing is, the Bull may well have started out as guerrilla art, so what? Let’s face it, it is guerrilla art celebrating Wall Street and the financial market – guerrilla art in support of the (mostly white male) power structure. (Fearless Girl of course, is the opposite: commissioned art in support of social change.) The point is, who really cares where the bull (or the girl, for that matter) came from, when we all know what they stand for now?
    To make a parallel, the Statue of Liberty came from France. It is the work of a French sculptor (of German origin), built by Gustave Eiffel (of Eiffel Tower fame), and paid for by the people of France (not the government, donations from individuals) as a symbol of Franco-American friendship. It also celebrated American independence, and the broken chain at Lady Liberty’s feet is said to be a discreet reference to the recent (at the time the Statue was created) end of slavery. And yet, for virtually everyone worldwide, the Statue of Liberty is not a symbol of Franco-American friendship, nor even one of American independence. Instead, standing in NY Harbor as it does, and thanks to the Emma Lazarus’s famous sonnet (“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..” which isn’t actually on the statue, but in the museum at its base), it has come to symbolize an America that welcomes — or rather, welcomed :( immigrants. So the point is, symbols take on lives of their own, they don’t always represent what their creators intended. So poor Mr Di Modica doesn’t like the Girl changing the meaning of his statue? My feeling is tough luck, buddy. Not everyone cared for Charging Bull, either. It was saved by popular support. Mr Di M liked popular opinion when it supported HIS work, well, maybe now he is going to have to learn to come when popular opinion supports something that changes the meaning of his work somewhat. If he’s such a guerrilla artist, then shouldn’t he be able to accept comment on his work too? Or does he think he’s the only one who’s allowed to comment? So sorry, int he end of the day, personally, I think Mr Di M may have a point, but it is a churlishly small-minded, egotistical and most likely sexist one (though of course, he’ll never admit that. He just happens to be against a sculptor by a woman of a girl that infringes on the territory of and radiates comparable power to a sculptor by a male artist of a symbol of virility. Nah, nothing sexist about that, right? Sorry, but it’s time to get over yourselves guys, and to acknowledge which art is most subversive, commissioned or not.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

    • Is Featless Girl in support of social change? Could it be it subverting the feeling and desire for social change and turning it into an advertising campaign? We should have the artists come together and shake hands between the statues while enjoying a Pepsi.

      Like

      Reply ↓

  26. Greg, I appreciate your nuanced approach. I choose to read the dynamic between the two thusly:

    The Bull (capitalism) is charging the down the street, not at the girl. The girl isn’t afraid of engaging with the bull. In fact, when it comes closer she’s going to jump on top and ride that sucker. In this way the two sculptures aren’t at odds, but rather are soon to be partners.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

  28. I see why he’s angry, but I also see why she’s needed. I don’t think she should be removed, I think think they should of been side by side to show strength of America (bull) and fearlessness of women (girl) in unison.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  29. In the end, all art will mean what it means to the observer. Di Modica doesn’t get to define his art. Eventually, no artist does. His bull has transcended his original intent, and now, for many, perhaps most observers, it is a symbol of the corporation as rampaging tyrant. And this observer sees the girl as the matador, the killer of the corporate dictator. If Di Modica wants to take his football and go home, so be it. The girl will stand on her own, and mean more.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  33. For me I think it’s more important to realize what the Bull has come to represent regardless of the artist’s original intent in it’s creation, and to not acknowledge that reality is tone deaf. Art is not experienced in a vacuum, once it’s released to the world it is no longer just your little baby, you put a charging bull on wall street and expect people not to feel some kind of way about it? Why not a Dove? Or an Eagle if it’s supposed to represent “The American People”? Lot of people are fed up with Wall street and with heartless Capitalism and this Bull has come to represent those things by association, surly the artist realizes this, why does he not acknowledge it? Maybe he doesn’t care and is only thinking of his own feelings, then I only care so much for his feelings then if he is not willing to consider mine. You want your art to remain pure and un-molested? Make it in your home for yourself. Otherwise once it gets out there you need to be willing to acknowledge others in the conversation.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  35. I think they’re both great pieces of art in their own right. And Fearless Girl has only elevated the bull as a piece of art. Certainly now better known. Artists need to stop being so caught up in their own self importance. Di Modica made a great work of art. But now it’s the artwork, both of them, that need to stand on their own merits. The artists need to keep the artistic ego’s out of it.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  37. So then it’s okay for somebody to hijack the meaning of the fearless girl for the name of one of their art projects? I mean, that’s effectively what you’re arguing by saying that the statue doesn’t harm the meaning behind Modica’s statue.

    Arturo Di Modica did a nice thing when he created that statue. That statue (as you cited) represents the strength of the American people. It had zero to do with a male-dominated society and it had zero to do with being against women.

    “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.”

    The bull represented EVERYBODY. All of our strength and all of our ability. By adding the girl to that established standard, you are saying it didn’t represent her when it already did. (when it did)

    Regardless of your argument. The fact they placed her in that position starting the bull down means she absolutely DOES look at that bull in an accusatory way. The bull is being used as a representation of male dominance even when that bull had zero to do with such a thing.

    Art isn’t a problem. I’m not against art.

    My issue is when people have to piggyback on the works of other people and pretend that this isn’t somehow altering the meaning behind established artists.

    This guy’s bull went from being a symbol of American strength to being a symbol of everything which is wrong with America.

    It ultimately comes down to this.

    If that statue represents the strength of the American people. That girl is staring it down. If your argument is that her existence doesn’t change the meaning of the original statue, that means she represents a femininity staring down the combined strength and resilience of the American people (both male, female and anything inbetween) and doing so in an accusatory way.

    The only reason the statue of the girl would represent the confidence of female society would be if that bull statue wasn’t representing that confidence as well. (which the original meaning of the author claims it does)

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

  39. Unfortunately, the artist’s intent is not what Charging Bull means to most people. Long before Fearless Girl was installed, the Bull became interpreted by most as a symbol of Wall Street greed and excess. Knowing this, perhaps the artist should have removed it. In time, the Girl may cease to be an advertisement in most people’s minds and will have a different meaning.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  40. The fact that the only way this statue (of a GIRL) exists is through fake guerrilla marketing says more about Us than it does about art.

    This article only continues and supports the argument that (pretentious) (white) men should always be in charge of all things.

    This guy has a point if you support that argument.
    This guy has a point if you disregaurd the origin of every important statement ever made.
    This guy has a point if you beleive that priveledged white men should be able to rattle on about how amazing and great they are- so much better than little girls.
    This guy has a point if he was transplanted out of the universe and capitalist country that supports his well being and existance.
    This guy has a point if you really really dont want women, girls and underdogs to have any beleif in themselves at all.
    This guy has a point if you love smarmy smug jerks.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  41. Why doesn’t someone simply put (a bronze sculpture of) the frame of a standing mirror between the two? Maybe with ordinary transparent glass inside? Then the girl sees the bull as a version of herself, and the relationship is completely changed, arguably for the better.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  42. I have to agree with the original artist.

    Perhaps the girl could be turned around as not to appropriate his meaning of Strength and Resolve of the American People in times of Crisis and altering it to mean “fearless in the face of danger” with the bull representing danger.

    In it’s original context it could be perceived that the Bull Represents that American Strength = Danger to Women and that would REALLY suck for the artist of the Bull.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  43. I find Di Modica’s contention that his sculpture represents “the strength and power of the American people” to be very far fetched. Who is he kidding? The bull has been an advertising icon of Merrill Lynch (a casualty of the crash of 08) since the early 1970s at least. To anyone who did not previously know the back story, it was just assumed that the bull was derived directly from that campaign and is there as homage to Merrill Lynch in particular and Wall Street in general.

    To me, his sculpture has the same significance as the hood ornament on a Wall Street banker’s Rolls. Neat looking, but just advertising.

    On the other hand, the Girl makes a true and strong statement (not withstanding the original intention of the profiteers who paid for her). Funny how art follows it’s own path without regard to the intentions of those who want to use it for their personal ends.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  44. Exactly! Some folks just find it impossible to hold two conflicting thoughts, in their heads, at the same time. It’s like this for a lot of issues.
    A person can be support the troops, and be against war. Anyone can be pro-police and demand they be held accountable when they behave badly.
    I don’t know why this is so difficult for some people to grasp.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  45. Fearless girl exposes the weakness of the bull. Both as art and as political/economic metaphor. More power to her. Long may she reign.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  46. The artist made use of a particularly old symbol and intuitively placed it where he thought it was appropriate. For him it may just have been a symbol of American freedom and power; however, what many of us see is a remaking the symbol of the great golden calf… wealth, prosperity, and power in the place that symbolizes those things more than any other place on this world. The girl stands there defiant against the bull; however, we all know what will happen to the girl if something or someone does not stop capitalism from trampling her.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  48. This is like McDonald’s making a burger called ‘the rebellion’ and then people eating it thinking they are doing something to flaut the corporate status quo. Take the trash out, I say! Remove the bullshit fearless girl.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  49. He has a point and the “Fearless girl” statue should be removed for all the reasons the author mentioned. She changes a symbol of strength and power into “patriarchy”, taking advantage and degrading an already existing artwork. Maybe the author is too afraid to say it, but I’m not, that ” Fearless Girl” ruins the original purpose and symbolism of the “Charging Bull” and is used to spread feminist propaganda. The statue is incredibly well made, but the location and way it was used is disgusting. What if someone went to a college which had it’s own statue “Strong independent woman” statue, and they placed a “Manly husband” statue there in front of it with the message “He is the MAN of the house, make him a sandwich”. Imagine the uproar. Now if the bull statue is removed it will be considered a victory for the feminists, but if the girl is removed it’s obviously because of patriarchy and sexism. Does that seem fair to you?

    Like

    Reply ↓

    • Of course there will be “uproar” if a statue of an “independent woman” is suddenly partnered with that of a “manly husband” she has to “make a sandwich” for. THAT message is sexist and backwards.

      And no, it probably would not be considered a “victory for feminists” if the bull is removed. It could be argued that the “Fearless Girl” doesn’t really work without the bull. Also, I don’t think anyone is asking for the bull to be removed anyway, and definitely not for “feminist” reasons.

      Like

      Reply ↓

    • Strangely enough, capitalism is the only economic system that requires fearlessness. Free markets are all that support societies that fund armies, schools and creates a water supply of potable liquid that are America’s base ‘set of social needs’.

      Perhaps the girl welcomes the bull with the proviso of knowledge. Why would she choose to eat at Burger King OR McDonalds?

      Research what is done with the profits and she’ll choose companies based upon that.

      Why would she choose one type of shoe over another? Reading about the point of manufacture, along with the ingredients that go into making the shoe, and you choose what companies to support with purchases that uphold the value of each market share.

      Where would you put your capital in terms of stock purchases? You read the ‘label’ in the form of a prospectus. Trust in the executives and boards behind a company determine whether you are investing or gambling.

      ‘Fearless Girl’ is a study in life, rather than another stale metaphor using animals as symbols of strength and reliability. Most Americans have income levels that only permit our investments to be in the form of how we choose among products and services that underlie real value in the marketplace.

      Like

      Reply ↓

  50. Perhaps someone should go and just remove the plaque with the advertising copy. Let people draw their own conclusions. If we remove the association of the statue with SHE then it is a whole different thing. I can understand the annoyance over the statue being a marketing ploy, but I don’t think Di Modica has the right to ask for it to be removed. Imagine a graffiti artist asking for people not to draw on “their” wall. Isn’t all art inspired by other art and referential to other art to some extent? Also, wasn’t De Modica’s work not only a present but a reason of pride for himself? In a way, isn’t that self-marketing?

    Like

    Reply ↓

Leave a comment