
Arturo Di Modica has a point - mpweiher
https://gregfallis.com/2017/04/14/seriously-the-guy-has-a-point/
======
AlexB138
This statue speaks volumes to me, but not in the way it's probably intended
to.

This is corporate marketing both adeptly using culture war tactics and
manipulating them to its own end. They knew that they could put their ad there
and appeal to feminists. They knew that anyone who disagreed with its
placement, regardless of their actual reason for objection, would be shouted
down as sexist, thereby reenforcing the supporters' convictions. They knew
that that interaction would generate extensive buzz.

You can either buy into their message or become a target for those that do,
but no matter how you engage with it, you end up pushing their message.
Whether you're a die hard feminist, or someone who finds this divisive, you
are being manipulated by cynical marketers. They've correctly identified the
mechanisms of a current social schism, and subverted them.

Regardless of how you feel about the statue, the campaign is simply genius.
This is truly art on a next level. The divide of American culture, the
cynicism of corporate America and its willingness to stoop to any level, the
furious fighting while blind to the real mechanisms at work. This statue may
be the perfect representation of America in 2017.

~~~
greenhatman
Except I still don't know who put it there. Sure I could look it up, but it's
probably stupid.

~~~
undersuit
State Street Global Advisors.

------
derrickdirge
The thing is, once you put a piece of art out there, you give up control over
what that piece 'means'.

Di Modica's bull meant one thing to him when he made it. Now it means millions
of different things to the people who consider it every day. If he wanted to
maintain full control over the meaning of his work, he should have kept it in
his private studio and not let anyone look at it without him standing by to
explain the piece and answer any questions.

Similarly, Fearless Girl meant something specific to the asset management
company that commissioned it, and something else to the artist who sculpted
it. But now it takes on new meaning to everyone who encounters it. What it
means to any given individual may or may not incorporate any of the intended
meaning, and that doesn't make it any more or less valid.

If digging into the origins of the statues helps give them meaning to you,
that's great. But most people who encounter them necessarily appreciate them
at face value, and that's great too, because deriving meaning from art is
intensely personal.

And beyond taking on different meaning to each individual, as time progresses
and the world continues to evolve, so too will the symbolic value of any work
of art placed into the world. God knows the Charging Bull has taken on a lot
of additional meaning to a lot of people since '08\. How did Di Modica feel
about how that event 'changed the meaning' of his work?

If you don't like a work of art, that's fine. But no one has the authority to
tell someone else what it should mean to them.

~~~
emn13
I think you're glossing over a major issue here: this is not merely Di
Modica's attempt at imposing his vision of his work; it's also about SHE's
attempt to import _their_ vision of his work. That strikes me as being _at
least_ as objectionable.

Furthermore, works of art - like any communication - depend, in some form, on
context. This is an intrinsically fuzzy area, but while it's clearly absurd to
let anyone entirely dictate the context, I also feel it's questionable -
misleading even - to retrospectively impose context upon them, particularly if
that new context serves to misrepresent the original message, and even more so
when the new message is so blatantly self-serving without being upfront about
it.

Regardless of the personal meaning of art; allowing such deception encourages
it, and that undermines our ability to interpret the world around us. It's
hard enough without institutionalized deception.

So - fine for the statue to exist; dubious for its advertising nature to be
hidden; and definitely unreasonable for it to be allowed to reinterpret
others' messages so deceptively.

~~~
nagvx
>so blatantly self-serving without being upfront about it

Is advertising actually self-serving if it isn't upfront about what it being
advertised?

This statue is not like a traditional billboard emblazoned with a brand name -
the only mention of SHE appears to be on the placard at the foot of the
statue. Even then, the mention is ambiguous, as how many people will recognize
'SHE' as a stock tracker rather than just a word with emphasis?

I broadly agree with your sentiment, and I understand there is something
discomforting about its origin. However I believe the statue would come across
as far more tasteless if SHE were upfront with their branding.

~~~
ntsplnkv3
> Is advertising actually self-serving if it isn't upfront about what it being
> advertised?

Yes, subliminal advertising is a real thing, and other techniques desperately
try to hide the fact that it's an ad. Not sure about this case, it's
definitely an interesting one.

------
hoorayimhelping
So if I read the article correctly, the bull originally represented the
strength of the American people.

The girl is sold as representing the strength of women, but in fact it's a
secret ad campaign that was put in front of the symbol representing American
strength by a global fund. And people (unknowingly) support the ad campaign
and react very aggressively to people questioning the ad and call anyone who
questions the ad a woman hater.

And people who want to remove the ad don't care about the symbolism, they
think things are fine or they don't like uppity women.

Seems like the perfect representation of 2016.

~~~
pvg
_the bull originally represented the strength of the American people_

No, that's just what Di Modica told people, presumably to better garner public
support. It comes up in the original NYT reporting:

[http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/16/nyregion/soho-gift-to-
wall...](http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/16/nyregion/soho-gift-to-wall-
st-a-3-1-2-ton-bronze-bull.html)

You don't plop a massive bull in the middle of the Manhattan Financial
District soon after a market crash to generally represent the "strength and
power of the American people." It represents exactly what everyone who sees it
thinks it represents.

~~~
mc32
True enough. But while that's the meaning he put into the bull. I would say
the bull was the strength of the American people in the face of a market that
said otherwise. The girl was put there by an advertising firm --and some
people have interpreted it as a native form of women's strength in the face of
male dominance (which requires the bull transform from representing America to
only representing men and the girl not representing a marketing campaign but
all women facing patriarchal oppression). As the article mentions, the bull
without the girl retains its strength, the girl without the bull becomes
"really confident girl".

~~~
pvg
_in the face of male dominance_

It's a big jump to that from "Fearless girl".

 _the bull without the girl retains its strength_

The bull in deep space Queens becomes, I dunno, a pair of brass balls attached
to a bull? The whole thing is pretty silly no matter how Di Modica feels about
it.

~~~
mc32
>>in the face of male dominance >It's a big jump to that from "Fearless girl".

In that case, the secondary statue would not have become so symbolic for some
(as referenced by current NYC mayor).

>The bull in deep space Queens becomes, I dunno, a pair of brass balls
attached to a bull?

I don't think so. It may become detached from the wall street aspect, but it's
still a bull ready to charge. It's like saying Michelangelo's "David" loses
its meaning if it were moved to a commercial square in Shenzen.

And you may say David is more like the girl in that they're both defiant.
However, I think not due to the symbolism behind the David as well as the
bull.

~~~
pvg
_It may become detached from the wall street aspect_

I.e. it would become something completely different. There is no parallel to
David, David's context is not as closely tied to its location - in fact, the
statue is not displayed at its originally intended location.

~~~
mc32
I think I was not clear. Moving the bull might disconnect it from wall street
[but not from representing the American economy.] Like the David [sculpture]
its meaning can follow it, despite physical shift in location.

~~~
pvg
_but not from representing the American economy_

It wouldn't have represented anything other than a bull, had he not put it
there, is what I'm getting at.

------
bambax
Wow, I'm glad I read this! I knew the bull was guerilla art (put there without
permission), and I knew (thought) that the girl was, too. And as such I
thought it was a brilliant work of appropriation, and should stay.

But it turns out the girl is the result of a marketing campaign by a global
advertising corporation for a giant investment fund. That changes everything.

Companies should not be let to use individual artists' work for their own
corporate agenda. That's not right, whatever the message.

Di Modica, who still owns the bull, should put it somewhere else -- maybe in a
different city.

~~~
narag
_Di Modica, who still owns the bull, should put it somewhere else_

Doing that could be an even bigger act of subversion than placing the girl
there. What would become the meaning of the girl then?

~~~
ludicast
Not his problem.

------
stestagg
If someone were to add a board of advisors, makeup crew and branding group
just behind the girl, that would make the whole piece perfect, in my opinion

~~~
DonHopkins
Perhaps if the girl were to offer the bull a Pepsi?

~~~
dqv
Seeing as the index has shares in Pepsi, that would make sense.

------
dqv
It's a form of pinkwashing. The superficial effect is empowerment of women,
the underlying intent is to bolster an investment fund's image.

Edit: [https://www.ssga.com/global/en/about-us/who-we-
are/team.html](https://www.ssga.com/global/en/about-us/who-we-are/team.html)
\- at least there are some women on their team I guess. That makes it less
pinkwashy.

~~~
untangle
> at least there are some women on their team

But mostly in staff, not investment, roles. So don't give up your bucket of
pink just yet.

------
hownottowrite
Charging Bull is one of the great hustles in art history.

Over the years, Di Modica has made an _enormous_ profit off the sale of
replica bulls to cities and wealthy clients. Along the way, he's filed
lawsuits and pulled stunts to keep the statue in the public eye, but the
motive has always been profit.

Is there anything wrong with profit? No, certainly not. I love the hustle and
I love the hustle on top of the original hustle with the addition of Fearless
Girl.

It's fine art and a fine hustle. Just like all good art should be. Sit back
and enjoy the show.

~~~
Clubber
Spending $350K to build a statue to illegally place in front of a stock
exchange is a horribly bad investment. He may have made profit, but it
probably took a long time. It's unlikely that was his prime motivation. If it
was, he got extremely lucky. Artists typically think in terms of making great
art rather than making money.

He should have taken that $350K and put it into stocks in 1987, he would be
much better off. I suspect he had other motivations.

~~~
hownottowrite
It's a bad investment if the goal is an artistic statement. But spending $360K
(in 1989 dollars) to advertise your art to the richest people on the planet -
not to mention the entire world? Seems like pretty cheap marketing - and
that's assuming he really did spend that much.

Side note: this was the _third_ time Di Modica tried the tactic of dropping
off gift sculptures. So, if he had that kind of money to burn on "artistic
statements", I'd say he was doing a-ok without investing in the market.

~~~
coldtea
> _Seems like pretty cheap marketing_

In retrospect, yes. The art could have just been permanently removed by the
city, and nothing would have come out of it (except some extra fines).

------
rl3
> _He said he wanted the bull to represent “the strength and power of the
> American people”._

Di Modica can't really remove the bull statue then since that would signify
defeat. Likewise with facing it in another direction. As other commenters have
said, doing either could potentially start a positioning war anyways.

As far as symbology is concerned, I think the most forward-looking solution is
to have the girl statue positioned slightly beside the bull, facing the same
direction—signifying that America has her back and that everyone's on the same
team.

Obviously the United States has a history of repressing women, so I could see
the intentional choice to face her in opposition—if it were a legit piece of
guerrilla art, and not an advertisement.

Commissioned corporate art hijacking classic guerilla art by twisting its
meaning is, well... bullshit.

~~~
wbillingsley
Of course he can remove the bull if he wants to. If he wants to send a
particularly strong message, he can auction it and stipulation of the sale
that the bull may not be positioned anywhere in New York City, and make the
subsequent story his art.

A corporate advertising campaign co-opts social media and a vacuous fawning
politician into demanding its advert must stay and be worshipped, and the
symbol of America's indomitable spirit and dynamism is packed into a shipping
container and sent to Shanghai...

I think it'd be hard to say Di Modica had been "defeated" as an artist if that
all unfolded... and he'd probably have quite a few million from the sale to
take solace in (plus being able to charge the city copyright royalties when it
commissions a replica replacement).

~~~
rl3
> _I think it 'd be hard to say Di Modica had been "defeated" as an artist if
> that all unfolded ..._

Defeat in context of the principles the statue represents, not Di Modica
personally as an artist. Sorry, I should have been more clear.

That said, I suppose the beauty of art is that it's open to interpretation,
and even the scenario you outline could be construed as congruent with the
principles the statue represents. Removal may not constitute defeat after all.

------
christkv
Somebody should put a statue of a billionaire with his hand pushing the girl
towards the bull.

~~~
reitanqild
Monopoly man?

------
skrebbel
What I feel people are missing is that this is a quadruple win.

Di Modico wins, because artists thrive on publicity. If you want people to buy
or exhibit your work, they need to know your name. I live half a planet away
from the New York Stock Exchange and I hadn't heard of Arturo Di Modica until
today (and I think the scupture is amazing). If I read things correctly, this
is just the latest in a series of publicity stunts surrounding Charging Bull
so I suspect Di Modica knows what he's doing. The outcome (whether Fearless
Girl is removed or not) does not impact this at all.

The people of New York win, because now they doesn't have one artwork right
out the NYSE that can be interpreted and explained in many ways and makes
people think, but they have two, locked in symbiosis. Together with the
history and controversy behind both works, possible interpretations of either
work individually, and with respect to each other, this is a fantastic and
enviable piece of public culture. I envy the tour guides who get to explain
this stuff to tourists.

Third wave feminists win, because a large financial organization publicizing a
diversity fund in such a public and original way not only helps their cause,
but shows how mainstream their cause has become. This is not a fringe movement
anymore, and Fearless Girl makes this more apparent than anything recently.

Finally, SSGA wins because their diversity fund gets the publicity they hoped
for when commissioning Fearless Girl.

Looks to me like there's no downside.

(sidenote: I don't think what I love more: guerilla art right in investment
bankers' faces, or guerilla marketing commissioned by investment banker
masquerading as guerilla art right in investment bankers' faces)

~~~
BenoitEssiambre
I agree. Whatever happens this is great on so many levels. The antagonism
between the owners just further heighten the symbolism.

------
YeGoblynQueenne
>> [Fearless Girl is] an example of how commercialization can take something
important and meaningful ... and shit all over it by turning it into a
commodity.

But it's doing that to a statue celebrating _capitalism_. The irony goes so
deep.

------
Piphe
Imo: remove the plaque at least. No free advertising space. Maybe have a vote
to keep the statue.

~~~
rl3
Art and history are inexorable. Removing the plaque would merely change the
asthetic.

~~~
akvadrako
And your point is?

~~~
rl3
That the statue was still created as a corporate advertisement, regardless of
whether the plaque is present.

~~~
louisswiss
A lot of great art was originally sponsored/commissioned by wealthy corporate
benefactors (for example the Catholic Church and nobility in 15th century
Italy).

I think it's important that the beholder/public in general is aware of the
providence of a piece of art, yet I doubt banning corporate sponsorship of art
would be a net positive for society.

~~~
rl3
It certainly wouldn't be, though in this particular case it could be argued
that corporate sponsorship renders the work tasteless.

------
mnm1
Di Modica does not have a monopoly on the meaning of his work. If he doesn't
like the Fearless Girl, he can take his statue away or try to bring suit or
whatever, but it's actually irrelevant to the meaning of his work. Nothing he
can do can affix such meaning. The meaning he ascribed to it is but one of
many meanings, _all_ equally valid, none preferred. When I first took note of
the bull, to me it represented everything that was wrong with Wall St. and
America. It was a symbol of what Wall St. was doing to America: charging it
down and trampling it to death. This is pretty much the opposite of what Di
Modica meant but it's just as right an interpretation as his. After reading
this and other articles and knowing the history of the piece, I still prefer
my own interpretation and think Di Modica's quite lame. The girl even adds to
that. The fact that she represents SHE just adds to the irony. Anyway, my
interpretation is not important either, just like Di Modica's isn't. As far as
relevance and meaningfulness, they are equal. Di Modica, as an artist, should
understand that the best. Too bad he doesn't. The rest are just boring legal
issues surrounding a confused artist.

------
bigtimeidiot
I can't wait for people to start extrapolating conclusions about gender
diversity based on the financial success of the SHE fund.

~~~
ams6110
Well it's like most other funds that are managed on social principles -- it
underperforms its category peers.

~~~
Applejinx
At which point the question becomes: does it react like the Girl, and just
stare you down going 'I don't care because this is important on a whole other
level'?

Pretty much the whole concept and the intended message of the artwork is
'falling back on power alone is not good enough', or indeed 'justice matters'.
In that context, it doesn't matter if the fund underperforms its peers or a
simple index fund, it matters whether people can be persuaded to support it on
other grounds.

------
amarant
To me this seems to symbolise a different message: "Brave women stopping the
progress of capitalism" think what you will of that message... Turn her 180
degrees on the other hand and it's clearly conveying the message "brave women
lead the way of capitalist progress, and is backed up by the strength of the
finance system"

Personally I prefer the second version..

~~~
Para2016
Maybe 180 degree turn and put her side by side with the bull

~~~
amarant
That would probably be preferable and more difficult to missenterpret, as some
users above pointed out my setting could be, however I don't know how/if it
would fit the landscape they're placed on.. Wouldn't want the girl to face
oncoming traffic instead of the bull...

------
stevewillows
I can appreciate the wishful statement of the 'Fearless Girl', but the fact
that State Street Global Advisors ($2.4 trillion in assets under management)
put it there dilutes the overall message. It's a brilliant ad campaign, but
this was not intended for anything other than an opportunity to attract a lot
of media attention for a specific investment group.

In this case, the sooner its removed the better. However, I do hope that this
inspires someone with good intentions to one-up the piece for the greater good
and not a corporation's bottom line.

[1]
[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/14/fearle...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/14/fearless-
girl-statue-whats-wrong-feminism-today)

~~~
icebraining
Could the _Charging Bull_ itself be viewed as an advertising campaign for the
sculptor? After all, he was hoping to sell it and a few to various cities:
[http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/rock-solid-
article-...](http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/rock-solid-
article-1.789714)

~~~
spdionis
Well, much of the point of making a statue for a sculptor is to gain
recognition. Not every artist wants to be a heremit. I don't see the problem
of having one of your works publicizing how good you are at doing _that_ kind
of work.

~~~
fnord123
So art studios owned by one person are real art and art funded by corporations
aren't real art? Is this like 'I only eat Italian food made by italians'?

~~~
spdionis
Well, the goal of an art studio is to make art (and money by doing so, to be
able to create more art). The goal of those dirty (/s) corporations is only
marketing, or something else, but it isn't art.

~~~
fnord123
What if artists exhibit in shows sponsored by corporations or organizations
like the Dubai International Financial Centre (as di Modica did in 2011)? Is
it still art? Or is it just filthy advertising for filthy corporate DIFC (/s)?

~~~
spdionis
I think there is a difference between organizing and sponsoring a show, and
comissioning an actual work of art with a specific goal.

Arguable though.

~~~
fnord123
I think there's a difference but I don't think it matters. Do you like the
work? Does it get people talking? Is it iconic? Does it elicit political
change? I don't think the answers change if we follow the money (except, sure,
drop the plaque).

------
MarkMc
I absolutely agree with Di Modica.

The problem is that the old piece of art has in effect been destroyed.

Imagine if I purchased Vincent van Gogh's painting 'The Starry Night' and
painted over the sky to make it 'The Bright Day'.

Imagine if the publisher of the Harry Potter books decided to rewrite the
protagonist as a six inch alien in disguise - and did not publish the original
work.

The Fearless Girl artist should use a replica of the bull and place it in a
different location.

------
shoo
the appropriate way to settle this debate is more guerilla art

~~~
YeGoblynQueenne
Agreed. It's time someone added a bear.

~~~
Grue3
They have both the bull and the bear at Frankfurt-am-Main stock exchange. [1]

[1] [https://www.frankfurt-
tourismus.de/en/Media/Attractions/Bull...](https://www.frankfurt-
tourismus.de/en/Media/Attractions/Bull-and-Bear)

~~~
DonHopkins
Berlin has bears:

[https://creamskyeyes.wordpress.com/2013/10/21/bear-
hunting-i...](https://creamskyeyes.wordpress.com/2013/10/21/bear-hunting-in-
berlin/)

and cows:

[http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/dott-return-cows-
kuhunst](http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/dott-return-cows-kuhunst)

And Prague has babies:

[https://www.tonyeveling.com/blog/baby-sculptures-in-
prague/](https://www.tonyeveling.com/blog/baby-sculptures-in-prague/)

Not to mention giant anuses you can stick your head in, and public urinating
sculptures writing text messages with their penises:

[http://www.boredpanda.com/bizzare-sculptures-by-david-
cerny/](http://www.boredpanda.com/bizzare-sculptures-by-david-cerny/)

You can climb a ladder and stick your head in the sculpture’s arse to see a
video of two Czech politicians feeding each other slop to a soundtrack of "We
are the Champions"

[...]

The idea is disarmingly simple. Two bronze sculptures pee into their oddly-
shaped enclosure (Update: actually it’s the shape of the Czech Republic –
thanks Cirrat).

While they are peeing, the two figures move realistically. An electric
mechanism driven by a couple of microprocessors swivels the upper part of the
body, while the penis goes up and down. The stream of water writes quotes from
famous Prague residents.

Visitor can interrupt them by sending SMS message from mobile phone to a
number, displayed next to the sculptures. The living statue then "writes" the
text of the message, before carrying on as before.

------
steanne
in order for his meaning to have been co-opted, he would have had to be
communicating it in the first place. he says it's "the strength and power fo
the american people", but i always saw pursuit of a financial goal without
concern for collateral damage, like a bull in a china shop.

~~~
ACow_Adonis
Indeed. I too found it kinda funny, since I'd always interpreted that
particular sculpture as a symbol of the damage done when bankers and finance
types get out of control.

I actually thought it was a reproduction of photos of the running of the
bulls. Specifically, that moment in time where the fool in front and the bull
both go round a corner. The bull tries to turn on the cobble stones of
pamplona, but as a result, its hoofs begin to slide out from underneath it,
and you tend to get photos like this one:

[http://theday.co.uk/images/stories/2012/2012-07/2012-07-10_b...](http://theday.co.uk/images/stories/2012/2012-07/2012-07-10_bullrun.jpg)

Which is to say, the bull (market) has gotten out of control, and that statue
represents the classical view you see of a bull that gotten out of control in
the split second before everyone gets really hurt.

Honestly, i like my interpretation better :P

~~~
Para2016
I like it! That's the exact stance. Thanks for sharing

------
sklivvz1971
I like the point the author makes about the incredible intolerance there is
against different points of view online, usually from both sides of the
spectrum.

For example, it's impossible to talk about women's rights without having
people take extreme sides are reject any form of intelligent communication.

Unfortunately this has been leaking more and more towards real life. People in
large part repeat slogans and take predefined stances instead of using their
own heads.

This case is no different: the world is not divided in good, left leaning,
progressive people and bad, right leaning, conservative people.

A more realistic spectrum is bigots, people who think religiously about things
and don't accept uncertainty to people that embrace reasonable change and
diversity of opinion. People that accept that art expresses emotions and
people that don't accept art that does not conform to their philosophy
(remember the Talibans defacing the Buddhas in Afghanistan?)

~~~
grzm
While I think a spectrum is better than binary buckets, I also think it's more
useful to think along multiple dimensions rather than a bipolar scale.

------
lacampbell
If this diorama advanced in time a few seconds, the fearless girl would be
dead.

~~~
icebraining
Try going on YouTube and searching for "forcado", you may change your mind :)

~~~
lacampbell
I guess I just don't see what's supposed to be empowering about it. "Deluded
child moments away from being tragically gored to death".

------
ericflo
I don't think this makes a convincing case. Why, for example, is it wrong for
a new piece of art to change the meaning of an older piece of art? To me, art
should make us feel and think, and this does both.

~~~
rocqua
There is a lot of tension between advertising and art.

------
mythrwy
I've read what the statue is supposed to convey but what I see is a sassy
looking girl that is just about to get gored and stomped by a charging bull.

I guess it's nice she is standing up and all but given the situation she isn't
going to win. Apparently this girl has very little understanding of
proportional weights and forces.

In short, I don't see brave but rather stupid. Not an admirable quality.

Sassy girl needs a horse and a lasso or rocket launcher or something. Or else
a plate and a knife and a bottle of A1 steak sauce. Then I'd get the point.

------
al452
This entire comment thread, more or less, imagines a much clearer distinction
between advertising and art, and for that matter between the commercial world
and art, than exists or has ever existed.

------
digi_owl
"and for reasons I’ve never understood, some folks actively dislike history."

Because all too often it demonstrates to us how little we have progressed as a
species even though our tools have improved massively.

The struggles of today are either directly attributed to historical events, or
are basically the same ones that historical societies struggled with.

This because no matter how much we try to claim otherwise, we are still apes.
Our instincts today are largely the same ones that our shared ancestor with
chimps and bonobos had.

------
zuzun
I always thought the bull was a commissioned piece of art as for example
Franfkurt stock exchange has similar bear and bull sculptures infront of their
building. In the financial world the bull symbolizes market gains and the bear
symbolizes market losses.

[1] [http://www.frankfurt-
tourismus.de/en/Media/Attractions/Bull-...](http://www.frankfurt-
tourismus.de/en/Media/Attractions/Bull-and-Bear)

~~~
bboreham
Bulls are people who believe the market is going up, and buy; bears believe it
is about to go down, and sell.

A sustained move in one direction over weeks is a "bull market" or "bear
market".

------
bfred_it
I hope they leave her and that Di Modica pulls the bull. Perhaps his point
will come across better and the fearless fraud will be exposed.

------
atemerev
I am as pro-capitalist as one can be (Ayn Rand admirer, work in prop trading),
and I like the girl. She's beautiful, and should be left there.

I am not in favor of "patriarchate oppression" interpretation that everybody
seems to invoke. She's confident, and she looks at the bull with genuine
curiosity, not resentment. I think it sends the right message.

------
andmarios
It is hard to make an absolute judgement because in doing so, you have to
create a qualitative definition of art, which, unavoidably, will be abused in
the future.

Maybe the town could add a tall plate next to each statue, with information
about the creator, the installment date, etc and let people who care enough,
to judge themselves.

------
wav-part
Completely agree with him. FG alone is _for-women_ but FG in front of CB is
_against-men_. CB alone is _strength_ but CB in front of FG is _against-
women_.

Separtely both are great work of art even after considering source of funds.
But they managed to ruin both of them.

~~~
icebraining
Why men? The bull was never supposed to represent men.

~~~
cormacrelf
That's essentially what OP said in their 3rd sentence. FG being there changes
what the bull represents.

~~~
icebraining
It does, but why would it change to represent men?

~~~
wav-part
Because FG is emphasised as girl not a kid. Gender is important. Opposite of
girl is powerful men. Opposite of kid would be just powerful.

------
ChuckMcM
I have really enjoyed this discussion mostly because it explains art in a way
that is much more tangible and visceral than one usually gets. It also shows
how a art is more about person's internal viewpoint than the art itself.
Ladybird Johnson said it best when she said "Art is the window to man's soul."
It opens a window in people where you can peek in and see how they think on
the inside.

For some, like me, the pair of them, the Bull and the girl, are much more
powerful art than either of them independently. That the girl was created in
part as an advertising pitch was news to me, but the art stands by itself.

------
smsm42
BTW looked at the performance of that SHE index being advertised[1]. 3.17%
over the year - abysmal compared to SPY which it should be beating (11.9%) as
both are large cap stock indexes. Looks like advertising the heck of of it the
only hope here. (OK I know I year is not really a long term for a stock fund,
but 1/4 of SPY performance is a fail IMHO)

[1] [http://finance.yahoo.com/chart/SHE](http://finance.yahoo.com/chart/SHE)

------
hartator
It's actually pretty accurate description of the reality. Mindless
administration in the path of progress.

------
coldcode
Maybe the right solution is to remove both. But it does make for an
interesting dealing art piece despite the fact (I didn't realize) that the
girl is just a ad for some company. Though I wonder what would happen if
someone put a third piece right in the middle that made fun of both.

------
MarkMc
If I was Di Modica I'd place another statue between the girl and the bull.

I wonder how the artist of Fearless Girl would react if someone placed a Bart
Simpson statue directly in front of the girl like this:

[http://m.imgur.com/ZYVsopb](http://m.imgur.com/ZYVsopb)

------
StavrosK
Wouldn't everything be solved by simply turning the bull to face in a
different direction?

~~~
narag
_Wouldn 't everything be solved by simply turning the bull to face in a
different direction?_

Imagine that they do that and then the girl changes position to be in front of
the bull again. And then again and again. What a coward bull!

~~~
YeGoblynQueenne
That would be er, bullying, wouldn't it?

------
btbuildem
I think an interesting response by Di Modica would be to remove the bull
statue. Without it, the Defiant Girl would be reinterpreted anew. Without a
symbol to oppose, what would her presence mean?

------
logicallee
Where does this funny number come from?

>by an investment fund called State Street Global Advisors, which has assets
in excess of US$2.4 trillion.

This doesn't seem like it can be correct. What does this number represent?

~~~
bboreham
It should be "assets under management". Those assets are really owned by
millions of ordinary people: they are savings, retirement funds, etc.

~~~
logicallee
Thanks. Perhaps a better way to put it is that it is fourth-largest fund in
the word by assets managed (after BlackRock, Vanguard Group, and UBS), at
least according to a quick search. It's not realy fair to call it their
assets, though.

------
Kenji
She looks more like sassy entitled girl imho. So, in this sense, I think the
statue is a beautiful display of what is going on. "If you don't like it,
you're a sexist."

~~~
atomwaffel
It depends on the reasons for your dislike, as the article explains
beautifully. If you don't like the statue because you disagree that women
should have the same entitlements as men, then you may need to open yourself
to the possibility of being called sexist.

~~~
marvin
But if you don't like it because it appropriates the power of declaring
someone a sexist in order to undermine the original artist's intent...you're
still a sexist! That's the beauty of it.

I'm not convinced that this sort of dishonest communication is what's required
to give women a more even playing field in business. If that was the
commissioners' intent, of which I am also not convinced.

------
cies
The bull is in public space, not a museum. Public space interacts back with
your art piece. I consider that a given. And in this case the reaction on the
piece was a great one.

------
kazinator
So what is this global investment trying to say?

"We specialize in profiting from misfortune when the market is tanking ... but
we aren't scared of the bull, either: bring it on!"

------
vyodaiken
What a great story. I'm shocked, shocked by the commercialization of art. Jeff
Koons should now create Balloon Fearless Girl on Trump tower to close the
circle.

------
untangle
While Fallis' analysis the origins of 'The Girl' was interesting, it did
little to mar my opinion of the art. After all, the wealthy, the clergy, the
knighthood, and worse have all sponsored great art.

On another note... While on the gregfallis.com website, it would be a shame to
miss his 'Faux Life' series:

[https://gregfallis.com/category/faux-
life/](https://gregfallis.com/category/faux-life/)

I love the series, and it further illustrates the idea of 'juxtaposition art'
(and of 'appropriation art').

------
frozenmangos
Hilarious suggestion I've heard: Arturo Di Modica should simply rotate the
bull by 180 degrees.

------
danmaz74
If I were Di Modica, I would remove my statue just to spite the advertisers.

------
dnautics
I didn't know that Di Modica still owns it. I suppose if he disagreed with
what SHE has done, he could simply arrange to have the bull point the other
way.

~~~
jbmorgado
It's a question of principle.

Just because Picasso (or some living author if you prefer for the example)
doesn't own one of his paintings anymore, it's not artistically acceptable
(arguably even culturally acceptable) for the owner of the painting to go
there and just paint something over it that totally changes the meaning of the
original painting.

Just because you are legally entitled to do something, it doesn't mean you
_should_ do something. As a recent example, just look at the United Airlines
example for instance.

~~~
dnautics
Have you been to the site? Pointing the bull the other way wouldn't affect the
artistic expression. Most people wouldn't even notice. On the other hand it
might be tacit acknowledgement of the power of the other statue.

~~~
jbmorgado
Pointing the bull the other way would make it look like it was running away
from the girl. How is that not changing its artistic meaning?

~~~
voidz
It makes it look like the girl is taunting the bull. Which is exactly what is
happening.

To me it represents a symbol in the war against men.

------
vorotato
The American public is obviously the young girl standing against the bulls of
Wallstreet.

------
ruleabidinguser
The girls not so smart to be fearless in the face of a bull. The girls gonna
get stomped. Not a good message.

------
m-j-fox
How did women get stuck with pink?

Soldiers get yellow. Environment gets green. Anarchy gets black. Peace gets
white. Coke gets red.

Poor women. Have to share the worst color with cancer.

~~~
speeder
That story is particularly curious.

Originally people used to dress male babies in red, because it was the colour
of blood, war, strength, etc...

And female babies in blue, because it was the colour of peace, the sky, etc...

Around the 1960s when the feminists started to push for gender neutral clothes
among other things, some of them made a campaign asking major companies (for
example Sears catalog) to instead use the colours inverted, red for girls, and
blue for boys, just to force some 'equality'

The campaign sort of worked, but flew way over people heads, they just started
to assume red (and later pink as a softer tone of red for babies) and blue
(and later light blue, for same reasons as pink) were the colours of female
and male babies, without knowing why...

The feminists that created the switch, wrote several articles and papers
claiming these gendered baby clothes were oppressive and existed to control
women... I wonder after the colours just switched, what they think.

~~~
RodericDay
This doesn't sound right to me.

As I understood it, all kids used to wear grey/white dress gowns that were
easily bleachable and reusable and able to be passed down.

And then marketing companies decided that it was better if they imposed a
cultural norm that if you have a boy and a girl, you need to buy two different
outfits for each.

Similar to the only raison d'etre of absolutely stupid gendered products like
shaving razors and deodorant.

~~~
digi_owl
I suspect that it was the clothing industry that figured they could sell more
by hooking different product to genders earlier on, and marketing basically
facilitated that push.

Particularly after WW1 various industries that had massively scaled up to feed
the war needed an outlet for their excess production capacity.

This lead to a marketing push to get people to think in terms of desires
rather than needs.

Adam Curtis goes over this during his documentary series, The Century of the
Self.

------
psyc
It's art. It wouldn't matter that much if it were paid for by a saudi monarch
in order to promote violence against women, because absolutely nobody, except
the special kind of people who write blog posts like this, would read it that
way.

------
jacquesm
> the strength and power of the American people

Such nationalistic bull-shit always irritates me.

As if people from other countries are not equally strong and powerful and as
if a statue of an animal could symbolize that in some way.

On some level though it makes sense, American actions the world over often
recall the bull-in-a-china-shop image.

Art does not exist in a vacuum, it exists in the world around it and if you
place a work of art in a public space you have to assume that that context can
and will change over time. Deliberately or by accident. After all, the artist
took a risk by placing the statue in a public space without permission, he
can't now turn around and claim that others should not take similar rights.

In this case it seems that 'the guy' has under-estimated the amount of empty
space he would like to see around his art but he can solve that by simply
taking his bull home and putting it in his garden. Fearless girl won't be able
to follow and the bull will be safe from any further artistic intrusions.

~~~
krapp
>Such nationalistic bull-shit always irritates me.

>As if people from other countries are not equally strong and powerful

The tendency on HN to interpret any positive statement about the US or
American culture as an implied insult to the rest of the world baffles me.

~~~
jacquesm
I don't see it as a positive statement. I see it as a statement of insecurity
that you have to equate people to bulls. Just like the American Eagle, the
Dutch lion and so on , it's just cheap symbolism, closely related to flag
waving.

~~~
true_religion
Nationalism was originally meant as a unifier in a world where racaus nobles
would go to war over spurious land claims or maligned honor, and ethnic or
religious divisions regularly lead to war.

Nationalism is not evil. It is a necceasary baby step away from tribalism and
towards a humanist ideal, by getting one to acknowledge that people hundreds
of miles away share common ground with you.

------
CodeWriter23
He abandoned his work in a public place, therefore he has no ownership claims.

~~~
masklinn
> 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.

------
Broken_Hippo
I think the bull, standing alone, is reflective of a bygone era. Maybe some
folks want to go back. I certainly never really got the meaning, it was just a
bull in a public space. It could have been an elk, an explorer, or something
abstract. To me, the girl improved the bull - and the other way around. The
bull improves the girl.

I don't think it matters what the artists _intent_ was. The public's
interpretation changes, and if he'd really like, he can ask for a plaque
describing his original intent.

~~~
zamalek
That still misses the core point. The reason the intent is important is
because the girl is an advertisement.

> It could have been an elk, an explorer, or something abstract.

So we can hang billboards from the statue of liberty, then?

~~~
Broken_Hippo
So this art is advertisement. It isn't like we don't look back and marvel at
the glory of old movie posters or anything... Those were advertisements. It
doesn't matter if it started as an advert.

I'd have been offended if they did shitty art, but in this case, they took
care and did an actual piece.

------
SFJulie
Isn't the bull also the symbol of a impoverishment of workers?

In financial jargon:

Bulls are peoples betting in growth saying buy, and betting on more dividends
given to share holders vs work costs.

Bears are the one selling. (Bad news too to be honest, but more for share
holders than workers)

A long trend in bullish behaviour is related to the richs getting richers.

Since it is in the financial district and they were pissed, it looks indeed
the girl can be seen as a counter guerilla meaning finance is a symbol of
countering the excess of finance.

Which, if it were the meaning would be kind of a strong alteration of _one_ of
the meaning of the oeuvre.

Knowing that among the undeniable moral right of the author there is right to
prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification that would prejudice the
author's honor or reputation, the guy do not have a point, he is in his
lawfull right! Denying his point is just undermining the very few protection
of authors.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights#In_the_United_Sta...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights#In_the_United_States)

As a coder whose work is protected by Author's rights I strictly see as
dangerous to fight against hardly claimed rights that makes our value.

I do free software and I do not give up on my moral rights and I think as a
worker protected by these rights we should be educated in author's right and
whether or not we like his point of view, we should stand for his claim
because that is a fair right.

Imagine you make a software or an essay saying HN is full of interesting
bright mind, and someone defaces it adding contents to mean HN is full of
pedantic idiots. Would you like this?

~~~
icebraining
He probably doesn't actually have any legal claim; the purpose of those laws
is to protect the physical integrity of artworks, not the conceptual
integrity.

~~~
bonzini
No, moral rights go beyond physical integrity, but at the same time they only
protect "the author's honor or reputation". I don't think they apply in this
case.

