In 1971, Helen Reddy released “I Am Woman,” which became a number one hit after being re-released the following year. It was a great song, catchy tune, good beat, and made Reddy some decent coin. It became the anthem of the Women’s Liberation Movement, and changed everything. Oh wait. No. It didn’t actually accomplish anything. But it was definitely empowering at the time.
There is nothing wrong with music, art, symbols that stir people’s passions. Sure, they may be merely feel-good symbols, and they raise awareness of issues that matter to people. Whether the issue is one you care about isn’t important. If someone does, they’re entitled to their say, their song. Or their statue. And if it’s good enough, it will sell a million copies. Or get approval to stand on a traffic island in downtown Manhattan, even if it began life as guerrilla art.
Arturo Di Modica dropped his bronze, Charging Bull, in front of the New York Stock Exchange in the middle of the night on December 15, 1989. He intended it to send a message.
Arturo Di Modica first conceived of the Charging Bull as a way to celebrate the can-do spirit of America and especially New York, where people from all other the world could come regardless of their origin or circumstances, and through determination and hard work overcome every obstacle to become successful. It’s this symbol of virility and courage that Arturo saw as the perfect antidote to the Wall Street crash of 1986.
A stirring symbol, for sure. It may have been a favorite of brokers at Lehman Brothers, but it didn’t keep the market from crashing in 2008. It was just a symbol, but it was Di Modica’s symbol. As the creator of Charging Bull, he was entitled to define its message. And it was a perfectly good message, even if it was only symbolic.
Kirsten Visbal created a bronze too, though it was a work commissioned by a group more likely to prefer Charging Bull.
Fearless Girl was initially commissioned an advertisement for State Street Global Advisors (SSgA), an index fund which comprises gender-diverse companies that have a higher percentage of women among their senior leadership.
But Fearless Girl was placed on the same traffic island that held Charging Bull, using the latter in juxtaposition to the former to create its message. The two bronzes, together, stood as a symbol of something different.
There’s no question that Fearless Girl derives its meaning from its interaction with Di Modica’s piece. Crafted in the same medium as the bull, the girl stands meters away on the traffic island, making what looks to be direct eye contact with the animal. Without Di Modica’s sculpture, Fearless Girl is just a girl. With it, she’s a symbol of women braving the sexual harassment and gender discrimination of Wall Street to rise in a male-dominated field.
Apparently, Helen Reddy’s women’s lib anthem didn’t do the trick, as this new symbol was needed 46 years later. So be it. But does that make it acceptable for Fearless Girl‘s message to usurp Charging Bull‘s message? No matter how passionate the supporters of Fearless Girl, they do not get to hijack the message of Charging Bull away from its creator.
And the same would be true if, in the middle of some night in the future, some other artist dropped an unseemly bronze in front of Fearless Girl to fundamentally alter its symbolism to send an entirely different message. Whether Fearless Girl, without Charging Bull, works is up to its creator, and viewers, to decide. That Fearless Girl derives its meaning off the back of Charging Bull, as it’s now situated, is beyond dispute.
But the unwelcome diptych is defended by New York’s mayor, who has finally found a cause that won’t bring the police or prison guard unions down hard on him.
This twit, too, is a symbol. The message BdB sends is that if you don’t acquiesce to his values, it can only be because you are a bad man who discriminates against women. Despite the inartfulness of suggesting that women only take up space, the ad hominem is clear. There is no legitimate reason any man can be opposed to the placement of Fearless Girl opposed to Charging Bull.
For those inclined to believe, or intellectually challenged, BdB’s message will resonate. It’s the message that makes others reject the facile and simplistic mindlessness of social justice rationalizations. It also raises the question that few want to consider. Why haven’t women started companies, brokerage houses, law firms, so that they need not rely on empty symbolism to fill their sad hearts with hope?
The statue may be fearless, but the reality is that four of the top five corporations by market capitalization in America were formed since Helen Reddy sang her song, all by men. The fifth is older, but was also started by a man. The problem isn’t lacking a symbol of fearlessness. It’s that men did it and women didn’t.
Some day, a grandmother will put her granddaughter on her knee and hand her the pink pussy hat she wore to the glorious Women’s March of 2017. Whether the bronze Fearless Girl will still be standing on that traffic island is unknown, Whether Di Modica can compel the City to make a change so that his message is no longer altered by another message is better left to others, elsewhere, to figure out.
But there is no droit morale to subvert one artist’s message for another’s because the new message comports more closely with your feelings. If Fearless Girl moves you so deeply, then let it stand on its own. And if it can’t, then that too is a symbol, even if it’s not the symbol you prefer.
Update: The tendency on the part of SJWs to ridicule their strawman recharacterization of Di Modica’s objection, continues unabated, as reflected in this twit:
“That girl is attacking my bull.” Kudos to the Wall Street bull sculptor for his pitch-perfect performance art piece on fragile masculinity.
— Bearded Stoner (@beardedstoner) April 13, 2017
To the extent anyone wonders why there is no “discussion” about such matters, there isn’t much to discuss when Di Modica is arguing about the hijacking of his art’s message and the response is to ridicule him for “fragile masculinity.”
Apparently State Street thought the meaning was “[s]tanding proudly for the promise and power of women in leadership”.
But what do they know? They only paid for the advertisement, er, statue. As you’ve said before, “That’s the weird thing about symbols. They mean different things to different people.”
I can be kinda pithy at times.
Yes, quite pithetic.
(No need to get up. I’ll show myself out.)
Drat. Bested again.
“some other artist dropped an unseemly bronze in front of Fearless Girl”
Oh, the images you have brought to my mind. Someone should start a new college student prank tradition, putting a series of unseemly things there. Such an opportunity for comedy gold. Heads would just explode.
When it happens, as one might expect it will, I want credit.
Yes, now the two, in juxtaposition, depict the fatally stupid act of standing in front of a charging bull. One can only hope that real children will not be encouraged to attempt this by all the cooing over how clever it all is.
The running of the bulls in Pamplona will continue with a new generation of fools.
At least those people run (less complete assurance of certain death).
But do they carry a fitbit? Not that it matters.
Ask the survivors.
Everyone’s a survivor these days.
“I can’t think of anything a man can get his fill of quicker than scrapping with a bull.” Jed Clampett
Don’t worry about the girl. I’ve commissioned a bronze barbed-wire fence to protect her.
What, the great SHG is complaining that an artist’s feelz are hurt because someone put up another statue (with city permission) nearby? Who hijacked your blog to post this? Seriously, the bull’s sculptor does not own all the public space along Wall Street, nor does he get to dictate what appears in that space. He sounds like one of those whiny authors that complain about people writing weird fanfiction about their characters–“I didn’t imagine it that way, so you shouldn’t, either”. Yes, it’s a common affliction among artists and writers to imagine that they get to dictate to other people how their creations are perceived and interacted with, but they are idiots when they do so.
There is no female Billy Madison, so I will leave your comment to speak for itself. On the bright side, it has nothing to do with your fascinating life or personal experiences. For that, I thank you.
Sometimes, I think that if you could get past your clinical narcissism, there might be a relatively intelligent thought in your head. Then you leave a comment like this and it’s clear there is no hope for you.
I saw the girl and the bull when I took my wife down to Battery Park recently and when I looked at the scene I saw a girl and her pet. He’s not charging, he’s posing before his mistress, and she’s not fearless because there is no fear to be had. She’s proud of the bull, and the bull loves her back. It will do anything to protect her. That’s the message I got. Imagine my surprise when my wife saw something different.
If you put something somewhere and then someone else puts something next to it, and you don’t like it, take it back. No one even touched your shit. It’s still there, just like it always was. Don’t be a whiny crybaby about how people are hurting your feelings by altering your message. There is no universal message except in your own head, Arturo.
So that whole aspect that Fearless Girl (that’s the name given by its creator, whether you get her message or not) means nothing without Charging Bull not only went whoosh, but leaves you to blame the Bull’s creator for being a “whiny crybaby”? An interesting if irrational shifting of the burden.
You must have missed the part where he saw something different than pretty much everyone else in the world, so it’s no big deal. It’s not just that he doesn’t connect up the derivative meaning, but that because it doesn’t bother him, it should bother anyone else.
Since the comment said two different things that failed to jibe, it’s hard to say how he got to his conclusion. Either way, it made no sense.
I think the new statue should stay because the combined symbolism is exquisite:
The bull symbolizes ” … can-do spirit of America … determination and hard work overcom[ing] every obstacle to become successful. … virility and courage …” — In other words: All the things that feminism is busily undermining 😉
Not only that, but feminists have no hesitation about putting girls in danger in the furtherance of their ideology. (“of course you have a right to get half-drunk and walk down a dark alley in the middle of the night in a miniskirt; it’s your body, and anyone who tells you to be careful is an evil sexist pig.”)
A third hybrid message? Interesting, but then, it’s still his bull.
This is absurd. Who owns the bull? Who owns the street. IF the owner of the bull isn’t happy about the what the owner of the street wants to put next to his bull, he can come pick it up. IF he’s given it to the city, than the city is within its rights to do what they want with it. The idea that he has some right to continue to use public resources to spread his message, while also maintaining the right to prohibit other citizens from doing the same, doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
So you understood nothing about the post.
Guerilla artist complains that someone else’s guerilla art (albeit corporate-sponsored) changes his message? I understand his objection and even agree – but my sympathy is very much muted due to his hypocrisy.
One of the differences between (good) lawyers and others is the ability to separate distinct issues and not let one’s “sympathy” on one point distort one’s capacity to think clearly about another. Whether or not it’s hypocrisy (and it’s not even remotely hypocritical as his art never required someone else’s art to create derivative meaning), don’t let conflation of issues blind you. That’s the same reason people aren’t concerned that a deprivation of constitutional rights results in conviction, as the defendant was unsympathetic since he was guilty anyway. See how that works?
His bull depended upon the location (Wall Street) to create derivative meaning; hence his putting it there without permission. Albeit derivative meaning not from another’s artwork, but still derivative meaning.
Re sympathy, a more apt analogy would be, if e.g. a police officer who wilfully violates constitutional rights has his own constitutional rights violated on arrest, my sympathy is muted. Muted, not non-existent; and it does not affect my analysis, only my sympathies.
Now you’re down to total gibberish. You’re on your own.
You don’t seem to understand that concept of derivative art. That the Bull derives meaning from Wall Street is irrelevant. Wall Street isn’t art. The Bull is art. You really don’t seem to grasp the idea here.
As for your second paragraph, I have no clue what you’re trying to say, but if you feel the need to note your sympathies, it’s pretty clear it’s affected your analysis.
Wall Street isn’t art. The Bull didn’t change the meaning of Wall Street. The reason why it applies to the Girl is that it altered the meaning of the Bull. So nothing about the comment makes any sense at all. I didn’t understand that second paragraph either, but that happens with relative frequency around here. I get tired of trying to decipher gibberish.
It’s bad enough trying to figure out what the hell someone is talking about occasionally. No clue how you do it as often as you must. I’m sure people mean to say brilliant things, but they really suck at clarity.
Sucks to be me.
I was fine to leave it, but given multiple comments…
I agree with the analysis on Volokh (no link provided per rules) by David Post. My interpretation is that from a copyright perspective, Fearless Girl is not a derivative work.
And if one is using derivative in a non-legal sense, well then one can easily say the bull derives meaning from its location just as Fearless Girl derives meaning from its location.
As to how I am capable of analysis despite what my sympathies may be, well I think it better to acknowledge one’s biases and try to deal with them than to pretend one is unbiased, but whatever.
This is one of the problems with letting non-lawyers comment. Misunderstanding on multiple levels really isn’t better than misunderstanding on one level. And while it’s better to acknowledge one’s bias than deny it, you indulged it rather than dealt with it. That’s the opposite of the virtue you ascribe to yourself, and platitudinous horseshit that people tell themselves to feel better about being incapable of thinking instead of feeling.
Or to put this a different way, you want dug yourself into a hole and kept digging. That’s why multiple comments. And you’re still digging. Stop digging. Please, just stop digging.
IAAL, but since you said please and it’s your blog…either I didn’t express what I meant well, or you and Miles misunderstood, or both, so I’ll leave it.
You’re right, it’s very simple. A simple land-use dispute. Whew! Imagine what kind of a pickle we’d be in if Congress had gone and done something as foolish as pass specific legislation explicitly assigning the authors or artistic works, as opposed to their physical owners, the right to prevent distortion or modification of those works.
Why? He clearly has no clue, as is usually the case with the “everything is simple” crowd. But this has nothing to do with the post anyway? Don’t encourage this.
Right – so if i buy a work or art, the original artist can determine what other art I show it next to? Or how it is lit? Or what the room it hangs in looks like? Interesting proposition there, one which I am unfamiliar with. Got any case law to support it? Or are you and Scott just talking out your feelings?
I know I’m going to regret doing this, particularly since this has nothing whatsoever to do with the post, but I’m weak. Visual Artists Rights Act. 17 USC 106A. Next time, look it up before mouthing off. And even so, this post isn’t about his legal rights, but about his having a legitimate dispute that has nothing to do with male fragility.
im aware of that law. It just doesn’t apply here.
And its not because i agree with BdB and Beared Stoner.
I knew I would regret it. You ask. You get an answer. You go orthogonal. Dave didn’t raise it because it applied, but because your comment was (aside from being off topic) brutally simplistic. No, it doesn’t cover pre-1990 art, but the agreement with the city to place the Bull on the traffic island preclude his taking it back or moving it. And for the last time, none of this is relevant to the point of the post, which explicitly had nothing to do with the legal issues.
Fair enough. I just found it ironic, thats all. Like i said, I’m not supporting either BdB or bearded stoner here. Both are being ridiculous. I just think the artist is too, for crying about his feelings when he’s got no legs to stand on. Because, as has been mentioned, his guerilla art depended on the context of where the art was placed every bit as much as fearless girl. If the difference between using Wall St as context and using the Bull as context is the former does not use someone else’s art (my guess is many architects may disagree) and the later does, does it do enough to give him a legal remedy? Again, I’m pretty confident it doesn’t. If not, he should just quit trying to keep another artist from spreading their message. Otherwise, he’s just another whiner like BdB and Stoner, or all the college activists everyone around here loves so much, trying to squelch someone else’s message. Fight it with more art, no?
l
You don’t seem like a bad sort, so I’m going to try to explain this to you: SJ isn’t a place for random, open threads of shit that pops into people’s heads. There’s reddit for that. Topic: Raging Bull statue, discuss.
Posts here tend to have very specific points, often narrow slices of issues, to the exclusion of other aspects of issues. I pick what I write about with that in mind. I write about it because that’s what I want to write about. Whether anyone wants to read about it or comment about it has zero to do with it. If, however, you want to comment, then make the effort to grasp my point and focus your comment on the point of the post. Want to talk about some other aspect of the subject? Want to go down the path that interests you? Great. Do it. Just not here. This is my blawg, not yours.
And before you argue the point, I’ve been through this hundreds of times over the years, with people explaining to me, asserting to me, that I have some duty to them. I don’t. You don’t have to agree. You don’t have to like it. If it doesn’t suit you, there are plenty of other places on the internet to go. God speed.
So you know you’re off topic, get proven wrong about the law, keep digging anyway because you’re too much of a pussy to admit you’ve been owned, and contribute nothing of value. And then ask whether DaveL and Scott are “talking out your feelings”? Are you going for asshole of the year?
Wrong about the law (I believe Scott agreed the VARA does not apply, although to be honest, I think it doesn’t apply for other reasons).
“Pussy?” Quite an argument you’ve got there.
“Asshole of the year?” Even better. Watching the arch of your creativity is impressive. Can’t wait to watch you try and top that. Maybe dickwad. Or maybe up the degree of difficulty and go for bag of dicks. Well, that takes the fun out of it, and really this isn’t my thing. I’ll leave it to you.
There you go. You’ve defended your honor. We’re done.
Apologies, Scott. I forget how hard these places are to keep civil right about the same time I stop being civil.
[Ed. Note: No need to apologize. I don’t tone police. I substance police.]
The problem here is that, unlike Raging Bull, which is a masterpiece of artistic expression–and true to life–Fearles Girl is out of proportion and ugly, simpley. Anybody who knows art, has studied art or appreciates art recognizes this bronze girl as grotesquerie par excellence. It’s awful. Remove it post haste, BdB notwithstanding. What does he know about art, or Wall St.?
Ugly is ugly, I’m sorry. And don’t blame it on the angle of the camera or the poor lighting! It does not belong there; get rid of it. We’re currently recommending a bronze of Paris Hilton, smiling her wry smile. Ha. If anyone can stop that bull, it’s demur Paris in slinky garb, no makeup and little jewelry.
I think Fearless Girl is a wonderful work of art. And that’s the beauty of art, you don’t have to like it and that’s okay. On the other hand, should there ever be a bronze of Paris Hilton, you should off your front lawn for its final resting place. No one would have a problem with that.
My postage-stamp front yard is waiting, but we would prefer the real thing. And then there’s Bed, Bath and Beyonce,… not necessarily in that order.
You’re kidding of course; if Fearless Female Girl were so wonderful, it would not be down there in the midst of the wolves of Wall St. It would be in MoMA, naturally! Or maybe that lovely park in Riverdale, on the Hudson? Check it out; you will not be disappointed!