Fearless Girl Vs. Charging Bull

It's up to the owners of the site to do as they see fit.

~Richard
http://www.reevephotos.com

NYC owns the site so that means the people of NYC own the site.

So in other words, individuals are allowed to have an opinion.

So, by extension, as a resident of PA, not NYC, my opinion doesn't matter. Leave it up to the occupants of Trump Tower... ;-)

I'm with Richard, if the property belongs to NYC and the sculptures paid for by NYC taxes then it's up to the residents of NYC, my opinion is irrelevant.

Why is the statue slated for removal, and what is likely to happen to it after it is removed?

I don't own it, or live in NYC. People visit cities -- public art in public places has an impact beyond the residents. It's part of the cultural fabric of the larger community that interacts with the city.

I can have an opinion, they just might not care very much what my opinion is.

Why are people saying their opinions are irrelevant. What a load of poppycock. I and people like me have changed things from around the world by voicing opinions. This is just saying should a statue go or stay for goodness sake. What is so hard about having an opinion about that, whether people listen there or not LOL. What do you, personally think.....Doesn't matter if they listen.

I think it should stay. Not because of women per se. But for another reason i would have to go into on another board :)

But Abbie, some things are none of my business, why would I want to meddle in the affairs of New Yorkers? I'm no busy body, I try to live and let live.

Regardless, my opinion on this is very simple, I have no opinion, except that it's much ado about nothing, but if the New Yorkers care it's their business anyway.

I think it should stay. Being challenged is good. It keeps a person, or an entity, on their toes. Protest is the foundation of freedom.

I'd like to see it stay.

I think it should stay as a metaphor or warning to a lot of people about Wall Street. We are all that four foot girl on Wall Street. I wonder how the bankers feel about that notion? Knowing them from a lot of reading over the years, they would love it. When someone 'four feet tall' goes against such a warning the bankers mark him or her as a target. Meaning easy money that did not heed the warning. Phantom bid/ask from hedge funds constantly searching for such targets all so impersonal.


Abbie in my market right now Audi is running an ad. A good looking rugged guy drives his Audi to the rodeo. He gets out and goes into the ring. A massive bull is let loose. The bull charges. The man lifts his arm and hand. The bull comes to kneel before him. The crowd goes wild.

There is a sucker born every day in America. Remember that saying? That was from it was fashionable to have an opinion on things without people questioning you about your rights. When your neighbors were looking out for you. Not seeing to your next pay or benefits cut.

Dave

Fearless Girl changes the dynamic of the Bull sculpture -- as intended. Are the Bull owners okay with that? The statue appears to be placed on the Bull's bricks, so the message of defiance is unmistakable.

Perhaps Fearless Girl should be a traveling sculpture. Place her in front of a Buddhist Temple or Muslim Mosque. Why not have her stare down Abe Lincoln at the Lincoln Memorial? Are prices too high at your super market? Fearless Girl will send a clear message to the owners!

My take? Find your own corner, Sweetie.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

I thought a bull market was a good thing. So why is she staring it down? Somebody explain! Lol.

This is why I love the FAA discussion forum: I learn something new every day. Today I discovered a new english word: poppycock. Thanks Abbie :-)

The statue stands on property owned by the Department of Transportation. She now has a permit to "stand her ground" until February 2018...

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/manhattan/nyc-fearless-girl-statue-stay-february-2018-article-1.3010013

Fearless Girl just won a permit to extend her stay another 12 months.

“It’s wrong what they did,” a furious Arturo Di Modica said Monday.

Arturo is the artist who created the famed "Charging Bull."

How would you feel if someone placed Fearless Girl in front of your sculpture?


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

I'd probably be furious but......That's the art business

There's a place for Fearless Girl, but I don't think that place is in front of the Wall Street bull. Her presence there entirely changes the meaning/perception of that particular piece of art and, in this situation, that doesn't work for me.

She was a relevant 'special guest star' for IWC, but now deserves her own space where she can relay her own message.

#OpinionsAlwaysAvailableHere

@Dan -- I'd probably return by dead of night, and spirit my own sculpture away.
And that's no poppycock! ;-)

Thanks, Wendy. That's what I suspected, also. Just don't get why she was placed there in the first place. Oh, I must be British -- I've used poppycock all my life, lol.

Patricia, it's a favorite, and much used, word in my house, too! :-)

The Bull artist doesn't like it but that's the deal with being a sculptor or selling your art in general. Its out of your hands.

It is curious those stating they have no right to an option. Why even come on a thread to announce such a thing?

Fearless Girl was intended be temporary in that location. And intended to relate to the bull. My personal option is that is good that it will stay for a while longer. Later it will be installed somewhere and enjoy its fame. And the bull can relax and maybe learn something.

Maybe it will end up in front of the headquarters of a Wall St. firm with a diverse board of directors.

....

Patricia - the why is explained in the original post. "Fearless girl was displayed to encourage corporations to put more women on their boards"

I would get some good pics of it while its there and hope it goes after, so no one else can get that pic. Lots of sculptures move to different places, so get them to market that city while you can.

I know you're going to find this really hard to believe, but I always have an opinion.

Not only do I think Fearless Girl should stay, but if I had designed the bull I do love her just as much, if not more. She is awesome.

___________
Susan Maxwell Schmidt
So-so Board Moderator and
Artist Extraordinaire

Fearless Girl is a parasitic sculpture. The longer it stands the more attached to the host sculpture it will become. Charging Bull is what gives Fearless Girl meaning.

If Fearless Girl isn't destroyed by vandals over the next year, parasitic sculpture will become a legitimate thing. We can look forward to more public art being subjected to hot button social issue modification by lesser artists.

Fitting. Fearless Girl says "I want what you've built. Give it to me."


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Edward, I do get that; however, the bull represents prosperity. The fact that she is standing it down is like she is against prosperity. Am I not getting it somehow? I just don't think it is the right message.

Her presence doesn't change the beauty or strength or skill of the bull sculpture itself, it creates a conversation about what the bull represents. And since art is subjective, the original sculptor of the bull really has nothing to complain about. Had someone defaced his work or altered it, that would be different. This just adds a new narrative, and brings fresh eyes to his work.

He needs to pipe down and enjoy the free publicity. Once you set loose your work unto the world, it's not only yours anymore anyway.

^5ing Fearless Cynthia :)

___________
Susan Maxwell Schmidt
So-so Board Moderator and
Artist Extraordinaire

"Her presence doesn't change the beauty or strength or skill of the bull sculpture itself,"

It absolutely does, the same way installing a strip club next to your property affects your property. It may affect it in a good way or bad, but your property is changed in a way never intended by you.

Set this girl in front of Martin Luther King's statue and try and tell us nothing about the King statue has changed.

"Had someone defaced his work or altered it, that would be different."

This is a very clever way to do just that.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

"It is curious those stating they have no right to an option. Why even come on a thread to announce such a thing?"

I didn't say I had no right to an opinion, I stated mine quite clearly: "It's up to the owners of the site to do as they see fit."
and following your response,"So, by extension, as a resident of PA, not NYC, my opinion doesn't matter. Leave it up to the occupants of Trump Tower... ;-)"

Binary opinions are generally not a good thing. My opinion sits squarely in the middle of the continuum of opinions from "I care passionately that it stays, above all else" to "I care passionately that it goes, above all else"

I simply don't care enough one way or the other, that's my opinion which directly answers your OP :-)

~Richard
reevephotos.com

Arturo Di Modica's egotism is way overrated.

The symbolism is not innocent and it has nothing to do with his art.

BTW does he get to choose who walks by his statue? Or who takes a snapshot as a tourist?

The little girl is America's general public getting run over. She maybe totally fearless, of course there is no life in a statue, but that bull will run her over. Audi ads aside.

To answer one question, a bull market is great if you know how to work it. Other wise you are buying issues that are over priced. So anyone let me know how buying a security that is overpriced is good for you? Life does not work that way, unless you are the Wall Street banker selling that security. Oh the bull we see then.

Dave

The stated purpose of Fearless Girl is to celebrate “the power of women in leadership,” a message State Street Global Advisors attempts to deliver -- and this is ironic -- absent the depiction of an actual woman.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Fearless Girl most definitely alters that work. The entire message is changed by her presence. I like her. I applaud her. But, she's trespassing on someone else's narrative.

I'm a writer, and would be less than thrilled if someone was allowed, willy-nilly, to rewrite the final chapter of even one of my stories, or to suddenly add a major character or event to the plot.

My brain must be lacking hydration or protein -- or something -- today, because this seems obvious.

Dan,

My dad the shrink had a great story of an unnamed patient from years prior. I was now in my mid twenties when he told this story. My mom was always around to hear it. LOL

He had a patient that was a raging feminist. She was married to an industrialist twenty years older than her. He was incredibly wealthy. She was in treatment and very angry. She was clear she wanted a divorce. For practical purposes dad told her to sue for alimony. He was in her corner. It was a different day when often alimony was awarded for very long periods of time. He had the money.

She kept saying, "anything a man can do, I can do". Thing was this was not actually anything a man could do. This was what one man had done, not the average guy on the street. So she did not ask for anything from him. He thanked his lucky stars and they split.

Years later she would see my dad and my dad would tell us in his rendition, "she said she made a huge mistake not listening to me, she should have sued his arse off".

A statue of a woman, a girl is not wom"e"n in power. Particularly if all that is being set up is the fleecing of the female general public by the bull of Wall Street.

Life......

Dave

Easy to pick out the single guys on this thread.

Ed,

Does that mean you gave up the arguments? No two people think alike.

Dave

Also keep in mind that the bull was made with the Artist's own money and donated at great expense, and now he hates it.

Kinda stinks I think.

"Fearless Girl" doesn't belong there.

I don't like the whole idea behind fearless girl, or the placement of it in front of the bull. I don't think it should stay.

As Dan so accurately pointed out, it's a parasitic sculpture that gets it's meaning from the bull. I think that the very idea of what the fearless girl represents is parasitic too.

I'm all for everyone getting an equal shake at things in the world, and having a right to live the life they want the way they want.

I think there is too much focus by those leading the charge toward "social justice" on opposition. The idea of opposition implies that one group can't have what it wants because the other group has attained what it wants. Opposition just causes everyone to dig in to hold ground.

I feel that anyone who doesn't like the game that's being played needs to get their own ball and start their own game. Trying to hijack someone else's game isn't fair. You don't think corporations place enough women in high enough positions? Start your own corporation.

More on the Bull: "The bull was also never supposed to have a permanent residence near Wall St. Di Modica spent $350,000 out of pocket, then put the sculpture right by the New York Stock Exchange in December 1989. He never obtained a permit, and the art was later shipped off to Queens." Later it was moved back. http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/charging-bull-artist-girl-statue-advertising-trick-article-1.3003271

I wonder if the Bull is for sale and could be removed at any time if a buyer came along?

More info on Fearless Girl - https://www.facebook.com/nbcnightlynews/videos/1753033474716675/

I love the girl sculpture and her placement in front of the bull mostly for social and economic issues that I have conquered in my life successfully.

If the artist of the bull finds his sculpture disturbing in the way that it's being used, I find that deeply gratifying.

This might be one great reason to stash all your work away and hoard it. You never know how it will be used.

I agree with Lisa, how about we put "Crusty" the rodeo clown bronze statue behind the bull!

Lisa,

I find it gratifying as well. Pumping up Wall Street is obnoxious.

Dave

I agree cynthia

I think Artist Arturo Di Modica has every right to be enraged and speaking about it is important. It represents something different now with the other sculpture.

Actually I get how aggrieved he is. Just because I like the new fire of responses to the two sculptures together doesn't mean I don't have a heart for the artist and his initial intent for his bull.

The poor man is 76 years old and feels ...well you can read for yourself but I feel bad for the guy.

Lisa,

I dont know.

If Marlboro put up a fantastic sign for cigarettes at a lunch counter....days of old....and the law was changed so that smoking was no longer allowed at lunch counters.....sign comes down......would you feel for Marlboro? That bull is a massive symbol of Wall Street. Nothing less. Does it matter what the bankers do to us? Do their symbols get to glorify their cruelty?

We could substitute all sorts of things into that equation.

Life is about change. No point in holding onto every bit of public business forever. That is not within the artist's rights.

He is known for his egotism, has been for decades. With that comes great ups and downs I guess. That is on him as well regardless of his age. My dad is 78 and would never get into this petty stuff over people continuing on in society developing it etc.

Dave

I find the social message of this fiasco gratifying but for reasons, due to rules of the forum, I shall not discuss.

The symbolism whether bad or good is a great example of how art is powerful.

I pretty much worship Arturo Di Modica's work and his arrogance seems reasonable to me.

Good grief, David B. The bull stands for optimism and a strong market -- good things. But you are apparently seeing something different.

Lisa, where did you go? I am only seeing a blue paint spatter, lol. Come back!

That's the problem with symbols, they are subject to interpretation. I personally have no problem with the bull, or even Wall Street in general, I'm not going to condemn a whole institution over a few bad actors.

Hi Patricia, I'm shopping as an art collector at the moment.

Arturo's bull sculpture was never a symbol of division, exclusion or condemnation, but of optimism and strength.

Fearless Girl's location turns her into a disrespectful in-your-face symbol of greed and entitlement. That attitude will only set women back and take them further away from their desired outcome. The resulting "conversation" this is creating begins with "Women are much less ready than we thought."

How many qualified women will fail to advance as a direct reaction to Fearless Girl? It won't be in any overt way, that would be too politically incorrect. They simply won't get the job, the raise, the promotion or the opportunity to prove their worth.

Let's talk unintended consequences.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Who am I?

OC: You were the first female Chief Executive in the National Football League, what advice would you give to young women working in male-dominated industries?

AT: The same advice I would give a young man: work hard, work really, really hard, work harder than you ever imagined you could, and stop thinking about the fact that you’re a woman. Do your job.

I don't have to prove my worth or work hard.

I am paid equal to my male peers ...not entirely due to my own efforts, but definitely due to the women in my position before me.

Strong female peers can get lazy males to work as well which is very triumphant female power.

Working very hard or being a martyr is stupid in male dominated work sites. Building trust is the best power as well as communication which empower women as well as men.

The bull and the girl...well it's anyone's opinion who views it, but if it grates on thy nerves, the art, regardless, is powerful messaging in the way that it is displayed and not entirely how the artist desired it to be.

What's the message?

Don't you think the message, if any is different to each person, Tony?

Or is it the artist who defines her/his art?

I dunno, but for me, the message is meaningless. The controversy is entertaining and that makes people discuss and debate issues, I guestimate it will be forgotten soon.

I'll never look at Arturo Di Modica's work the same, I'll always see that fearless girl staring the bull down. LOL. And I like it, but I don't really know why.

Does it bother people? Do people not like it? Do some people find it to be in poor taste? If the answers to these questions is yes then by all means it should stay.

The bull has never bothered me. It is a well done statue.

The statue symbolizes a conniving group of people that will sell you down the river. Buyer beware. Frankly we are all adults here, it goes without saying.

The little girl is just a symbol of women lining up to be sold down said river. It is not really feminism. It is not really jobs for women. It is sales to women.

Have to say the statue of the little girl is not very good. JMO

It is not inching up the ladder for women. That has to happen for a lot of people not just one of the sexes.

Patricia bull markets are just a tool. A fool and his money are easily parted.

If I went to a restaurant, or a rock concert, or a baseball game, or anything else.....I do not want to hear how great the owner or the singer or the player etc thinks s/he is. It is boring. In person it is insufferable. While I have a very high regard for Picasso's work as a person he was crude and cruel constantly from many accounts. Not one anyone would want to actually live with or even know.

I will add by 1980 we were looking at the digital age. Particularly as we entered the 1990s, the painter's/sculptor's heyday.

With that in mind, centuries from now how will this two hundred or three hundred year period be seen? As the early digital period in all endeavors. Cellphones with the power of a super computer, 3D printers, in the future holograms.......the decoding of the human Genome and over the last few years the tools for creating antimatter in the lab.

Last I knew he was not working digitally. The value long term of his art is very little. It is misplaced in time. He has done well though during his lifetime. More power to him. Rembrandt, Mozart, and van Gogh died penniless......he is not that important as an artist even if he dies with millions.


Addition: As far as art goes, the early digital age really focuses on the digital camera and goes from there.....


Dave

Art can be a conversation.

If you make a sculpture of a bull, and it gets famous...
Another artist can come along and make another sculpture in reaction to it.

An artist designed a soup can label, for Campbell's.
Another artist (A. Warhol) came along and made some art in response to it.

Then there is parody. I can't think of any situation where parody is *not* a reaction to something -- often people parody art by others, especially if the art is well known, or iconic, or makes a social statement.

Parody is specifically protected as a fair use, under copyright law -- the conversation is important enough to override copyright. (Copyright isn't important to Fearless Girl, as far as I know Fearless Girl is not a derivative work, the point I'm trying to make is that the conversation -- the making of new art specifically designed as a response to existing art -- is a legitimate and deeply ingrained part of our culture)

Does the 2nd piece change the first?
No, it doesn't change the original work, or it's history. It doesn't destroy or damage it.
Yes, it can add some layers of meaning to the original work.

Disclaimer: As always, not legal advice.

"No, it doesn't change the original work, or it's history. It doesn't destroy or damage it."

It's mind-blowing to read comments like that. If your next-door neighbor covered his house in swastikas and the city said "it's his house he can do what he wants" are you affected? Gosh, he didn't do anything to your house.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

I agree with Dan.

Putting the bronze statue of the little girl and bull stare down together completely changes the original meaning to a symbol of female defiance in overwhelmingly male dominated financial institutions.

Whether that defiance is necessary or not for change is a controversial issue.

I wouldn't make a comparison like Nazi swastikas because that seems over the top..sort of diminishes the fact that 11 million people were killed in honor of this symbol. But the point is well made that the intent of the artist Modica isn't as noble as it once was due to someone else's art.

Kristen Visbal's sculpture is sooo amazing as well in my opinion, but it is an opinion.

Dan / Lisa,
Did you read the next sentence, where I said it added extra layers of meaning?

It's why we're even having this discussion, about Charging Bull, and the added layers of meaning created by the placement of Fearless Girl. Or what it means if you remove Fearless Girl.

RE: The swastika-house example. It's why we have zoning, and housing associations with rules about what you can do to your house. You're not physically damaging the underlying house, or the house next door, by putting swastikas on it, you're adding layers of meaning.

When you add layers of meaning, or create them in the first place, it's the meaning that gets debated -- whether the layers of meaning are offensive, or valued, or not.
When is it a "statement" to remove a sculpture from it's setting? What factors should we take into consideration when we make that decision?

Turn FG so both her and the bull are facing the same way. Does that change the meaning? Of course it does. Would the sponsors go for that? Of course not. Why?


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Well, it's staying till March 2018 now, so I guess this discussion had an impact...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39414780

~Richard
http://www.reevephiyos.com

With this very crude illustration, I suggest

Perhaps "Fearless Girl" can be relocated with slight alteration.

swastikas

Just a small reminder to Dan,

Little girls in bronze are not swastikas.

Now how many of my neighbors light up their entire front yard with Christmas lights for two months and no one is complaining?

Dave

Cheryl, I think I forgot to actually read your post fully, now that I've read it several times, I think you are spot on, and there are layers of meaning...well said in the first post about how the art isn't changed.

And excellent response to Dan's post.

I like it Roger. The raging bull has been charmed into a over-sized puppy dog.

Lisa,
Thank you.

This topic comes up a lot, because art that is placed in public places gets moved, and the culture changes. It came up with the Martin Luther King statue in I think it was New Orleans, it came up RE: statues of civil war generals in the deep south, etc. etc.

One of the first big events that sparked the historical preservation movement was when one of the beloved angel statues from Penn Station was found in the trash.

https://www.nytsyn.com/archives/photos/976760.html

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/25/nyregion/piece-of-penn-station-s-past-is-found-in-salvage.html

It created the idea that just because someone has the money to buy something, it doesn't necessarily mean they can just destroy it, and nobody can stop them. Once these things are gone, generally they're gone forever and nobody can have them, no matter how much money they have or how much people cared.

It's a messy business, deciding when it's ok to destroy or change something - or not: art, a building, a place of natural beauty, a place of cultural significance to a group of people -- or whatever.

The people who decide what should be on the historical register get dragged into all kinds of litigation on that --