Fearless Girl

138 posts / 0 new
Last post
kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

When I think about this as a SHE marketing scheme it reminds me of the failed Pepsi ad except it doesn't seem to have pissed as many people off. For women who can afford to invest in the stock market I suspect that it is having a positive effect on the brand. 

NorthReport

Sweet! 

The sculpture — which likely has displaced the bull as the city’s second-most popular sculptural attraction after the Statue of Liberty

http://onlineathens.com/local-news/2017-04-15/cedar-shoals-grad-lizzie-w...

NorthReport

‘Fearless Girl’ to face the bull until next year
Symbol of resilience: The Fearless Girl statue faces down the Charging Bull

http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/spectrum/arts/-fearless-girl-to-face-th...

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..when i saw the pic in the above post this came to mind.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

One is real and the other is not.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..both are political

NorthReport
NorthReport

When Tiny Girls Terrify Grown Men

Recent events show just how threatened some men are by women.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fearless-girl-statue_us_58f12e88e4b0...

6079_Smith_W

It is real though:

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/mar/27/women-make-...

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_gist/2006/11/positio...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-08/-why-women-are-better-stock-market...

There might be some dispute over whether the business world is a good place. But there is ample evidence that it is a world of gender discrimination, even though women are sometimes better at the job than men.

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
So Wall Street is a guerilla movement, and feminists have culturally appropriated their power. Have I got that right?

Yes, if you believe that State Street Global Advisors = feminists.

Before you make up your mind, though, it's sort of interesting to note that only 17% of their own leadership positions are held by women.  So whatever amount of money they paid to an ad agency for Fearless Girl, it was clearly all worth it if actual progressives think their advertisement for their index fund has something to do with feminism. 

It's not "greenwashing", and it's not exactly "pinkwashing"... let me coin the term "girlwashing".  If it's got a girl then it MUST be feminist and we should all line up behind it or something.

Quote:
I think that by Magoo's reasoning, it would be the artist, not Wall Street, who would be the victim here. He created the bull to symbolize one thing, and now it symbolizes another.

Thank you, VotD.  This isn't going to change the minds of anyone who thinks "now, more than ever, we NEED Fearless Girl!" or whatever, but it's nice to know I can still be lucid enough to be understood. 

And I'm not even suggesting that the sculptor of Charging Bull is a "victim" -- that's way too much word -- but I think that in the context of an artist's moral rights to their work, he DOES have a reasonable point.  Sadly, a reasonable point that just got turned into witches stealing boners.

I'll suggest again that this is NOT about "Wall Street", it's not about "feminism", it's not about a bull being afraid of a girl, it's not about Capitalism, and it's not about witches.

 

NDPP

Now Only Rational Thinking Can Save The World

http://dissidentvoice.org/2017/04/now-only-rational-thinking-can-save-th...

"The West has brought the world to the brink of total collapse, but its citizens, even its intellectuals, are stubbornly refusing to grasp the urgency. Like ostriches many are hiding their heads in the sand.

There seems to be an acute lack of rational thinking, and especially of people's ability to grasp the proportions of global occurrences and events.

Now, according to many, the endgame is approaching.

"...Now it is time to think, rationally and quickly, and then to act..."

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

it's not about "feminism", it's not about a bull being afraid of a girl, it's not about Capitalism, and it's not about witches.

..it's about all of these things and more. it's about the perception of the art by the public. not just about the intent or who commissioned it. and these perceptions can't be managed.

6079_Smith_W

And on the artistic level it is also about how a creator can presume to strongarm a public space just because he gets his nose out of joint.

I do realize this is complicated. And yes, I know we aren't just talking about Wall Street. But no, if something else comes along that changes the space he doesn't just get to force it out just because he sees it as a threat. Especially if it is so much of a big deal that he can take his bull somewhere else. It would kind of suck, but he does have that option, and he doesn't own the square.

Actually, I think it is kind of an unhealthy relationship to have one's art. I get it to a point, but there is also a sense in which you don't own it anymore once you have made it, nor should you, really, if someone is doing something honest with it. If he doesn't realize that yet he might want to consider that sooner or later he isn't going to be around.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
..it's about all of these things and more.

Yes, in a sense.  The public will decide what about this is important to them, or what they like or dislike, or what they support or don't support.

But the controversy at the nub of it -- a new sculpture fundamentally changing the artistic meaning of another sculpture -- is not about whether we like Fearless Girl, or whether we approve of Wall Street or whether the bull would defeat the girl or the girl defeat the bull.  And while I'm not suggesting that the public's interpretation of this art (or, these arts) is immaterial, popularity alone doesn't override an artist's moral rights.

Just curious, epaulo13, would the impact of Fearless Girl be diminished if that sculpture were placed in the middle of a public park, facing off against a tree?  The "perception" of Fearless Girl is, IMHO, entirely dependent on someone else's art, and more to the point, entirely dependent on casting that other art as a misgynist threat.  Or else why wouldn't a tree in a park work just as well as something for Fearless Girl to be fearless of?

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..that perception by the public is why the artist is objecting. why he is claiming it changes his piece. he objects to the perception not fearless girl as an artwork. and he can't try and manage that by having her removed. people thinking about the bull started to change long ago. even before occupy wall street.

..as to your question it's a speculation. it's empty of artistic context. the bull has a context not just the girl.

NorthReport
Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
..that perception by the public is why the artist is objecting. why he is claiming it changes his piece.

Well, OK.  Perhaps we agree that his objection is to the public now seeing his work as a villain, when that was not his artistic intent.

It's just not clear to me why that's not a valid objection, either within the grounds of his rights as an artist, or even just in general.  The marketing corporation that came up with Fearless Girl to sell some index funds didn't exactly ask to use his work, after all.  And the fact that his work is publically displayed doesn't really change that.  A marketing corporation saw their chance to promote a Wall Street investment, and they took it.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I don't think that the Fearless Girl comes close to being a breach of the artists moral rights.  The only thing close in VARA is the right to prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation.  Another piece of art work that doesn't physically impact a work of art would not meet the legal definition. Of course in the Magoo lexicon it can be a terrible breach of moral rights because in your lexicon you get to define what a moral right is even if it is not recognized by anyone else. 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..i don't say he doesn't have a valid objection. but i don't see that a case has been made.

NorthReport

It appears that Fearless Girl is going to become a permanent NYC artistic fixture, and Visbal can thank Di Modica with his complaints for helping to put Fearless Girl on the map.

Fearless Girl

Public advocate Letitia James has asked for the statue to be a permanent installation. In a letter to New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, James states, "Fearless Girl stands as a powerful beacon, showing women—young and old—that no dream is too big and no ceiling is too high".[18]

Arturo Di Modica, who had installed Charging Bull in 1989 without a sponsor (spending $350,000 of his own money) and without a permit, called Fearless Girl "an advertising trick" that he wanted relocated.[13][1] Visbal said that "I love Charging Bull! But women are here, and we're here to stay."[1] On April 12, 2017, Di Modica and his attorney, former New York Civil Liberties Union director Norman Siegel, challenged city officials who let the Fearless Girl statue be installed.[19][20] Di Modica states the statue corrupted Charging Bull's artistic integrity by distorting the intent of his statue from "a symbol of prosperity and for strength" into a villain and "something negative", and does so for SSgA's commercial gain.[21][22][23] Siegel said a lawsuit had not been filed as of yet.[19][20]

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

He has a valid objection from an articstic viewpoint since it does effect the perception of the public but that is far removed from anything that has been protected by moral rights in the US under VARA.

NorthReport

 

 

Political.....very!

 

Now everyone it seems wants to get in on the act. 

Will Trump soon will be commenting on the new art display in his home town

Cuomo says Charging Bull statue never bothered him the day after de Blasio knocked the famed work

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/cuomo-no-issue-charging-bull-blaz-sl...

NorthReport

I don't recall de Blasio criticizing the Charging Bull.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Of course in the Magoo lexicon it can be a terrible breach of moral rights because in your lexicon you get to define what a moral right is even if it is not recognized by anyone else.

Actually, I thought it might infringe on the sculptor's moral rights specifically because it would be recognized by someone else.  But I've also acknowledged all along that I don't know how to interpret NYC's stance on moral rights.

But I think that it this point, laws governing moral rights or any similar have been overthrown by GIRL POWER!!!!  It's feminism vs. Wall Street, and State Street Global Advisors is winning.

Rev Pesky

Another terrific advertising campaign:

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

But I think that it this point, laws governing moral rights or any similar have been overthrown by GIRL POWER!!!!  It's feminism vs. Wall Street, and State Street Global Advisors is winning.

No the point is you know nothing about the law of moral rights, not even what is covered by the definition and you want to use your interpretation to take a sideswipe at feminism. Your trolling is getting sloppier.

NorthReport

Interesting comments by de Blasio, NYC's current mayor. Just imagine what Giuliani would have said or done.

Wall Street's 'Charging Bull' artist challenges 'Fearless Girl' sculpture

Mayor Bill de Blasio tweeted in response: "Men who don't like women taking up space are exactly why we need the Fearless Girl."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-new-york-statue-idUSKBN17E27B

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
and you want to use your interpretation to take a sideswipe at feminism.

I'm not taking a swipe at "feminism".  I'm pointing out that Fearless Girl is an advertisement, and NOT "feminism".

We wouldn't confuse "10% less packaging" in big letters on some product with "environmentalism", would we?

Quote:
"Men who don't like women taking up space are exactly why we need the Fearless Girl."

Put Fearless Girl behind Charging Bull instead of in front.  If Di Modica still protests then maybe it would be safe to say that he just doesn't like women taking up space.

And if anyone else protests then maybe it isn't about feminism at all.  She'd still be a girl no matter where she's put, wouldn't she?

Anyway, to be honest, I don't even dislike Fearless Girl.  I think it's a great piece of art.  I just think it's fascinating that we cannot even acknowledge Di Modica's concerns without either cheerleading for Wall Street and masculinity, or hating women and girls, or both.  As I said upthread, what should be a simple enough legal matter is now an epic battle of Capitalism vs. Feminism.

 

6079_Smith_W

Magoo, I have acknowledged his concerns. I just don't think he gets to make the final decision here, other than the decision to take his piece and move it if he doesn't want to go along with this.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I would expect the only final decision to rest with the courts.  The law is either on his side or it isn't.

6079_Smith_W

If he has anything of enough substance to get it in the door of a court. Otherwise we are down to the city, and his option of taking his ball and bat.

NorthReport
NorthReport

Elizabeth Warren: 'Fearless' foe against a charging Donald Trump?

Count Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren as a friend of the Fearless Girl.

Warren, who has stood up to her own angry bulls on Wall Street over banking regulations and taxpayer bailouts, mocks complaints by the sculptor of the iconic Charging Bull in lower Manhattan that the addition last month of a sculpture of a defiant girl, hands on her hips and standing in his path, should be removed.

"O-o-h, o-o-h, o-o-h, that is so-o-o sad," Warren says in a mocking voice, then adds: "I think the Fearless Girl is terrific. I hope she stands there until the bull falls over."

Warren casts herself as a fearless champion of progressive causes against the charging bull that is President Trump. In This Fight Is Our Fight: The Battle to Save America's Middle Class, published Tuesday by Metropolitan Books, she argues the federal government needs to do much more to reverse decades of decline among the nation's working families, from raising the minimum wage to expanding aid to education.

She initially assumed the book would be a friendly spur to the left for a president named Hillary Clinton, viewed by some liberals as an uncertain ally on such issues as trade.

Then Donald Trump won the White House.

"Look, I started this book probably 15 years ago, because it's the big story about building a middle class and then tearing it down, and why it happened, and how it happened," Warren said in an interview with Capital Download, USA TODAY's video newsmaker series. "And, sure, for much of the time that I was working on it, I thought it would be Hillary Clinton in the White House. I thought it would be important that she be able to see that arc and that, you know, some good, strong opportunities available for the things she would be able to do, and the team she would put together would be able to do."

Capital Download - Conversations with Washington's biggest newsmakers

Now Trump's unexpected victory has given Warren's message a more apocalyptic edge. Her plan to bolster the case for progressive policies in a Democratic administration has been turned into a rallying cry against the economic and social proposals of a Republican one. "The direction that Donald Trump and his team want to drive this country is a direction that I don't think America's middle class can survive," she warns.

It also has opened a world of political possibility for the senior senator from Massachusetts, heir to the seat long held by Democratic icon Ted Kennedy. Supporters urged her to seek the party's presidential nod in 2016, and the suggestion that she just might fueled speculation and irked Clinton's team. In the end, Warren didn't run but she also didn't endorse either Clinton or Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders until the nomination effectively was settled.

In her new book, she says she resisted "a lot of pressure" to back Clinton. Her husband, Harvard law professor Bruce Mann, cautioned her that the race would be "pretty terrible" although he also assured her it would be okay with him if she decided to run. "My heart wasn't in it," she writes.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/04/17/elizabeth-warren...

NorthReport

CONTROVERSY OVER WALL STREET'S BULL

Sculptor of Wall Street's bull wants 'Fearless Girl' moved

Controversy over Wall Street's bull

Author Stella Potter

 

http://appsforpcdaily.com/2017/04/controversy-over-wall-streets-bull/

Pogo

Two things.  First the idea of a piece of art is not limited to what the artist intended.  Once it is in the public forum the community will make its own interpretations of what they see.  Fearless girl may have been put out for completely crass marketing considerations, but the community is looking past that. To say that it is not a feminist installation is just silly.

Secondly, once you put a piece of art out there, you should expect commentary.  So what that the bull's creator doesn't want to have his celebration of the stock market diminished by discussion of its failings. Even if the Fearless Girl was removed the point would now have been made.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Good comment, Pogo.

I'm an artist of sorts, so here is my take: Art evolves. Art that is seen in a public context evolves even more so.

Di Modica made a statement with his sculpture. He then placed it in the public square. This was not just a statement in isolation, no piece of art is. It was the beginning of a conversation.  Fearless Girls is simply an answer to the original statement. The initial art work was not altered in any way - it was merely put into juxtaposition and there was a resulting conversation.

Fact is, Di Modica, like many men, does not wish to be part of a conversation, and certainly not *that* conversation. He merely wishes to pontificate. Here is his statement about Wall Street - testosterone fuelled and robust. How dare anyone challenge it?

One of the hard things about making art is that you pour yourself into an expression while in the act of creating and then, when you put it out there for an audience to see, you must then step back and let the audience own it. They will see things in it that you never intended. They will interpret through a lens you didn't anticipate. The meaning of your work will morph and evolve with that. There is no escape from this. It's part of the nature of art.

My assessment of the artist who can't bear being part of an evolution or conversation is that they're a piss poor artist - although they may be a hell of an artisan. But that's the real difference – communication, and when it’s at its best, it’s not a one-way street. 

I hope the case is thrown out. It should be. Di Modena doesn’t own the street and can’t dictate what else is placed there any more than I can bitch that my film was shown at a festival alongside another film that questions my intended message.

This is what public art should be.  I don't even care that it was paid for by a big firm that hopes they'll look good - it's a bold statement and a good one. And given the reaction by the bull's sculptor, an especially effective one.

NorthReport
NorthReport
Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

An interesting analysis from an intellectual property lawyer.  Looks like Di Modica might have his work cut out for him.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

An interesting analysis from an intellectual property lawyer.  Looks like Di Modica might have his work cut out for him.

"But more to the point, the statute protects only against “any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work” (and only if the distortion, mutilation or modification “would be prejudicial to [the artist’s] honor or reputation”), and it would seem impossible to argue that Visbal distorted or mutilated or modified the work in any way."

Like I said Magoo. A quick read about VARA on wikapedia would have led you to the same conclusion. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Like I said Magoo. A quick read about VARA on wikapedia would have led you to the same conclusion.

I know you have a legal background, and I wasn't entirely dismissing what you said, but I'm not sure that the information about VARA was self-evident.  If it's that clear then Di Modica should put a few bucks aside to sue his own lawyer.

How would/will "distortion" be interpreted, for example?  Will it only cover someone taking a hammer to Charging Bull and changing its shape?  Or could it mean appropriating it to be a villain for another work?   How literally and materially VARA would be interpreted was what wasn't clear.

6079_Smith_W

Speaking of changing shape, I remember one article which mentioned that he sculpted the bull's pendulous balls. Did he make them retractable, I wonder, because this is a case where I think a demonstration of some shrinkage might be in order.

(you can see where this is going, of course. Even if he is found to have a case, and even if he happens to win it, this is a situation where he is going to lose so long as he continues in this direction)

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Even if he is found to have a case, and even if he happens to win it, this is a situation where he is going to lose so long as he continues in this direction)

I'm not sure there's a whole lot left for him to lose.  Simply by opposing this, he's already the Grinch That Stole Feminism.

 

6079_Smith_W

And art. Maybe not quite so easy a target as feminism, but don't forget that. That is probably the biggest reason why I think he is being a bonehead here, because one would think that as a creator of guerilla public art he would know better.

Kind of like when Julian Assange was whining about people publishing his leaks without the permission he though was his to give, IMO.

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
because one would think that as a creator of guerilla public art he would know better.

Maybe he's one of those snobs who doesn't consider corporate advertising to be art.

That was, actually, one of the reasons why I thought his (proposed) suit could succeed.  His artwork was appropriated to be the lynchpin of a corporate adversitement, without his permission.  Fearless Girl means very little without Charging Bull in the role of villain.

Now maybe, had Fearless Girl been placed by another artist rather than an index fund, he'd have still had issues with it.  But it's not like some Wall Street investment company critiquing Wall Street for munnee is completely irrelevant.

Note that State Street Global Advisors have done a bit of damage control and removed the bronze plaque advertising their "SHE" fund.   So now everyone is free to say "this is ART AT ITS PUREST!!"

6079_Smith_W

Little guy art promoting the biggest money machine in America? Excuse me if I once again call that bullshit trope out for what it is.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Little guy art promoting the biggest money machine in America? Excuse me if I once again call that bullshit trope out for what it is.

I thought it was pretty much a matter of public record by now that Fearless Girl was commissioned by State Street Global Advisors to promote investment in their "SHE" fund.  They borrowed both Charging Bull and also International Women's Day in order to get investors. 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Maybe he's one of those snobs who doesn't consider corporate advertising to be art.

Pity Andy Warhol isn't around to clear that up for him.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I know you have a legal background, and I wasn't entirely dismissing what you said, but I'm not sure that the information about VARA was self-evident.  If it's that clear then Di Modica should put a few bucks aside to sue his own lawyer.

It depends on whether or not his lawyer said you don't have a case but I'll send a demand letter anyways. I think that is as far as its gone legally but I may have missed a court filing. As a labour lawyer I heard from many tort lawyers claiming to be suing for things arising under a collective agreement. Having the credentials to practise in BC, like most places, means you can practise in areas of law that you are clueless in. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Pity Andy Warhol isn't around to clear that up for him.

Did Warhol take commissions to create corporate advertisements?  Which of his works was an ad??

I know that Warhol certainly used corporate advertising IN his art -- he's most famous for his Campbell's soup cans, I think -- but did he make art for an ad so he could cash that cheque?

Seems to me that intent is actually pretty important to art.  Not at all important to whether the public likes it, but important to its authenticity, and that's why an animal splashing some paint on a canvas will never be the next Jackson Pollock, and why a computer algorithm that moves people's noses to the side of their face will never be the next Picasso.

I'm not suggesting that Fearless Girl is invalid, as an artistic work.  I'm not joking when I say I like the work, and I even like the prank.  But really, she's not worlds removed from a very, very skillfully carved sculpture of Ronald McDonald.  She wasn't sculpted for the public's benefit, she was sculpted because a corporation paid for her in order to sell something.

Pages