Fearless Girl brings women visibility in a city full of statues of men

[niyad]

Fearless Girl brings women visibility in a city full of statues of men

Despite controversy over its placement, people are flocking to the latest, most famous statue in New York City that shows ‘women have balls (ovaries), too’

https://c.o0bg.com/rf/image_1920w/Boston/2011-2020/2017/03/08/BostonGlobe.com/Politics/Images/05835044[1].jpg





Fearless Girl has become a symbol of feminist strength and possibility. Photograph: Mark Lennihan/Associated Press


Almost all the public statues of people in New York City depict men. There is a huge green exception in New York harbor. But Lady Liberty wasn’t real, not like the men who inspired the 23 statues planted in Central Park alone. (There are no statues of real women in Central Park, though there is one of Alice in Wonderland.) The latest, most famous statue in New York City does not depict a historical figure, either, or a woman, but she is a she. Fearless Girl, facing off with Charging Bull near Wall Street at the foot of Broadway, has given the city its biggest public art controversy since Christo and Jeanne-Claude draped Central Park with orange “gates” in 2005.

. . . . .



But Fearless Girl, about 20ft away, is equally popular, in a markedly and interestingly different way. All day long, with rarely a second’s lag, people take turns linking arms and posing with the piece, including many young girls encouraged forward by their moms and dads. Fearless Girl, by artist Kristen Visbal, has plainly become, for very many of the thousands of people who visit her daily, exactly what the global asset management firm that had her installed for International Women’s Day last month asserted she was: a symbol of feminist strength and possibility.



Adam Burkemper, who was in town this week with his family from Missouri, approached the statue with his 11-year-old daughter. “See the little girl?” Burkemper asked. “That’s a little girl taking on a bull. Cool, huh? When I saw that, I thought of you.” His daughter smiled.

“I think this is a really important statue,” said Shari Mohammed, who had come in from Brooklyn to check it out. “And it’s good for a lot of younger girls. It’s not just adults.” Mohammed pointed out that a statue of a woman or girl in the city was rare, and said Fearless Girl was a symbol for “equality for women in general”. I think it’s really sad that we still don’t have equal pay in the workplace in 2017,” she said. “Why is that even a debate? It’s preposterous.”

. . . . .



Fearless Girl is currently slated for removal next year, but public affection for the statue, as in the case of Charging Bull, could secure a longer stay. “The history of the piece is really up to the people of New York and the public,” Visbal said. Burkemper, who had introduced the piece to his daughter, summarized the debate.
“It’s art, man. It’s art,” he said. “We all know what it’s for.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/14/fearless-girl-statue-women-new-york-bull

[demmiblue]

1. I hope it stays, and I hope I can visit it someday.

[niyad]

2. agree on both counts.

[MineralMan]

3. Interesting. Here's another link, which purports to describe

the only five statues of historic women in NYC. There are other statues of women, including the Statue of Liberty, in that city, but not so many honoring prominent women from history:

https://hyperallergic.com/226186/the-only-five-public-statues-of-historic-women-in-nyc/

For examples of other women depicted in statuary, a Google image search turns up some, including:



Here's another:

[longship]

5. Your response adds to the narrative here.

Love the dancing girls. It's full of life.

Celebrate women, feminism!

Thanks, MM.

[niyad]

45. thank you for your post--and for directly me to a lovely new site!!

[MineralMan]

47. My pleasure.

[brush]

4. "Fearless Girl" stands for female empowerment and I'm an advocate of that, but being...

an artist myself, I side with the "Charging Bull" sculptor that "Fearless Girl" should be placed somewhere else that doesn't infringe upon and change the meaning of "Charging Bull".

The sculptor and backers of "Fearless Girl" placed it purposely in such a position as to create a new piece of art in combination with "Charging Bull" completely without regard for the "Charging Bull" sculptor's intent or his feelings.

If they wanted to make such a statement as female empowerment, the "Fearless Girl" piece should have done that wholly and by itself without taking a short cut and being dependent upon another artist's work to accomplish that — in other words, do a work that completes your statement, and frankly, get your own space.

[longship]

6. Fuck the charging bull.

Which BTW was placed there without authorization.

[TeamPooka]

9. That is a crime the Girl is guilty of too.

[longship]

10. The girl has authorization.

Fuck the Bull. Fuck it with a stolen dildo.

[TeamPooka]

12. The Bull has been legally authorized there for 30 years. State Street Global Advisors thanks you for

for your support of their corporate agenda.

NEW YORK — A bronze of a little girl defiantly facing Wall Street's "Charging Bull" didn't appear suddenly or spontaneously in the middle of the night in Manhattan's financial district.
It took months of intricate planning by two corporate giants to install "Fearless Girl" under the veil of darkness.
It was installed by State Street Global Advisors, an asset manager.

The False Feminism of ‘Fearless Girl’
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/nyregion/fearless-girl-statue-manhattan.html?_r=0

[longship]

14. Then they both should stay!

That is the end of the controversy.

[TeamPooka]

23. No it isn't. She should be moved to a neutral location. I think she should be placed across the

street from the NY Stock Exchange, not in a place meant to shit on another artist's work.

[longship]

31. Well, who does the bull shit on?

Fuck the bull

[delisen]

42. On us. Bull is in praise of the Wall Street that has crapped on us for decades. Maybe

The People need to install a sculpture of Ayn Rand riding The Bull and John Galt snorting next to it.

[TeamPooka]

7. I agree. Folks also need to remember this is a marketing stunt by a Wall St investment firm that

only has women in 18% of the senior leadership positions in their company.
They could practice what they preach a little more.

I think Fearless Girl has more in common with the Pillsbury Doughboy than Charging Bull or Michelangelo's David.
Let it stand on its own someplace else, not condemning another artist's work, and make its own statement.

[gratuitous]

8. If Mr. Di Modica doesn't like it, he should take his bull somewhere else

Once an artist puts a piece out for public consumption, he or she loses control over it. Hell, even a pop singer gets that one:

Cause these words are my diary, screaming out loud
And I know that you'll use them, however you want to

It's not like Di Modica was commissioned for his cartoon statue; like the "Fearless Girl" statue, it was a guerilla placement in a public place. You takes your chances when you do that. Ask the cretin who was photographed play-humping "Fearless Girl."

[TeamPooka]

11. So the fact that this is a paid corporate marketing stunt makes it more "art" for you?

So if a corporation wanted to pay an artist to write the word "Bitch" on a canvas with an arrow and pay to have it hung next to the Mona Lisa that's cool too?
Your post is so wrong on so many levels with the corporate fawning, straw man, and false equivalence all wrapped up together.

[KittyWampus]

19. Since an ARTIST made that fabulous sculpture it sure as hell IS ART.

I don't care who pays for the ARTWORK.

Artists have a hard enough time finding patrons and projects that pay well.

[brush]

20. No one says it's not art. The issue is infringement upon another artist's work.

The sculptor of "Fearless Girl" is certainly talented enough to make the statement of female empowerment without using and changing the meaning of another's work.

And also there's the issue of corporate backing, something so anathematic on this site during the primary.

What happened to that anti-corporatism?

[delisen]

33. It's a response to Arturo's work and his use of a symbol of virility to represent "can do" spirit

He chose to take over a public space when he surreptitiously dropped his art in NYC without authorization. Good for him. He made a bold statement

His art used the age-old symbol of vilify to represent supposedly the can-do attitude of Americans and all immigrants.

Well it is a new age-the primacy of the male and the forced invisibility of women in the public sphere is being challenged.

I don't see what he is kvetching about--but maybe I do. He is entitled, she isn't.

[brush]

36. Guessing you're not an artist. Of course she's entitled to do her thing, but why at his expense?

Be bold as he was and find your own space to make a complete and whole statement of female empowerment without taking a short cut by using his work.

The sculptor is talented and should be able to figure out how to do that.

[delisen]

38. For a reason similar to why we allow ourselves free speech or to engage in satire

The juxtaposition of one work of art with another: is it art or is it a political statement, a cultural commentary.

To me it is similar maybe to a call and a response

What are the boundaries here and who gets to set them

What if it were not a statue but original music composition or a street theater piece?

I think Arturo's work has been co-opted but it is standing in the public square. Have we no right to use what is in the public space to present an idea or an opposing idea.

I think this juxtaposition of a work of art with another work of art in order to make a statement is temporary.
It will not be there permanently.

It has succeeded in making people think and see something in a new way--I don't expect a rash of imitations-even it there were some, I don't expect it to be a permanent trend. The copy cats won't succeed.

Does it really diminish his art? or does it counter his point of view?

I don't see it as a threat to any professional sculptor making a living from his or her work.

Arturo is an artist and a clever entrepreneur. As a businessman his is now better positioned now to sell his bull sculptures.

I admit I am not the great fan of Wall Street that he is-- given what millions have suffered unnecessarily at its hands over many many decades. Were I superrich I hope I would not commission a work of art in praise of Wall Streeters. If I were into figural sculpture, maybe I would consider Dorothy Day as a subject.

As a businessman he was free to insist on terms for donation at the time he made it.
To me his kvetching and threats to sue, make The Girl even more interesting-maybe we are entering a new era.

[JudyM]

40. +1. Well stated!

[brush]

41. All that is well and good but not in art circles. Why diminish another artist's work? Let your own..

work stand on it's own.

[brush]

13. "Fearless Girl" was also placed there without a permit

The sculptor and corporate backers of "Fearless Girl" should have made their statement of female empowerment completely without taking a short cut by changing the meaning of another artist's work, and at another location.

What's with the progressives here who are suddenly behind corporate backing when during the primary so many were against corporate backing?

Come on, folks, at least be consistent in your anti-corporatism.

[longship]

15. Fuck the charging bull. nt

[gratuitous]

16. Yeah, I said that

"It's not like Di Modica was commissioned for his cartoon statue; like the "Fearless Girl" statue, it was a guerilla placement in a public place."

Sorry you're so threatened by a statue of a little girl that your reading comprehensions skills have suffered so badly. Perhaps you'll be better in the morning.

[brush]

18. Your reading comprehension skills are the one at issue.

Female empowerment, the statement that "Fearless Girl" is attempting to make, is one that I stated in my post that I am in agreement with. Did you not comprehend that?

My contention is that the sculptor and her corporate backers should have made her statement wholly and completely with the work without infringing on another artist's work. Is that another comprehension problem?

See post number 11 here. He/she explains it well. Here's a quote from that post:

"So if a corporation wanted to pay an artist to write the word "Bitch" on a canvas with an arrow and pay to have it hung next to the Mona Lisa that's cool too?"

A corporation paid the artist of "Fearless Girl". What happened to all the progressives who were so against corporate backers during the primary?

[gratuitous]

26. Still don't know what you're talking about

The subject line of your post said that "Fearless Girl" was placed without a permit. My reply was that my post (the one you were having such a snit about) acknowledged that.

As for your and TeamPooka's ongoing obsession over corporate backers - sorry, corporate backers* - I didn't say anything about that. Go yell at someone for something they said, not whatever straw man is currently hobgobbling around in your little minds.

That little girl is strangely powerful. So discombobulating to some people.

*What, no italics?

[brush]

30. Your comprehention is questionable. I said in my original post that I'm an advocate of female...

empowerment. How many time do I have to say that?

[csziggy]

34. Wrong - the Fearless Girl had a permit to be placed where it is

Campaign launches to make ‘Fearless Girl’ statue on Wall Street permanent
City Hall has extended the statue's permit from one week to 30 days
@RachaelRevesz
Thursday 9 March 2017 17:12 GMT

A campaign has launched to make the statue of the young girl that bravely stares down the charging bull of Wall Street permanent.

Several petitions have gathered thousands of signatures to keep the "Fearless Girl" bronze statue in place longer than 30 days.

<SNIP>

New York City Hall originally gave the statue a permit for one week, and it has been extended to 30 days.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fearless-girl-statue-wall-street-petition-permanent-campaign-a7621231.html

'Fearless Girl' statue will stay through early next year
by Danielle Wiener-Bronner @CNNMoney March 27, 2017: 11:13 AM ET

The "Fearless Girl" will stare down the Wall Street bull for another year.

The popular statue will remain in Lower Manhattan at least through February 2018.

"Fearless Girl" was installed across from the iconic Charging Bull sculpture this month by State Street Global Advisors to advocate for getting more women on corporate boards. After an extension of the initial permit, she had been scheduled to stay until April 2.

<SNIP>

"In her short time here, the Fearless Girl has fueled powerful conversations about women in leadership and inspired so many," Mayor Bill de Blasio said in a statement. "Now, she'll be asserting herself and affirming her strength even after her temporary permit expires -- a fitting path for a girl who refuses to quit."

http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/27/news/fearless-girl-statue-2018/

The Charging Bull was originally placed on Wall Street without a permit. It was impounded by the City of New York but public outcry demanded that it be returned to public view. "The sculpture technically has a temporary permit allowing it to stand on city property since the city does not own the sculpture, but the temporary permission has lasted since 1989, when city officials said the new location would not be permanent." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charging_Bull#Ownership

At leas the Fearless Girl's sponsors got a permit BEFORE they placed her. The artist behind the bull could not get a sponsor, illegally placed it at one location and has left it on city property since. It is only public opinion that has allowed it to stay - if the artist could have sold it, he would have and it would be gone from that location.

On the other hand, if the Fearless were not so popular, she would already be gone since her week is up. Public demand has extended her stay, not any appeal by the artist or sponsor.

I find it offensive that an artist that illegally placed a statue is complaining about the LEGAL placement of another statue. After nearly thirty years, Di Modica has had his run of sole control of that publicly owned space.

As I said in the thread I posted in Latest Breaking News the other day - which has much more of the history of the Charging Bull:

Frankly in my opinion, the Fearless Girl gives the Charging Bull even more relevance for today. While the Bull stands for American Power, the Girl stands for the power of the individual in American society, no matter how small they are, standing up to the most powerful forces in the land.

If Di Modica does not like the juxtaposition of the Fearless Girl to his statue, he is perfectly within his rights to remove the Charging Bull and to reinstall it wherever he likes. I'm sure people would be happy to give him some suggestions.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10141751922

[TheFrenchRazor]

24. no way; one artist doesn't get to dictate to every other one what they can and can't do,

so as not to reflect "unfavorably" on the first artist's work. talk about temperamental..... just sayin.

[brush]

25. My guess is you're not an artist.

[TeamPooka]

37. A corporation bought/commissioned the statue and put it there for marketing purposes.

You're defending a pop-up ad.

[Donkees]

17. NYC Statues of Audrey Munson

https://www.pinterest.com/heatherhwheaton/nyc-statues-of-audrey-munson/


---

Audrey Marie Munson (June 8, 1891 – February 20, 1996) was an American artist's model and film actress, considered "America's First Supermodel,"[1] and variously known as "Miss Manhattan", the "Panama–Pacific Girl", the "Exposition Girl" and "American Venus". She was the model or inspiration for more than 12 statues in New York City and was the first American movie star to appear fully nude in film, in Inspiration (1915), appearing in four silent films.[2]

[Aristus]

21. The bull statue sculptor is apparently saying

"Your statue is being mean to my statue!"

Or something like that...

[Iggo]

22. Aw, Charging Bull Of Peace And Love has a sad.

[Buns_of_Fire]

27. I dunno. I think they work well together.

The mixed up and changing roles of Wall Street in the clash between the statues has not simplified the conflict. Di Modica wishes to protect the meaning of his bull, but in the public eye that meaning has already evolved, a lot, since the late 1980s.

Back then, as loathed as Wall Street greed may have been, at least the bankers were not turning Main Street mortgages into weaponized financial products that would explode the economy, and then not going to prison for it. Wall Street’s popularity is at a low and, mistakenly or not, Charging Bull is its most recognizable symbol.

Jenniea Carter, who was visiting Fearless Girl with Mohammed, had sympathy for Di Modica’s concerns but said that times had changed since the original installation.

“I can see his argument, because when I see the two of them, the bull is not a symbol of strength,” Carter said. “It’s more a barrier or an obstacle. But I think that, because it is the 21st century, times have changed, and this has to change.”

Fact is, Arturo, you don't get to decide what your masterpiece "means" anymore. You display it in public, you take your chances. If you don't like what's been decided, take it back and place it somewhere more in accord with your Grand Vision.

[Skittles]

28. I like her shoes

I have always worn shoes that are comfortable and enable me to kick some ass

[PoliticAverse]

29. "But Lady Liberty wasnt real" nor is "fearless girl". n/t

[delisen]

35. True I could go for a statue of the woman who recently faced dow the riot police.

Maybe the people can commission on of those for the The Mall in DC.

[IronLionZion]

32. Art is in the eye of the beholder

so it's whatever people viewing it want it to mean.

So it may be a way for State Street to get more investment capital from feminists. Or it could mean defiance in the face of a growing market. Bull markets are good things. Or it could mean something else entirely. It's definitely a conversation piece.

Disclosure: I have invested with State Street before but don't currently have anything there.

Still waiting for the statue of ethnic diversity....

[ismnotwasm]

39. The whiners over this--Lord in heaven or hell they are annoying

I love Fearless Girl

[delisen]

43. The Bull Whiners make me realize the intrinsic weakness of the Wall St. Bull-ies

[niyad]

44. . . . .

[niyad]

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

. . . .

Yesterday, in response to Di Modica’s call for the work’s relocation, de Blasio tweeted: “Men who don’t like women taking up space are exactly why we need the Fearless Girl.”

. . . .

https://hyperallergic.com/372128/sculptor-of-wall-streets-charging-bull-demands-relocation-of-fearless-girl/

[niyad]

48. . . .