Sure, in this case, if the deal was, "Let's make a cute little girl to stand in front of the bull to make the libs happy" that's not at all art but craft. And crafty.

I actually didn't bother to learn the specific history of the girl, but it seems to me mostly to be advertising for the artist at this time, and of little other real point, as it has nothing at all to do with the metaphor for the stock market at all.

The intrinsic beauty of all art is held in its ultimate irrelevance. Carry on.

You mean like the confederate flag in the South?

Oh yea they took a few of them down a couple of years ago up by you, didn't they?

If symbolism is art, then all speech is art.

You're a Nazi. I'll take that back if you take back calling me a white supremacist.

I took it to mean that women, due to their inherent irrationality and childishishness stand in the way of a healthy bullish market and should therefore be re- relegated to the kitchen. I was terribly offended by it. You seeing it as a liberal gesture is odd.

A picture says a thousand words.

Neither by connotation or denotation, only by location.

I think that being unintimidated by an overwhelmingly superior force will always be far more epic than being an intimidating force.

I don't think that it's fair to say that it turns the bull into a villain, or misrepresents a thing. She doesn't have a weapon, and isn't there to kill it. The bull is there to symbolize intimidating strength, and the little girl is there to be unintimidated by it, while bolstering no such pretensions in her own representation.

Yes, the Spartans saw it that way.

I don't think that it's fair to say that it turns the bull into a villain, or misrepresents a thing. She doesn't have a weapon, and isn't there to kill it. The bull is there to symbolize intimidating strength, and the little girl is there to be unintimidated by it, while bolstering no such pretensions in her own representation.

Well it is a matter of opinion as to whether it makes the bull into a villain, but the artist seems to think so. I don't really think he has a say, but that is what he says.

Anyway, the Girl means very little aside from her fake confrontation with the Bull. The Bull on the other hand is not beholding to her at all.

Anyway, the Girl means very little aside from her fake confrontation with the Bull. The Bull on the other hand is not beholding to her at all. — Cavacava

That's a weird thing to say.

Que?

You think that one is legitimate, and the other is not, so you anthropmorphize them with this opinion? They're inanimate objects, with no concerns at all.

Neither by connotation or denotation, only by location. — Cavacava

You can spit you some rhyme.

No, they are both legitimate, and I think it is fair to say that the introduction of the Fearless Girl onto the scene makes it relevant to our time. It was initiated on the day prior to International Women's Day in March. Whether this acquisition of meaning is fair to the original artist I don't know, that's one of the reasons for bring up the question. He clearly does not think it is fair and I don't think that it matters what he thinks, even though I think he is obviously right.

This does not change the fact that the bull stands meaningfully without her, while she is a simply a girl without him.

I don't think that it is obvious, nor significant that she is a response, and he is not. Are all responses inherently inferior, or less meaningful or valuable because they are dependent in some contextual sense on what is responded to?

It's hardly impossible to imagine the girl statue being meaningful without the bull, it just so happens that within context, her meaning is dependent on the bull.

They're inanimate objects, with no concerns at all. — Wosret

The hyper-modern post figurative school would see only two pieces of juxtaposed steel on a street imposing a barrier to pedestrians and mentally noted that oddity. This school is notorious for its silence, as it shuns the use of symbols or sounds as an inappropriate figurative representation of reality. To write about it is to write about something else.

They sound like a lot of fun.

Fucking shush! To speak of them speaks of someone else.

I said they sounded like fun, so clearly I was speaking of someone else.

As far as I can tell, the bull was originally about strength (and capitalism?). Whoopdedoo!

The addition of the girl seems to put innocence at odds with capitalism. Whoopdedoo!

Looking deeper into the origin of the fearless girl statue, it was actually commissioned by an investment group as an advertisement for an index fund made up of companies with "higher percentages of female leadership". Oh sweet pale irony...

I wondered why there would not be a girl and a boy standing defiantly, which I think would probably be more evocative, but alas some art is best interpreted in terms other than the artist's original intent.

The fearless girl was intended to mean: "Hey! Women can be tough capitalists too!", but it certainly doesn't give me that vibe.

The girl is clearly about to be trampled, (unless we shoot the bull?). Originally the bull was American strength, but now that it's at odds with women and children it's "American tyranny; capitalism". Apparently we must all rush to the defense of a helpless and irrational child whose absent minded parents allowed her to wander into a bull pen.

They should have made a Calamity Jane-esque statue holding a gun and tentatively threatening the bull in a show of equal strength. (either that or a full blown horse mounted heroine complete with lasso, which would be a massive and impressive statue that I think would constitute worthwhile art). Of course, those cheap wall-street bastards would never spring for that much bronze.

I am not sure that 'weakness' as displayed in the Fearless Girl is weak. She is shaming it defiantly.

"God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong. God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things which are not, to bring to nothing things that are" Paul (1 Cor. 1:27-8)

The protests on March 8 for International Women's Day may have been the largest protests in USA history, and perhaps in the world. A sign of strength by collaboration. Innocence should not be confused with weakness.

Innocence should not be confused with weakness. — Cavacava

I agree, but fearless should not be confused with strength.

The image of a lone child doesn't speak to collaboration, to me is expresses desperation. Where is the community behind her?

If we're to be led by children against corporate America, we're fucked. Fearlessness alone is just as reckless as the fearlessness of the bull, except the bull has weight to back him up. The natural shame of the mighty bull is that it tramples meek and the innocent. That's the feeling I get from the standoff.

As far as I can tell, the bull was originally about strength (and capitalism?). Whoopdedoo! — VagabondSpectre

When stocks are going up, it's called a 'bull market',

When it's going down, it's called a 'bear market.'

That is why many bulls and bears have been placed around NYSE over the years.

They are considered to be in continual conflict, one winning then the other.

And, I learned, it is why the bull artist put the bull there in the first place. To encourage stock dealers during the depression of the time.

Little girls don't figure in it at all.

The Fearless Girl statue was meant as statement in support for women's interests by a very large corporation ($64Bn I think) in support of the International Women's Day. It was installed on March 7th the day before International women's day on the 8th. The community behind her showed up the following day.

In other words, it was PR. Either way, it's all bull then.

A patron commissions a work of art, Picasso's Guernica was a commissioned work, does the fact that it was commissioned make it any less a work of art. If the work was morally decadent, but provided insight would its decadence make it any less a work of art, or is that not a liberal bias.

It's late for this information, but...

State Street Global Advisors, which manages some $2.5 trillion in assets, signaled its solidarity with the day’s demonstrators (International Women's Day march). The company installed a roughly 50-inch-tall bronze statue of a defiant girl in front of Wall Street's iconic charging-bull statue...

... Fearless Girl is part of State Street’s campaign to pressure companies to add more women to their boards.

The thinking behind the statue and its placement (which Adweek called a stunt) was engineered by McCann Ericsson Advertising (which had $7.6 billion in revenue 2015). It was art commissioned as part of a public corporate campaign.

Advertising agencies and their corporate clients deal in Truth, of course. It says so right there on the landing page of the McCann Ericsson:





Who needs philosophy when large, intellectual, ethical corporations reveal TRUTH as part of their mission? Move over, Aristotle, and make way for the Thought Leadership unit.

Thanks BC, I am somewhat familiar with State Street Bank, it is the Un-Bank, Bank, a custodial service that makes pennies on each transaction, and does a zillion transactions.

McAnn Advertising agency is one of the largest in world. "It's the real thing" and Coke's Hilltop song were hugely effective. Mad Men

I think advertising is primarily concerned with purpose, whereas a work of art is primarily concerned with itself, it is purposeless in that sense. That does not mean that other meanings don't attach to art, such as who commission at work, or what the artist's intent was in crafting the work, simply that as a work of art it must 1st be able to stand on its own as a work of art.

Does the "Fearless Girl" stand on her own? I don't think she can stand as "Fearless Girl" without the "Charging Bull". Without the Bull she is no longer "Fearless", she is a 250 lb bronze casting of a girl standing with arms akimbo, which maybe art but not art with the confrontational power suggested by her facing the bull.

Do you think the ontological of the Bull provides the power behind the "Fearless Girl". — Cavacava

The what now?

I'm with the bull. To hell with the girl. She represents more of that silly feminist, social justice, anti-capitalist nonsense that will do and change absolutely nothing but will make people feel good about themselves. "Fearless" my ass.

Lol. You killed several birds with one stone there. You may have missed the pigeon though.

I'm sure in your mind you just said something clever, but I'm afraid I don't know what it is.