In class this week, we discussed the conflict between two pieces of art. One is "Charging Bull" and the other, "Fearless Girl." Both phenomenal pieces of work and both carry meanings. But the conflict arises between the artists.
Both pieces stem from a form of guerilla art. A from of art that is very similar to graffiti. It is art that is placed somewhere from an anonymous source. "Charging Bull" was the first statue that was placed into Wall Street. And it's creator says the piece stands for the strength and integrity of Wall Street. The strength it took to bring Wall Street out of the economic crash. Then later, "Fearless Girl" pops up right in front of it. The day right before International Women's Day. It stands right in front of the bull, looking it in the eye. Hands on her hips and chest out, a very "Superman-esque" pose. She stands for the power of women in Wall Street. She stands up against the bull, showing that women can too, be just as powerful as men in Wall Street.
This is a complete violation of art. I am not against Women's Rights or anything of that sort. But with my lack of art knowledge, this equates someone painting a red streak over the Mona Lisa. Hear me out, art can be very subjective. Art is very open for different interpretations, but when an artist makes a clear claim about what their piece means, then that's what that piece means. If there is no explicit explanation, then go ahead, interpret all you want.
The issue I have with "Fearless Girl" is that she completely makes a new meaning for "Charging Bull." The creator of "Charging Bull" already had a message stated by the artist, but then "Fearless Girl" changes it. It makes "Charging Bull" loo like it stands for this message that men are stronger, which is not the intended message.
And yes, I do realize that there are going to be women with love for "Girl Power" to come and hate. But why does this have to even be a sexist topic? If you really look at it, "Fearless Girl" made both pieces of art into a sexist controversy. "Charging Bull" did not intend to make a stance on gender equality.
"Fearless Girl" is an important statue. It can be placed anywhere in Wall Street. I think just having the statue standing somewhere in front of a corporate building would carry the same message. It was completely out of the creator's right to go and change the meaning of another artist's piece.
Both pieces stem from a form of guerilla art. A from of art that is very similar to graffiti. It is art that is placed somewhere from an anonymous source. "Charging Bull" was the first statue that was placed into Wall Street. And it's creator says the piece stands for the strength and integrity of Wall Street. The strength it took to bring Wall Street out of the economic crash. Then later, "Fearless Girl" pops up right in front of it. The day right before International Women's Day. It stands right in front of the bull, looking it in the eye. Hands on her hips and chest out, a very "Superman-esque" pose. She stands for the power of women in Wall Street. She stands up against the bull, showing that women can too, be just as powerful as men in Wall Street.
This is a complete violation of art. I am not against Women's Rights or anything of that sort. But with my lack of art knowledge, this equates someone painting a red streak over the Mona Lisa. Hear me out, art can be very subjective. Art is very open for different interpretations, but when an artist makes a clear claim about what their piece means, then that's what that piece means. If there is no explicit explanation, then go ahead, interpret all you want.
The issue I have with "Fearless Girl" is that she completely makes a new meaning for "Charging Bull." The creator of "Charging Bull" already had a message stated by the artist, but then "Fearless Girl" changes it. It makes "Charging Bull" loo like it stands for this message that men are stronger, which is not the intended message.
And yes, I do realize that there are going to be women with love for "Girl Power" to come and hate. But why does this have to even be a sexist topic? If you really look at it, "Fearless Girl" made both pieces of art into a sexist controversy. "Charging Bull" did not intend to make a stance on gender equality.
"Fearless Girl" is an important statue. It can be placed anywhere in Wall Street. I think just having the statue standing somewhere in front of a corporate building would carry the same message. It was completely out of the creator's right to go and change the meaning of another artist's piece.
I really really liked your blog!! The way you used diction to prove your points was very powerful. The last paragraph also suggests a different perspective which gives a very nice conclusion to your blog. Nice post!! :)
ReplyDeleteNice post Silas. The way you pointed out that the "Fearless Girl" would be removed straight away if it did not portray sexism and women's rights was very effective. You also provide an interesting solution that I think is not a bad idea.
ReplyDelete