When the Fearless Girl statue was unveiled for Women’s Day earlier this year, people everywhere praised the sculpture’s message and value. The girl valiantly faces off the famous Wall Street Bull, by sculptor Arturo Di Modica. Personally, I think the statue is an incredibly important installation not only sending a message about gender dynamics in the workplace and beyond, but also highlighting the important role public art has to play in inspiring the nation. Even though the sculpture became an immediate hit, admired by everyone from Elizabeth Warren to Jessica Chastain, many have come forward to critique the piece. It has been called a publicity stunt disguised as social justice, a “pinkwashing” marketing ploy, and even a downright advertisement for the installer State Street Global Advisors.
Despite gaining 40,000 signatures requesting to make the girl permanent, she has gone through a rough few months since her debut. First, she was crudely assaulted by an anonymous young Wall Street “bro” on a night in March (which eerily illustrates the disturbing obduracy of rape culture in this country). Shortly after, the integrity of the installation was questioned by Di Modica, who claims the girl distorts the meaning of his bull. He officially cites bad marketing promotion as the reason for his legal case against the girl, but he has also stated that “My bull is a symbol for America. My bull is a symbol of prosperity and for strength.”
If this bull represents the strength and prosperity of the American economy, why, then, is everyone so upset over the fact that this girl is there to be equally strong and prosperous on a completely different level? Why are women so concerned about the fact that it is a little girl and not a grown woman when the sculpture so clearly is meant as a message of hope for the next generation? Why are women critiquing something that promotes gender diversity in male-dominated fields? And why oh why are people continuing to see this girl in relation to the bull, just as so many real women are seen in relation to the men surrounding them? Though Di Modica’s issues with company promotion might be true, from my perspective as a woman entering a male-dominated sector, this girl represents the future—not in relation to the bull, but on her own. She might not be perfect, but what about the women’s movement really is?
My main issue with all of the media surrounding this piece of art is the rhetoric used to describe this fearless little girl, and how that seeps into Di Modica’s accusations of distortion. She might be poised to “face off” against a charging bull, but many news outlets have called her “defiant,” or “soft” and “altruistic.” Defiant has such a pejorative connotation, and soft or altruistic are a diminution of her ability. Only a few sources have called the girl powerful, or confident, or spirited—positive or neutral words that are commonly used to praise men in the workplace. In more ways than one, this four-foot piece of bronze has become a representation for many challenges that real life women face.
Rhetoric, language, and metaphor are everything in this case. Otherwise, the whole thing becomes a mishmash of misinterpreted artistic vision or outright gender stereotyping. Even Elizabeth Warren is a victim of this—by saying, “I hope she stands there until the bull falls over,” she participates in the misinterpretation Di Modica rightly worries about. And anyway, even if this bull did represent the masculinity of Wall Street—which Di Modica has insisted it does not—this girl should stand for inspiring future generations to gender equality in all sectors of work. The point is not to knock the bull over; the point is to coexist. Even in a precarious situation, and even in an imperfect way.
Photos from the New York Times and The Atlantic.