Before I go on, I'd like to state some things:
- I am not against feminism and/or gender equality.
Actually, that's about it. Now let me get on with my point.
The concept is really creative. A young girl facing a bull, displaying her courage to fight back against what some people would refer to as "male dominated corporate boards." And I get that. The message is clear. But as we know, the piece was actually commissioned as an advertising campaign. And this completely undermines the point of "Fearless Girl."
What triggers me the most is this- when Di Modica tried to defend his piece, people just assumed that he was against women in corporate positions, or gender equality/feminism in general. And on top of that, his "Charging Bull" was created to represent the "strength and power of the American people." Tell me where in that phrase it suggests male favoritism. Nowhere. Di Modica built an incredible work of art to portray a strong message, and that message is completely overridden by "Fearless Girl." Arturo, as well as the bull, has been antagonized wrongfully. And because the sculptor of the bull HAPPENED to be a man, he is considered a man who doesn't "like women taking up space."
When I went to New York, it was before "Fearless Girl" had been erected. And "Charging Bull" by itself was a very popular attraction. But with the installation of "Fearless Girl," Di Modica's original piece of art is simply a character in the scene that Visbal set up. And on top of that, it's the villain. You could say the girl is standing up against the coincidentally male bull. Or maybe the girl is just standing in the way of the bull's true meaning. You tell me.
I like how you examined the validity of Blasio's statement, identifying its ad hominem fallacy. It is definitely wrong to assume that Di Modica was prejudiced against women.
ReplyDelete