‘Charging Bull’ artist asks that ‘Fearless Girl’ be removed
Jessica Goldstein

There are two issues here — the first being whether advertising can be considered art. How does the statue as advertising differ from 15th century Renaissance artwork? These were frequently sponsored by patrons who wanted to demonstrate their religious or political leanings in frescoes. The same artists even used apprentices to finish their paintings for them. Does that mean that we should devalue the works of these artists because they were painting advertisements?

The second issue is that the addition of the second statue presents as being a form of appropriation. Appropriation art, such as Warhol’s examples are often questioned for their validity and authorship. Like Warhol, the purpose of these types of artwork is to see and incorporate existing artwork, images and symbols in a different way. DiModica may have intended his bull to represent perseverance, but as society inevitably changes, so does its perception of its symbols. The bull, a statement about a 30-year old stock market crash, was appropriated as a new challenge. People see Fearless Girl and understand its context. They react to it, either positively or negatively. Some people might say that should be the true yardstick of art.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated TashInTheClouds’s story.