A Load of Bull
Writing for You Can't Do That On Television wasn't just about water and green slime. I put my fair share of my own touches in it. Perhaps the one that holds up the best in my own mind came in the "Poverty & Unemployment" episode, when Alasdair finally gets released from the dungeon, only to realize he doesn't want to leave and face the harsh reality of the big, wide world. To this day, I refer to that as the "Bob graduates from college" sketch.
And I wasn't alone, of course. We all did stuff like that. It's perfectly normal. But do I think most of the kids in the audience got my subtexts and subtle references? Of course not. For most of them, it was all about the water and the slime. And that's okay. I knew it was there, and I knew what it meant to me, and that was enough.
I mention that point in light of the big ruckus on Wall Street these days over the Charging Bull and Fearless Girl statues.
A bit of backstory: The Charging Bull is the work of sculptor Arturo Di Modica, who had it placed in front of Wall Street in the dark of night in December 1989. It was meant to encourage the traders and bankers after they endured the stock market crash of 1987. Despite being placed there illegally, it won the hearts and minds of New Yorkers (not an easy thing to do) and was given a permanent spot in the city. Fast-forward to March of this year, when Kristen Visbal's Fearless Girl statue appeared, standing right in front of the Charging Bull and staring him down. Unlike the Charging Bull, this statue had the necessary legal permit to be there, a permit which has since been extended to April of next year.
Then things got complicated. Arturo Di Modica complained to the city that the Fearless Girl changed the meaning of his Charging Bull statue, and was therefore in violation of his rights as an artist. He's threatening a lawsuit. And once the internet heard about the case, the fur started to fly.
Di Modica and his supporters argue that the Charging Bull was meant to be a symbol of strength and encouragement, and the presence of the Fearless Girl makes it threatening and dangerous instead. They argue that the Fearless Girl really does infringe on the Charging Bull, because without the Charging Bull there's nothing for the Fearless Girl to be fearless about. They also point out that the Fearless Girl is really part of an advertising campaign, commissioned by an investment fund called State Street Global Advisors. It's not even a "real" artistic expression, but instead is using the Charging Bull to promote a brand.
To which I respond... Yes, all of that may be true. But so what?
The message an artist intends and the message an audience takes away for itself are two different things. Many times, the two line up well enough to make it a good experience - but sometimes they don't. And the artist has no control over that. None.
The way I see it, the Fearless Girl did not change the meaning of the Charging Bull, but instead revealed a new meaning of the Charging Bull that was already there. It's been almost thirty years since the crash of 1987, and Wall Street isn't seen in the same light. A symbol originally meant as a morale booster is now seen by some as representing an out-of-control menace. Why would the the Fearless Girl need to be fearless if the Charging Bull wasn't already seen as a threat? And not just any threat, but a threat from the male-dominated financial industry against women. Why else would the Fearless Girl be a girl?
And Di Modica is only making it worse by complaining. It makes him look like a whiner and a crybaby, someone whose sense of entitlement and privilege gave us the Wall Street menace in the first place. His attempt to defend his vision of what the Charging Bull represents instead reinforces the threatening interpretation it's come to have. It's a battle he's not going to win.
I've said this before - For a creative person, the creation itself is the reason for doing it. It's the only reason, in fact, because it's the only thing you can control. Once your work is out there, others can and will see things in it that you never intended, because they will be bringing their own experiences to the work.
And that's not such a bad thing, is it? In this age of divided America, everything seems to get swept up in the Red State/Blue State maelstrom. But does it have to be that way? Does it have to be "Charging Bull bad, Fearless Girl good" or vice-versa? We can have the American spirit and energy Di Modica wanted to show in the Charging Bull and the perseverance and determination Visbal wanted to show in the Fearless Girl. Or at the very least, we can have a dialogue about the two, and how they relate to each other in our world. Given what we're up against these days, we could certainly use both.
And I wasn't alone, of course. We all did stuff like that. It's perfectly normal. But do I think most of the kids in the audience got my subtexts and subtle references? Of course not. For most of them, it was all about the water and the slime. And that's okay. I knew it was there, and I knew what it meant to me, and that was enough.
I mention that point in light of the big ruckus on Wall Street these days over the Charging Bull and Fearless Girl statues.
A bit of backstory: The Charging Bull is the work of sculptor Arturo Di Modica, who had it placed in front of Wall Street in the dark of night in December 1989. It was meant to encourage the traders and bankers after they endured the stock market crash of 1987. Despite being placed there illegally, it won the hearts and minds of New Yorkers (not an easy thing to do) and was given a permanent spot in the city. Fast-forward to March of this year, when Kristen Visbal's Fearless Girl statue appeared, standing right in front of the Charging Bull and staring him down. Unlike the Charging Bull, this statue had the necessary legal permit to be there, a permit which has since been extended to April of next year.
Then things got complicated. Arturo Di Modica complained to the city that the Fearless Girl changed the meaning of his Charging Bull statue, and was therefore in violation of his rights as an artist. He's threatening a lawsuit. And once the internet heard about the case, the fur started to fly.
Di Modica and his supporters argue that the Charging Bull was meant to be a symbol of strength and encouragement, and the presence of the Fearless Girl makes it threatening and dangerous instead. They argue that the Fearless Girl really does infringe on the Charging Bull, because without the Charging Bull there's nothing for the Fearless Girl to be fearless about. They also point out that the Fearless Girl is really part of an advertising campaign, commissioned by an investment fund called State Street Global Advisors. It's not even a "real" artistic expression, but instead is using the Charging Bull to promote a brand.
To which I respond... Yes, all of that may be true. But so what?
The message an artist intends and the message an audience takes away for itself are two different things. Many times, the two line up well enough to make it a good experience - but sometimes they don't. And the artist has no control over that. None.
The way I see it, the Fearless Girl did not change the meaning of the Charging Bull, but instead revealed a new meaning of the Charging Bull that was already there. It's been almost thirty years since the crash of 1987, and Wall Street isn't seen in the same light. A symbol originally meant as a morale booster is now seen by some as representing an out-of-control menace. Why would the the Fearless Girl need to be fearless if the Charging Bull wasn't already seen as a threat? And not just any threat, but a threat from the male-dominated financial industry against women. Why else would the Fearless Girl be a girl?
And Di Modica is only making it worse by complaining. It makes him look like a whiner and a crybaby, someone whose sense of entitlement and privilege gave us the Wall Street menace in the first place. His attempt to defend his vision of what the Charging Bull represents instead reinforces the threatening interpretation it's come to have. It's a battle he's not going to win.
I've said this before - For a creative person, the creation itself is the reason for doing it. It's the only reason, in fact, because it's the only thing you can control. Once your work is out there, others can and will see things in it that you never intended, because they will be bringing their own experiences to the work.
And that's not such a bad thing, is it? In this age of divided America, everything seems to get swept up in the Red State/Blue State maelstrom. But does it have to be that way? Does it have to be "Charging Bull bad, Fearless Girl good" or vice-versa? We can have the American spirit and energy Di Modica wanted to show in the Charging Bull and the perseverance and determination Visbal wanted to show in the Fearless Girl. Or at the very least, we can have a dialogue about the two, and how they relate to each other in our world. Given what we're up against these days, we could certainly use both.
Comments