New York City's Wall Street has a new guerilla art installation of sorts. Staring down the iconic bronze bull sculpture is a defiant and diminutive girl, made to scale and wearing a simple dress. "Fearless Girl" was first set up across from "Charging Bull" on March 7 (the night before "International Women's Day"), and has been praised as a symbol of female empowerment or something. New York's brahmins can't get enough of it.
But the problem of art, especially public art, is that it's what you make of it. You, the audience. Everything from the Statue of Liberty to shit-encrusted war memorials in Central Park had funders, creators, and spectators. And all of them had slightly different ideas at the time about what the art meant. Especially the beholders. And all of them were right.
Because you can't be "wrong" when it comes to interpreting art nowadays anyway! Isn't post-modernism a riot?
So whether intended by the artist or not, discerned by the art critics or not, we are an audience and can interpret the girl staring down the bull however we want. We of course being the most deplorable dregs of humanity: uncucked White people.
And we should interpret the most buzzing public art piece of 2017 as a latent symbol of traditional White identity versus rootless corporate evil.
Let's get the court interpretation out of the way first. Per Wikipedia, the statue is "an advertisement for an index fund which comprises gender diverse companies that have a higher percentage of women among their senior leadership." So it's not a pop-up feminist art installation that wants to stick it to Wall Street by the way. It's virtue signaling from firms that are so wealthy it doesn't matter who they have in charge of day-to-day business. State Street Global Advisors had it put there and they manage $2.4 trillion in assets. They are not the little guy (or gal). Most of the women they hire, evidently, are for the purpose of pro-feminism marketing purposes. And they want you to know that they know that you think feminism is good. Not that it matters; you are never going to have any business dealings with State Street. So this is pure moral preening.
The statue will be there for at least a year and there are petitions asking that it be made permanent. You know, because the message is just so wonderful, that women should cast out their ovaries and aspire to become businessmen, and no Wall Street executive is going to tell them otherwise! (Jokes on you, that's exactly what Wall Street wants...)
Now, when I see the bull and the belle on the news, I see something else. I get what I'm "supposed to" take away from it, but can inscribe my own interpretation all the same.
For starters, rather than being an obese Afro-Latino transgirl, the statue appears to be Caucasian. So already this isn't cutting edge feminist empowerment. She's a little White girl standing up to the Wall Street bull. That's not very vibrant at all. You might even say it's privileged.
So what does this choice of subject mean? We could run with a number of interpretations:
Most neutrally, the artist sees White people as the default Americans. She was born in Uruguay after all, where White people are also the default humans. It's worth noting though that since international corporations all support mass non-white immigration that they want to change the default American into someone else permanently. So even under the most neutral interpretation—that she was made White just because most people in the United States are—given the other art installation she is meant to counter this narrative becomes alt-right.
She could perhaps more overtly represent White American families and their daughters, standing against a small, rootless, international clique that is turning the people against each other in the name of money and "progress." Don't send your daughters away to New York to become interns and whores for philandering older male managers. This was a theme during the old industrial revolution too, when women were in factories working for men outside their household. Families were unhappy about this but needed the income.
Looking to her counterpart, the bull could represent something demonic, like Moloch, which children are traditionally sacrificed to. She appears defiant before the ancient Semitic terror, refusing to become the next child sacrifice. She transcends the innocence of childhood to make a powerful life-and-death decision that we must all face under the occupation of international financial capitalism: are we to live for our families and communities, or for the sake of greed? Another vector to consider: when women "participate" in the labor force and earn more money, it reduces their fertility. That too can be seen as a kind of child sacrifice, because the children that would continue one's line and heritage are never born.
But Wall Street isn't all financial institutions. Maybe she defies the role that corporate culture wants her to grow into. Maybe she doesn't want to be the next female CEO or other variety of (traditionally male) wage slave. Maybe working for the latest tech startup or jumping from one shitty app company to another every eight months is an unfulfilling life. Maybe she wants to be a wife and mother when she grows up, and take care of her family. Becoming a "career woman" is not a decision that should be taken lightly.
We need to meme the "fearless" girl statue into a symbol of the alt-right. Because while women aren't afraid of diving into corporate culture and becoming childless, money- and power-driven automatons, maybe they should be. The Mary Tyler Moore Show lied.