Hi Keith! I love that the issue behind these statues is murky and that we are ultimately considering what is guerrilla art. Guerrilla art, like any other genre, is a simple definition. I agree with the author above who says that guerrilla (read politically subversive art) need not be un-funded to do its job. I point to tapestries created by Goya between 1775 and 1791. These were commissioned by Charles III and IV of Spain to hang in two palaces. The seemingly gentle outdoor scene belies a highwayman robbery of aristocratic coaches. https://www.wikiart.org/en/francisco-goya/highwaymen-attacking-a-coach-1787
So, while being funded by the Crown, Goya was making a statement about the lack of safety and security that people could find under the Charles’ rule. And this was put on display by Kings themselves. Goya was notorious for creating challenging works of art – like those detailed the Inquisition – while still being a Spanish court painter. What I am trying to say is that funding does not determine the social impact of a work; however, it is important to look at the legitimacy of the work itself.

There is another article that talks about Arturo Di Modico, the bull’s creator, and how he believes that Fearless Girl should be taken down because it redirects the meaning of his sculpture. What is interesting about sculpture is that when it is put in an exhibition space the curator allows the piece to have a temporary conversation with other works of art. Works of art that it normally wouldn’t been seen around. This allows us to see the sculpture in different ways, deepening our understanding of it. The curatorial process is different, however, when put in a permanent, here public, installation. That conversation becomes static and seems, to Di Modica, to decide the ultimate ‘meaning’ of the work.

In my view, the value and worth of sculpture is dependent, in large part, on its context. For example, would the bull sculpture be anything extraordinary if it was located on Travis Street in Houston rather than Wall Street? I don’t particularly think so. Further, would Fearless Girl be as extraordinary if it were located a few blocks away from the bull sculpture? Probably not. Both artists use context to provide deeper meaning to their work; e.g., both are using the same game to position the political and social message of their works. It’s just that Fearless Girl is the more recent iteration. I guess my point is that, if you don’t want your work to be seen and evaluated in the public, a world that changes architecturally, socially, and financially, perhaps public sculpture isn’t the best format for you as an artist. Isn’t what makes art enduring is its ability to shift in meaning and purpose. Isn’t this why we go to exhibitions? Shouldn’t this small block be seen as a slowly evolving exhibition space articulating market and social changes? Plainly, shouldn’t this guy be pleased that his sculpture is still relevant and not just a forgotten war hero slab?

In conclusion to this lengthy comment, works of art have the possibility to change points of view – whether they are funded or not – and whether they are actually any good. This is positive – any way you look at it.