An Important Message from SAQA’s Board of Directors

As people we react to injustices. As artists we react to censorship.

SAQA’s exhibition “People and Portraits” is currently traveling with AQS QuiltWeek and was recently shown in Grand Rapids, Michigan, August 10-13, 2016.

AQS received several complaints from visitors about one of the pieces in the exhibit: Kathy Nida’s “I Was Not Wearing a Life Jacket”. The show management decided to remove the piece on Saturday morning of the 4-day event.  And they have decided not to continue to tour it with the rest of the exhibition.  They have also decided not to tour Kathy’s other piece “Fully Medicated”.

AQS’s removal of Kathy Nida’s work from the People and Portraits exhibit has created a major response from our members and the art community at large.

Over the last week, the SAQA board has analyzed this situation from every angle and tried to make sense of what transpired. What could have been done differently? What does this mean for our loan agreement, our arrangements with venues, and our relationship with AQS?

AQS’s removal of the Kathy Nida work from the People and Portraits exhibit is a reminder that art can be controversial, and that artistic integrity often conflicts with the needs of exhibition venues.

As we assessed how this situation unfolded, we discovered that our process for working with venues is not perfect. Our loan agreement, while good, needs tightening. Our process for having venues review an exhibit in its entirety before it is shipped out can be improved.

SAQA has communicated our distress (and the distress of many of our members) to AQS.  While we are not happy with their actions at the Grand Rapids show, we do understand that they are running a business and have their own objectives.

And, we are proud of our staff working in the booth during the Grand Rapids exhibit. Our staff took the opportunity to foster discussion with show visitors about censorship in general. Images of Kathy’s work were made available on an iPad. They strongly encouraged visitors to voice their opinion to AQS. In all, it was a positive opportunity to educate others, which indeed is part of our mission.

So what does this mean for SAQA going forward?

First, we have created an ad hoc committee of current and former board members to review and improve the Exhibition Loan Agreement. In addition to reviewing the language of our agreement, we will also assess the process by which organizations preview an exhibit as a whole prior to agreeing to have it at their venue.

What does this mean for SAQA working with AQS?

As you know our exhibition strategy includes traveling exhibits to a number of different types of venues (museums, galleries, art centers, and quilt festivals). Festivals remain an important leg in our exhibit portfolio to educate the public about the art quilt and the artists making the work. And in particular, AQS provides a significant number of visitors each year, seeing our work, and learning more about SAQA.

AQS wants to move forward together and agrees to work with us to avoid this in the future. As a goodwill gesture, AQS has agreed to display an additional SAQA exhibit, Balancing Act, at the 2016 AQS shows in Chattanooga and Des Moines. This gives more exposure to art quilts to the public and benefits SAQA’s artists.

What does this mean for other venues?

SAQA will continue our focus on finding new venues for the art quilt, including museums and other non-traditional venues.

And finally, what does this mean for Kathy Nida?

She has this to say, “I appreciate SAQA’s support and their willingness to get all our work out there, even when it’s a challenge. I especially appreciate the SAQA members who had the picture of the banned quilt out and were showing it to people. Odds are they are people I have never met, but they were willing to step up for me and my work, and that is a good thing.”

So artists, keep making your art. SAQA will continue to promote the art quilt through our varied exhibition program. And when the unexpected happens, we will react, reach for new understandings, and respond with improvement to our policies and programs.

 

Sincerely,

The SAQA Board of Directors

11 Comments

  1. Pingback: Scrap Bag: 68 years of blue ribbon quilts, quilt show controversy update, 50,000-year-old needle found, and more | Inside Quilters Newsletter

  2. It would be informative to see the two pieces of Kathy Nida’s work along with the article.

  3. I understand that AQS is running a business but they may have underestimated how many people will boycott involvement with them over the ridiculous removal of Kathy Nida’s innovative work. If they want to have only pretty, “safe” pieces that won’t stir the feelings or the mind, so be it. But I won’t be spending any money or wasting my time on AQS going forward.

  4. Teri Donovan Springer

    ” in particular, AQS provides a significant number of visitors each year, seeing our work, and learning more about SAQA.”

    And yet, by pulling the two pieces based on the complaints of a few people at ONE venue, and refusing to return the pieces to display for the final two venues, they have denied potentially thousands of people the opportunity to view the show as it was meant to be seen. I don’t see that as a plus. They have now sent the message that the uptight church ladies may dictate to the rest of us. Once they have accepted an exhibit they need to show the ENTIRE exhibit….part of educating the public is to teach them that ART is not always pretty or comfortable and that, when you encounter a piece that is neither you can either be open-minded and look at it and think about it, or you can move on and understand that your opinion is not going to dictate to everyone else what they may or may not see. A simple solution would have been to put up signage stating that: “This exhibit is the quilt as art and, as such, some topics might be uncomfortable or even offensive to some people. If you are easily offended, please reconsider viewing it.” And, trust me, many people would have been intrigued….This would also have given AQS an out when some woman hallucinated a penis and came to complain. They could have simply told her: “Gee, we are sorry you were offended however, there were warnings posted. Here’s your entry fee back and we will walk you out.”

    Business or not, AQS capitulated to the wants of the few over the many. This is NOT the lesson we should be teaching.

    I am curious, does SAQA pay for the “honor” of having our exhibits travel with them? If so, then we need to totally rethink this.

  5. Pingback: How AQS Mishandled the Online Fallout After Pulling Kathy Nida’s Quilts - Craft Industry Alliance

  6. I am sorry SAQA, but your response to AQS was lukewarm at best. If your organization had any guts and a backbone, you should have removed the exhibition in its entirety. Instead you capitulated to AQS’ bribe. Shame on you!

  7. I saw the two quilts in Grand Rapids before they were pulled down–they were wonderful. I don’t agree with AQS and I won’t renew my membership. Supporting and encouraging censorship of creative works is never a good thing. If you don’t like what you see, keep on walking. I appreciate this response from SAQA–thank you.

  8. Pingback: Melanie Testa — Nudity, Art and Quilt Art

  9. The censoring of Kathy’s quilts sets a terrible precedent for future quilt artists. It says that if you work creates any controversy that it will be removed. How do you expect artists to create new work when there is a censorship sword hanging over them? SAQA- your response is not any more appropriate than AQS’s pulling of the quilts in the first place. Setting up committees for future consideration of entries for exhibitions is all well and good, but you still did not step up to fully defend the right of the artist to create as he or she feels the need. You acceptance of another quilt still left out the ones that Kathy did and were the ones that should have rightfully been exhibited. Looking at a picture on an Ipad is not the same as exploring the complexities and workmanship of an art quilt in person. The same level of education would have been so much more effective with the quilt in front of the viewing public with a note to the effect about the previous concerns. I am sorely disappointed in the response and the exclusion of 2 amazing quilts.

Comments are closed