Royal Academy Apologise to Jess DeWahls
PandorasMailbox · 23/06/2021 10:13
Some good news
"One thing is clear to us now – we should have handled this better. We have apologised to Jess deWahls for the way we have treated her and do so again publicly now. We had no right to judge her views on our social media. This betrayed our most important core value – the protection of free speech"
CroydianSlip · 23/06/2021 11:33
There were 2 major issues here - one how they treated JDW in the first place, two, the responses they sent out to anyone objecting.
The apology goes some way towards dealing with the first situation but I'm not sure it really demonstrates their understanding of how wrong they got the follow up. The emails shared here were shocking.
ErrolTheDragon · 23/06/2021 12:11
In the guardian now.
Peter Tatchell's 'logic' would presumably support a white person who identified as a 'different kind of black person' as being 'valid'.
WarOnWoman · 23/06/2021 12:45
Mmm. I wonder if all the talk of possibly thinking about legal action (and the many supporters of this) against RA and the very negative media has brought about the apology. They must have had legal advice about where they stand.
I would love to have seen all the behind the scenes shenanigans before the apology.
Hope this is the start of pushback against the bullying of individuals and organisations for not buying into one set of ideology.
PankhurstConnection · 23/06/2021 13:13
It took them far to long to issue this apology which you have to hunt for on their site. I would expect an institution with a 'commitment to free speech' as they claim to have avoided this kind of situation to begin with. They have many artists displayed or championed who have dubious backgrounds (but they aren't female ) so I would have expected them to separate the work from the creator in that same way as they have been doing for years. What made this different? (I suspect I know the answer to this). The time it took them to apologise, the fact it happened after media coverage and talk of a legal challenge and the fact it is so very well hidden coupled with the interesting tweet using 'performative' from one of their employees makes me doubt that their apology really is about their 'commitment to free speech' in fact it makes me doubt that commitment at all.
Wallpapering · 23/06/2021 13:27
Well that is a pleasant surprised.
Can’t help be suspicious if it was common business sense as crap if we go woke go broke or realised meaning of art but am glad for Jess in that this clears her name (not that needed doing) and ball in her court if she thinks they worthy of having her art again. As she certainly doesn’t need them.
DD studied art so now brags how knew of Jess work and was able to buy some of her prints whey before everyone else
PurgatoryOfPotholes · 23/06/2021 15:28
I've just learnt from twitter that this statementhasn'tbeen made on Instagram.
Where did the RA make their original statement they weren't stocking Jess's work any more? Insta.
Where are the embroidery 'artists' who really need to see this and be slapped down? Insta.
Where is Jess de Wahls receiving the most abuse? Insta
Where would the RA receive the most pushback for making this statement? Insta.
But they've not made this statement there!
Wallpapering · 23/06/2021 15:57
Good points made re Instagram, hadn’t occurred to me as don’t use it.
Someone else pointed out in Twitter that they should of included in the bold header of that media statement ‘our apology to Jess’.
Am assuming they didn’t tag her in Twitter post due to backlash from those who threatening to never visit or buy from any artists they wouldn’t of done to begin with. Bit like feminist library, innocent drinks and all the others
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.