Jess de Wahls

[Mollyollydolly]

The Royal Academy have removed Jess' work from their shop due to a handful of complaints that she's 'transphobic'. If you want to support Jess her website is here.
www.jessdewahls.com
So sick of these utterly craven organisations. I hope she has a legal case against them for discrimination.

@PPCD

Have the RA taken down their statement on instagram, I can't find it.

It was in their stories so may have expired.

If it were me, even if they backtracked and apologised I wouldn't want anything to do with them again.

Same. Frankly I think they have to backtrack. The optics look terrible. I hope she tells them to fuck off.

Artists (the Academicians are artists) turning against artists in the name of censorship from people with no interest in the arts: shameful.

If all people those in the arts should be fierce in the defence if free expression, and anti-censorship.

They have been made to look very stupid.

Which ever side of the sex v gender debate you stand.

Same. Frankly I think they have to backtrack. The optics look terrible. I hope she tells them to fuck off.

I'm so torn on this. She was the first textile artist that they accepted this fully - and textile is an under-appreciated art form that is mostly practised by women.

However, yes - she's been treated disgracefully.

As previously pointed out on this thread, this statement of policy puts the RA in a very weak position if they want to exhibit art or an artist who has been controversial in any way.

I don’t think their behaviour even falls into the category of being ‘woke’. They have been hoodwinked into declaring a policy that can only conflict with their core values, which, I think it’s fair to assume, do not support censorship of art.

From the RA website:-

The RA is committed to becoming a truly inclusive place for our visitors, Friends, artists, and all those who work, study and volunteer at the RA. We believe that everyone should be able share in and contribute to the RA experience, free from bias or discrimination based on personal characteristics such as age, disability, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or expression, marital and civil partnership, or pregnancy.

The RA aims to ensure that these principles of diversity, inclusion, and equal access apply to all aspects of our operations. We recognise that upholding these principles benefits both visitors and the people who work with and for us.

religion or belief

Fail

race

Also a fsil, according to some PPs

personal characteristics such as age, disability, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or expression, marital and civil partnership, or pregnancy.

Gender and gender identity are already covered under sex and belief.

If they want to recognise additional characteristics not covered by the EA, why not include class, nationality and income level?

They also seem to have forgotten about inclusion of trans people, given that we are all supposed to have a gender/gender identity/express gender.

These are the charitable objects of the Royal Academy

1. THE PROMOTION OF THE ARTS OF DESIGN. 2. THE EDUCATION OF THE PUBLIC IN THE CREATION, ENJOYMENT, APPRECIATION AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE ARTS, THROUGH EXHIBITIONS, EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMES AND DEBATE BY ALL CHARITABLE MEANS AS THE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL MAY THINK FIT.

Looks like they are generally pro debate.

Equalities law for people who care about affirmation, but aren’t actually too bothered about inclusion and equality.

Wonder if Oliver Dowden has said anything to them. Given how monumental this is, I should think the RA are in fierce debates right now.

What will happen to their Summer Exhibition? Will they be asking potential exhibitors to submit a 'political CV' just to make sure they exclude any TERFS

I’ve also just ordered from Jess’ website and am happy to wait for as long as it takes as it’s great to see so many things sold out or on pre order.

They will be going through after Georgia O'Keeffe next.

Another good article: uncommongroundmedia.com/stitched-up-with-embroidered-accusations-artist-jess-de-wahls-cancelled/?fbclid=IwAR33tX93SXlZkL18njhu0hllrz1OU4uy1OoVkuxhUiJUM9XN1zmsWIds8N0

If you want your blood pressure to rise a bit more. Just seen this tweet 'perceived transphobic nature' .. how bloody dare they. I really hope Jess crowd funds a discrimination case.

That is an excellent article. Thanks for posting it Clymene

@Mollyollydolly

If you want your blood pressure to rise a bit more. Just seen this tweet 'perceived transphobic nature' .. how bloody dare they. I really hope Jess crowd funds a discrimination case.

So they're doubling down on it.

And this is in the face of all of the comments they've received.

How very disappointing.

@Mollyollydolly

If you want your blood pressure to rise a bit more. Just seen this tweet 'perceived transphobic nature' .. how bloody dare they. I really hope Jess crowd funds a discrimination case.

That's more than a tad patronising

Perceived transphobic nature.

So not necessarily transphobic, just "perceived".

And as pretty much anything can be "perceived" as transphobic by some people, where does that leave us?

I think the RA are banking on her not taking a case through the courts

That is a really odd email. 'I don't know how much you have read....'. That doesn't read like a considered opinion from the RA, that reads like someone choosing to write that off their own bat.

Because there have been countless emails, tweets, newpaper articles etc.

Any reply needs to say

'The RA understand that there is a spectrum of views on this.

[This is what we think]

[This is what happened]

[This is our carefully nuanced viewpoint about how this does not imply that Jess's view, which is reasonable and which is held by many reasonable people, is hateful but why we think we are justified]

But the whole things seems odd. Because unless the person who runs the shop (or the commissioning for the shop, or whatever) also runs the social media, this is two people at least who have made this decision.

And while the social media person may be clueless, SURELY anyone stocking the shop would know that some artists are controversial?

I mean, what on earth happened?

And as pretty much anything can be "perceived" as transphobic by some people, where does that leave us?

Certainly it leaves them without an argument for presenting exhibitions like ‘Sensation’ in the future.

I perceive their artists - especially the living artist Allen Jones, whose work they sell in that shop! - to be gynephobic.

Why are you selling his stuff, RAA?

If they double down on this I am writing to the charity commission. They are clearly not meeting their charitable objectives. And Jess, I would buy lots of your art to help fund the legal if you want to sue the arse off them.