National Trust and JKR

[SlackJawedDisbeliefXY]

National Trust angers its members by covering up feminist artwork after JK Rowling's name was removed | Daily Mail Online

So the feminist statement of stitching a strikethrough of JKR's name is OK to display but another feminist un-stitching the strikethrough is unacceptable for display?

Not all feminist statements are equal

So the National Trust think that crossing out a woman's name is an important contribution to a 'feminist artwork'. But undoing that crossing out is an act of vandalism to said 'feminist artwork' and has caused such destruction that the piece needs to be removed from view.

It's enough to make you think you are going insane.

Not on TwiX, but I’ve emailed to say I’m cancelling my membership next week if they don’t sort it out

Should have cancelled already given their behaviour!

I haven't had membership for years but i wish i had so i could cancel it!

A) that was a great thing Jean H did
B) if its ok for someone to sew over someones name (which it isn’t) then its ok for someone to unpick it

utter plonkers…how can they not see the hypocrisy

I mean i know why they can’t…its cos they are utter plonkers

I can imagine they might decide to place the artwork where it can't be further interfered with - though I seem to have read that it was supposed to be interacted with. So they should be putting up pictures of the different things people have done with some captions maybe.

Totally ridiculous action by the National Trust.

Am a member so have written to ask them to explain their actions, and to say that the dress should be back put on display as work that was done was restoration of dress to how it was originally.

Fed up of the National Trust having an agenda and ignoring the voices of reason.

It’s even on the bbc, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2d5867e61go

I've emailed them - got a case number! I used [email protected] which is their contact us option on the website

I wish I still had a membership so I could cancel it.

I’m starting to suspect it was someone at the NT who stitched over her name.

Hardwick had a photography exhibition a few years ago with famous/inspirational/remarkable women. It featured at least one male “woman”. It wasn’t massive - there can’t have been more than 30 portraits but they couldn’t bring themselves to have it all female despite Bess of Hardwick’s remarkableness being so entwined with her femaleness.

The problem with reading the daily mail is they twist everything they write for shock value and give wrong impressions. J K Rowling appeared MULTIPLE times in the same artwork- it was one of the most popular entries along with Rosa Parks- you can see another one of the J K Rowlings it contained here- https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2d5867e61 no crossing out. Only one of the many versions of her name was her name with a stitch through it, possibly created like that by the person who put it on there in the first place. Maybe it was meant as a political commentary on how she has been censored lately? The artwork was complete and on display. The NT are upset at someone altering someone's entry on a finished piece of collaborative artwork, I can understand that. People threatening to cancel memberships for this is crazy to me.

Maybe it was meant as a political commentary on how she has been censored lately?

I've got a bridge here. Want to buy it?

It was also on Radio 4 6 o'clock news and had an with Jean Hatchett

https://x.com/JeanHatchet/status/1930301559247667323?t=1EIQmGCFBKx-aV6dxoRT7Q&s=19

Agreed, the DM article does not make it clear that there are multiple instances of JKR - this is an important part of the narrative

However from the BBC article does make clear

During this time, a participant stitched over the Harry Potter author's name.

This implies that one contributor stitched the name which a later participant defaced by stitching over it.

The BBC article further states

The National Trust, who manage the property, said: "The artwork was open to contributions for eight months and closed in November when the piece was finished and put on public display."

So I don't understand it when you say - The NT are upset at someone altering someone's entry on a finished piece of collaborative artwork, I can understand that

Are the NT OK with someone defacing another person's work as long as this happens within their preferred time window but not OK outside this window?

Was the author of the original signature happy for it to be defaced?

Are there any other names on the artwork that were defaced?

When they noticed the defacement, why did they not flag it and repair the damage?

From the description of the project, I would assume that a member of staff was always present when the pubic were contributing stiches (to prevent obscene words etc.) Why was the second contributor ever allowed to deface the artwork?

Reversing the situation

If there were a prominent trans woman's name on the artwork with a black line stitched over it by a third party - would you be arguing that this was done to represent the silencing of the trans community?

I think much more likely that, in the current climate, the black line would be quickly reported to the police who would then investigate it as a hate crime

This is written as a wierd fairy tale but it gives an interesting take on what may have happened https://x.com/JeanHatchet/status/1930301559247667323

I've been a member of the national trust for decades. I've emailed them to express my displeasure and that I will cancel my membership if they don't sort themselves out.

@DustlandFairytaleBeginning

If the narrative suggested on Jean Hatchet's X account is correct

https://x.com/JeanHatchet/status/1930301559247667323

then I would suggest that the BBC story that states During this time, a participant stitched over the Harry Potter author's name. is somewhat economical with the truth.

The BBC would seem to be curating the narrative in much the same way as the DM.

I wonder why they would do that?

All fair points, I went looking for a picture example of the other J K Rowlings in the artwork in an article and this wasn't the article wording I had read earlier so maybe was a bad example to post. The article I read earlier had said today which had said it was unclear if the stitched out name had been the original work of the stitcher when they'd added it. If they knew the stitching was a defacement I agree they should have addressed that at the time.

I did work for the National Trust in one of the old stately home properties years ago- not this one- but the people there were almost all retired people looking for company and to fill their days. When I think of the volunteers we had I can't imagine they'd even understand what trans people are never mind what this argument is really about. They were mainly sweet old grandmothers. The NT really did have a lot of good people in it doing a lot for others for free, I appreciate I am biased.

For what it's worth though I do have a lot of respect for J K Rowling.

I'm sure that when I read the story on the Beeb earlier, it finished with a couple of lines about Kate whatsherface's latest turd and took care to quote lines from it about how evil it is not to want men in women's spaces. Am I imagining it? I don't think so because I remember thinking, "You really want to get this in, don't you, you bunch of arseholes?"

How does anyone know whether the name was stitched over by the original participant or not? It could have been. The NT must have seen it before it went on display but left it as it was which suggests the person intended it to be like that. I must say Jean Hatchet sounds very unpleasant from that X post.

Why should it have been acceptable in the first place for any of the women’s names to be crossed out? Particularly with the strongly supported inference that she is transphobic. Yet what has she done that is transphobic in the eyes of a reasonable person ?

Yes, the contribution time was closed, yet why was this allowed in the first place? To me, that is an act of misogyny, yet was there an explanation near by the dress about why it was misogynistic to cross out the name of a woman who rejects that a male person’s demands should be prioritised over female people’s needs was there? Wasn’t the point that women asked for that explanation to be displayed?

So without a balancing explanation, the act of cancelling was allowed to stand. It doesn’t matter that it was one of a few times the name was embroided. Cancelling out a woman for having opinions that reflect the law is supposed to be acceptable in a display that was supposed to celebrate women’s achievement because ‘art’?

"Can't imagine they'd even understand what trans people are". "Sweet old grandmothers".

Speechless. ( I'm 63, retired. All my friends know exactly what a trans person is).

It infuriates me that it is necessary to read and reread all of these articles because plain journalism has been replaced by activist journalism - maybe it was ever thus.

A further annoyance is the ability of online sources to update their stories with no audit trail at all. What hope is there if the words can be different each time you read an article? It's all a little bit Winston Smith

Hopefully we get a better (non-fairytale) description of what has gone on in the next few days.