Lava Thomas Letter of Protest
March 4, 2020
To the Attention of the Legislative Sponsors of Ordinance 243-18, entitled, “Affirming San Francisco’s Commitment to 30% Female Representation in the Public Realm by the year 2020”: Mayor London Breed, Supervisor Stefani, Supervisor Ronen, Former Supervisor Kim, Supervisor Brown, Former Supervisor Cohen, Supervisor Fewer, and Former Supervisor Tang; Kanishka Karunaratne Cheng and Margaux J. Kelly, Former Legislative Aides to Former Supervisor Mark Farrell; the San Francisco Arts Commission; the San Francisco Visual Arts Committee; the San Francisco Library Commission; and the 2020 Review Panel for the Reissued RFQ for a Sculpture Honoring Dr. Maya Angelou for the San Francisco Main Library:
I am writing to withdraw my 2019 submission from the application pool for the 2020 reissued RFQ for a Sculpture Honoring Dr. Maya Angelou for the San Francisco Main Library. I do not grant SFAC permission to include my application for consideration in the new RFQ for the following reasons:
I withdraw in protest of the Visual Art Committee’s refusal, under political pressure, to approve the selection panel’s nomination of my proposal during the August 21, 2019 and October 16, 2019 VAC meetings. My proposal received almost unanimous top ranking by an independent and impartial selection panel, in a public process that was transparent and democratic. My proposal adhered to the stated project goals of the original RFQ, the legislation that created the commission (Ordinance 243-18), and the guidelines set forth by the SFAC’s Memorandum of Understanding, signed by me and the SFAC in good faith. These documents make no mention of a project sponsor to which the VAC must defer, or a project sponsor with the power to undermine the selection panel’s choice.
I withdraw in protest of Supervisor Catherine Stefani’s demand, made during the 10/16 VAC meeting, that the project be closed and reopened because her preferred proposal did not win. That political power intervened to prevent my proposal from advancing is an abuse of power and a mockery of due process.
I withdraw in protest of Stefani’s rejection of my proposal and her view that my work didn’t conform to the legislation’s intent. Stefani’s insistence that Dr. Angelou be honored with a traditional statue, “in the same way that [white] men have been historically elevated in this city” is a narrow and flawed interpretation of the legislation, which has “statue” crossed out and “artwork” written in its place. Stefani’s interpretation weaponizes a European figurative convention of statuary to dismiss the work of artists and selection panelists whose vision did not conform to this hegemonic standard. To assert that a eurocentric artistic tradition, steeped in histories of colonial violence, is the only “right” form of representation at the exclusion of all other representational forms, upholds the patriarchal status quo and reinforces systemic and institutionalized racism. That Supervisor Stefani, a representative of the most conservative and segregated district in San Francisco, is empowered to dictate how Dr. Angelou should be represented in the public realm is deeply problematic. Her assertions perpetuate the erasure of black women’s creative and intellectual labor and are an affront to those of us who hoped to honor Dr. Angelou with a forward-looking monument grounded in an ethos of inclusion and Black aesthetics.
I withdraw in protest of Supervisor Stefani’s disrespectful behavior during the 10/16 meeting, which was particularly offensive to the black women artists, selection panelists, arts professionals, and cultural workers who were in attendance. Stefani made a brief appearance, issued her statement and left before hearing public comments. She was not present to listen to a letter written by Dr. Angelou’s son, Guy Johnson, which supported the democratic process by which my proposal was selected, even though my proposal was not his first choice. She did not listen to me or other members of the Bay Area arts community who attended the meeting to voice our concerns.
I withdraw in protest of the glaring contradiction between the legislation’s stated mission and the actions taken to fulfill that mission. Ensuring that “voices of the minority group become heard in their own right,” (Ordinance No.243-18, Section 2.C) requires listening to, valuing, and respecting those voices, which the legislative sponsors of this project have thus far failed to do. The legislative sponsors pay lip service to an ideal of gender and racial inclusion while perpetuating the harm they purport to rectify.
I withdraw in protest of the SFAC’s attempt to rewrite this narrative in letters stating that the VAC rejected all finalists proposals, omitting the fact that my proposal was selected, and implying that there was no winner of the competition for this commission.
I withdraw in protest of SFAC’s policies which outline a power dynamic that disadvantages artists, leaving us no recourse in the wake of this injustice. Demands for transparency have been unmet, and requests for further information, through the Sunshine Ordinance, remain withheld.
I withdraw in protest of the hypocrisy of claiming to honor a truly exceptional Black woman who would not have stood for how this fiasco unfolded. Reissuing a new RFQ under these terms is an insult to Dr. Angelou’s remarkable legacy as a celebrated writer, author, artist and activist, and to the principles of equity, integrity, and justice that Dr. Angelou advocated for.