Danielle SeeWalker, a Húŋkpapȟa Lakȟóta muralist and activist, found herself embroiled in controversy when the town of Vail, Colorado, abruptly canceled her summer residency. The reason? Community members had raised objections to a painting she had created depicting a Native woman wearing a keffiyeh titled “G is for Genocide.”
Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Colorado, SeeWalker decided to take legal action against Vail, alleging that the town had violated her First Amendment rights to free speech. The residency, part of Vail’s Art in Public Places program overseen by the city council, was supposed to involve SeeWalker painting a mural and hosting community workshops focusing on Native American culture.
The cancellation of her residency came after local Rabbi Joel Newman expressed concerns to town officials about SeeWalker’s artwork, claiming it defended the notion of Israel committing genocide, which he found abhorrent to the Jewish community. Vail has declined to comment on the lawsuit due to pending litigation.
In an interview with Hyperallergic, SeeWalker clarified that the contentious painting was not related to her residency in Vail, nor did it reflect the themes she had planned for her mural project. The artwork was a standalone piece born out of her emotional reaction to the conflict in Gaza and her reflections on the parallels between Native American and Palestinian struggles. Proceeds from the sale of prints of the painting were donated to the United Nations Crisis Relief efforts in Gaza.
Despite the controversy surrounding her artwork, SeeWalker maintained that she had no intention of incorporating references to Palestinian solidarity in her commissioned work. She claimed that she had been informed there were no restrictions on what she could paint for the residency.
Following media coverage of the residency cancellation, several law offices contacted SeeWalker and suggested that she had a potential legal case. The lawsuit against Vail alleges that the town’s actions constituted retaliation against her freedom of expression, causing her emotional distress and chilling her from continuing to share her views on current events.
The lawsuit seeks monetary relief for the violation of SeeWalker’s First Amendment rights and aims to prevent Vail from engaging in viewpoint discrimination in its Artist in Residency program in the future. Despite the setback, SeeWalker had already made preparations for the mural project, purchased materials, and secured exhibition space in Vail, underscoring the impact of the abrupt cancellation on her artistic endeavors.
In conclusion, SeeWalker’s case highlights the ongoing challenges faced by artists who engage with controversial and politically charged subject matter. The lawsuit against Vail underscores the importance of protecting artists’ rights to free speech and expression, even in the face of backlash and censorship.
