As I send this out, kiwis will be celebrating Matariki — Māori New Year. This is the first time I’ve been in New Zealand since this was made an official public holiday, and I’m excited to be here for it!
Thanks to the Worms who turned up for the Webworm preview screening of Talk To Me last night! It felt great to be in a cinema with 100 of you “enjoying” one of my favourite films of the year. We yelped, we jumped, we squirmed.
Talk To Me, presented by Ahi Films and Webworm (Photo credit: Jason Danner).
And before we get to the main course, in case you missed Tuesday’s Flightless Bird PSA — the podcast is going to come out every two weeks for the next wee while (as opposed to weekly) while I sort my silly back out.
Thanks to everyone who wrote — some of you I’ve been able to get back to, others I am still getting my thoughts together.
Michelle left this comment under the piece, and she sums it all up well:
“It makes me incredibly sad that since the name suppression was lifted, the same rhetoric that we got with Weinstein is swirling around — “well the arts, it’s like that..., it’s permissive, artists are flamboyant, it’s an insular group, you know what the ARTS ARE LIKE, they got money, prestige and fame out of it so it obviously wasn’t that bad...”
Any of us who live and work in the arts and entertainment arena know how vulnerable it is possible to be, and especially when you’re young. When you’re not sure about all the gray areas. When people won’t give you a straight answer about those areas.
When you don’t want to jeopardise your work by declining certain requests, even if you know instinctively it may be a bad position to be in, or may lead to other things.
I feel angry for the victims, who will be feeling all sorts of things now his name is out there. And yeah, it also feels really gross knowing that a large proportion of our industry has known for years, to varying and lesser degrees.”
Today I wanted to share a few other things that have come to light — things that paint a bit of a picture of what Sir James Wallace got up to during and after his trial.
As with so many Webworm stories, it’s very specific — but I think somewhat universal in looking at what a guilty man does when they’re incapable of feeling guilt.
As you could probably guess from my last piece, by and large, Sir James just got on with it.
Webworm reader Pete witnessed it firsthand:
“I saw him at an art gallery opening in Christchurch early 2022. He’d been convicted and sentenced by then but was out on bail awaiting his appeal. He brazenly swanned about the young mostly 20s men in the room like he owned the place, and they. He looked like an aged lizard.
Of course they all knew.
But it was him who thought he still had an absolute right to maintain his public position of wealthy, kind, enabling benefactor. No conscience. No remorse. No empathy.”
Sir James was at art galleries hobnobbing and socialising — and he was still desperately trying to buy more art for his giant collection, as if nothing had happened.
As I mentioned a week ago, James Wallace had amassed the largest private art collection in New Zealand — and he would be damned if a court case would stop him.
Webworm has obtained emails Sir James sent out to various art galleries in October of 2021. In it, he makes it clear he’s looking for new acquisitions — while casually explaining he’s had to change email addresses for “security purposes”.
I am pleased to advise that despite COVID-19, I am now getting back into JWAT acquisitions for the Wallace Collection.
So, knowing the Collection and my particular objective of supporting emerging artists, if you have any proposals at all which you believe we should acquire please send me details.
As you may know since the beginning of the Collection and then the establishment of the James Wallace Arts Trust I have personally chosen all 10,000 or so works, except for gifts. That remains so for the foreseeable future.
Kind regards,
James Wallace Sent from my iPad
His reason for the new email address becomes a bit more clear when another email is sent out to galleries later that same day, this time from Phill Grey, general manager of the James Wallace Arts Trust.
In it, Phill refers to James’ email from earlier in the day, and the fact it was sent from a new iCloud email address.
Phill makes it clear that James is no longer the authorised buyer of any art for the Trust.
It has come to our attention that some galleries have recently received correspondence from Sir James Wallace indicating that he will resume art acquisition on behalf of the Wallace Arts Trust.
The email has requested that any proposals are directed to an icloud address.
As per our email dated 24th August 2021, Wallace Arts Trust reiterates that our Art Curator, Nicholas Butler, is the sole, authorised buyer of all prospective art for the Wallace Collection.
Transactions not authorised by Nicholas will be considered void. Nicholas is the primary point of contact for any sales catalogues and other art related matters. He can be contacted on 09 […] or via Nicholas@ […].
We would appreciate your sharing this important information with any of your team dealing with art transactions.
If you have any questions or require further clarification, please feel free to contact myself or Nicholas.
Many thanks and best regards
PHILL GREY GENERAL MANAGER JAMES WALLACE ARTS TRUST
But Sir James was defiant.
In May of the following year (2022) Sir James sent out another email, calling the message from the James Wallace Arts Trust “misleading.”
He goes on to make it clear that he and he alone has personally chosen all 10,000 or so works in his collection, and that is never going to stop.
He says he’ll keep gathering art for the collection using his “wholly owned company, Wallace Corporation”. The way he saw it, there was no need for a pesky Trust or board.
I am sorry that I can’t personalise the following email due to my technological limitations, but I wanted to respond in a timely manner to clarify matters regarding the new Wallace Collection.
It has come to our attention that you may have received a misleading email from the JWAT (James Wallace Arts Trust) Finance (Phill Grey) cc: Mathew Wood and Nicholas Butler on Tuesday, 17 May.
Background: As you may know, I have personally chosen and financed all the 10,000+ works in the Collection (except Gifts) over a period of 40 to 50 years, concentrating on emerging artists and keeping up with them as they emerged. In doing so I created a unique Diary Collection.
The current JWAT Trustees do not seem to be making acquisitions so instead of allowing the historic JWAT Collection to become frozen, to ossify and cease to reflect the current Arts scene, I am remedying that with the new Wallace Collection.
I have continued to collect but for the Wallace Collection making payment through my wholly owned company: Wallace Corporation, with the intention that this Collection will, in due course, be transferred to the McClean’s Mansion Charitable Trust. I am personally funding the restoration of the Mansion as an Arts Centre.
In the last 10 months or so I have spent several hundreds of thousands of dollars on several hundred works by exciting new emerging artists as well as established and even senior artists.
Please note that I continue to do so in the name of the Wallace Collection, not the James Wallace Arts Trust Collection and that, in the meantime, the results are being amassed at Rannoch not the Pah.
Please also note that despite the JWAT email, I have never claimed that both Collections are the same. I apologise for the confusion and the stress.
Although I have been overwhelmed by offers of appropriate acquisitions, nevertheless, I always wish to be informed about upcoming exhibitions. Please send any notices in that regard to jameshaywallace@cloud.com
Kind regards James Wallace Sent from my iPad
Of course we all know where it all ended: With James in prison.
Finally, to get inside James’ head a little more, I’ve included some words from a former staff member of the Wallace Arts Trust.
They observed James, and the world he’d built, as it all began to teeter on the edge.
I remember taking this picture (in April 2019) of the frail, old man who had shuffled onto the balcony behind me, wondering if he truly was as oblivious as he seemed, indignant about what was going on around him, his trial well underway.
I had resigned from my job at the Wallace Arts Trust two weeks earlier, no longer able to function within an institution in such a state of paralysis, burdened by its link to this poisonous human being.
Despite the enormous efforts of a group of new and enthusiastic staff, there was no way to be ‘out with the old’. One by one, the newest staff resigned.
At my time working for the trust, a mere 26% of the collection was made by female artists. I asked a colleague to do the numbers for me in 2018.
Shocked by their response, I sent this message to my partner in disbelief:
“We shouldn’t make these details public.”
“I do not mean to justify.”
If you were to survey the subject matter of the artworks in the collection, you could be forgiven for thinking the collector had been hiding in plain sight all along — one naked male figure after another.
Sometimes the signs just about punched you in the face.
It has been said that Wallace’s was the worst kept secret in the arts community. While it was widely known he was a predator, in 2019 he was awarded an honorary doctorate by AUT. Even at the time this seemed astounding.
Wallace is a lifelong member of Knox College, reported by the media for normalising sexual assault around the same time as Wallace’s trial, ironically.
I noticed little media-curated breadcrumbs throughout the period of name suppression. This was my favourite:
Since name suppression was lifted, I’ve been reflecting on my short time at the Trust. The bizarre trivial things that happened daily.
I began writing down these thoughts to get them out of my head, knowing that there are many more eloquent people who are better placed to write about this whole ordeal in a more complete way.
I read your Webworm piece and appreciate what you wrote and thought maybe, if this small sample of my musings goes nowhere else, you might at least appreciate the pictures.
-an ex-employee of the Wallace Arts Trust.
David here again. That picture of a lonely James looking out over the balcony has stuck with me. What was he thinking?
Probably about just getting on with it. Collecting more art, collecting more young male artists.
He was probably feeling defiant and invincible. I don’t think he was feeling particularly guilty. In his mind, there was nothing to feel guilty about.
David.
PS: If you are in New Zealand, TVNZ’s Sunday current affairs program has a piece on James Wallace, and one of his victims, this weekend.
PPS: I hope you have a good weekend. I feel like I need one.
I am a woman who was active in nz /waikato contemporary art scenes for a few years until around 2015. My work was in lots of group shows , some solo exhibitions, finalist in a few awards, purchased by a couple of significant collectors and I won a minor residency, received a national prize. I was not an arts star, but not nothing.
Around the time that I was questioning whether to go all in to keep pursuing a career in the arts or to pull back and settle for a real job, I was considering a couple of Wallace-sponsored opportunities.
The advice i got was that Wallace, the biggest patron of arts in the Waikato, wasn't interested in new women artists, and so there wasn't much point in submitting for anything he had influence over. I didn't hear about his sleaziness and abuse of young men, but he was known for blanking women's art (unless they were already successful).
Wallace's gatekeeping helped maintain an environment of exclusion that I got tired of pushing against. That wasn't the main reason I pivoted away from showing art, but it was one of the last straws.
I don't regret the path I chose instead. But I'm angry that I, and us all in the arts, just accepted that his wealth allowed Wallace to distort and corrupt our culture, as well as abuse individuals.
I read today about a petition in Australia to get character reference letters taken out of legislation around sentencing, especially considering abusers are skilled at grooming communities and getting into roles of influence. As letters in support of Wallace were able to reduce his sentence, I feel like we need changes to sentencing here in NZ. His ability to get so many letters of support was tied to the same power and influence that allowed him to carry on his abuse
I am a woman who was active in nz /waikato contemporary art scenes for a few years until around 2015. My work was in lots of group shows , some solo exhibitions, finalist in a few awards, purchased by a couple of significant collectors and I won a minor residency, received a national prize. I was not an arts star, but not nothing.
Around the time that I was questioning whether to go all in to keep pursuing a career in the arts or to pull back and settle for a real job, I was considering a couple of Wallace-sponsored opportunities.
The advice i got was that Wallace, the biggest patron of arts in the Waikato, wasn't interested in new women artists, and so there wasn't much point in submitting for anything he had influence over. I didn't hear about his sleaziness and abuse of young men, but he was known for blanking women's art (unless they were already successful).
Wallace's gatekeeping helped maintain an environment of exclusion that I got tired of pushing against. That wasn't the main reason I pivoted away from showing art, but it was one of the last straws.
I don't regret the path I chose instead. But I'm angry that I, and us all in the arts, just accepted that his wealth allowed Wallace to distort and corrupt our culture, as well as abuse individuals.
I read today about a petition in Australia to get character reference letters taken out of legislation around sentencing, especially considering abusers are skilled at grooming communities and getting into roles of influence. As letters in support of Wallace were able to reduce his sentence, I feel like we need changes to sentencing here in NZ. His ability to get so many letters of support was tied to the same power and influence that allowed him to carry on his abuse