|
Art dealer Lori Haigh – opportunist
or victim? (Tuesday 1 June 2004)
compiled by Liz Aders
The plot is thickening on the intriguing gallery
dealer Lori Haigh, née Capobianco. Yesterday we reported
here that
the owner of Capobianco Gallery in San Francisco had been the
victim of attacks upon exhibiting politically charged art by Guy
Colwell. The gallery owner received a black eye, plus alleged
receiving threatening messages to herself and her family. She
has subsequently closed the exhibition and the gallery. The offending
artwork The Abuse features scenes of American soldiers
abusing Iraqi prisoners.
 |
| The controversial Abuse by Guy
Colwell, image held here |
However, feedback from our readers has
prompted a little bit more digging to determine whether this is
an unfortunate attack or whether Lori Haigh cleverly set out to
create controversial and subsequent media coverage. Judge for
yourself.
Lori Haigh is no stranger to controversy.
In 1992 Haigh received US$1.2 million from the Catholic dioceses
of Los Angeles and Orange to settle accusations against Irish
priest Father John Lenihan for two years of sexual abuse which
led to an alleged pregnancy and abortion, paid for by the priest.
Haigh's life spiralled downwards, leading to drug and alcohol
abuse, a failed marriage and she made several attempts on her
life.
In 1989 Haigh moved to Nashville and married
a Hare Krishna. She embraced the new life, stating "Eastern
religion was as far away as I could get from Catholicism."
However, court documents
held here
show Haigh was dabbling in more than religious pursuits. She was
hired by Glen Trew in 1992 to work as an office manager. In December
1994 Trew alleged Haigh had embezzled a substantial amount of
money. She was accused of engaging in:
...fraud, embezzlement,
forgery, conversion, and misappropriation of funds while working
for him, resulting in damages of approximately $107,109.78
In December 1994, Trew sued Haigh in a
Tennessee state court. He attached copies of cheques Capobianco
had allegedly signed and issued without his authorisation. At
Capobianco's depostition she took the Fifth Amendment privilege
to avoid answering questions about these cheques. However, before
the trial began, Haigh moved back to San Francisco and in 1998
filed for bankruptcy. She realised her 'life's dream' opening
Capobianco Gallery in the North Beach district in 2003.
Guy Colwell's exhibition opened 16 May
2004 and included the controversial work Abuse hung prominently
in the window of the gallery, where it provoked a violent response
(most of the exhibition comprised non-offensive abstract artworks).
It incited an unwitnessed attack on Haigh by an unidentified assailant,
giving her a black eye. In subsequent interviews, she stated:
This isn't art-politics central here at all. I'm not
here to make a stand. I never set out to be a crusader or a
political activist ... I kept thinking someday I'll have enough
of a reputation where I could bring in my heroes of the art
world, people like Guy Colwell especially.
If being political was not her intention,
the question arises as to why she hung such a provocative work
in a position where it would certainly receive a reaction? This
kind of art was always going to elicit the fury of some of the
public, in light of the attention given to abuse of Iraqi prisoners
at Abu Ghraib.
Guy Colwell has a history of showing politically
charged art. In 1968 Colwell was imprisoned for two years for
draft resistance. He then began his first comic book in 1972,
Inner City Romance, which
depicts tales of political repression, violence and ghetto and
prison life.
 |
| An example of Guy Colwell's politically
charge comics, image here here |
At best it appears Haigh was naîve
- judging by her own statements - with regard to the impact of
such an potentially explosive exhibition. In the worst light,
savvy art dealers know political art will stimulate a strong public
reaction, which is inevitably given a good deal of press coverage
(CIRCA is as guilty of covering politically charge art as any
other news outlet). The coverage is usually not a hindrance to
any art dealer or artist's career.
In this case it seems irrelevant to doubt
the authenticity of Haigh's attacks. It is important to raise
the issue of the nature of exhibiting art that is going to elicit
a strong public response, and examine the motives behind doing
so.
Most recent news items:
• Art against Iraq earns black eye (Monday 31 May 2004)
• Art opening: Patrick Hall: Stone, Green on Red Gallery (Friday 28 May, 2004 #2)
• James Hanley to be Venice Commissioner (?) / art smarts / Kathy McArdle update (Friday 28 May 2004)
• Thinking of buying art online? Maybe don't. (Thursday 27 May 2004 #3)
For a full list of news items, click here.
Latest reader
feedback:
News item 603
I have to say I agree with Circa. I have been working on a projec...
News item 624
The idea of exhibiting a group of objects bought on eBay, though ...
News item 617
It'd be interesting to see how many visitors attended the gallery...
News item 603
re. Comment 2 - most people who get turned down for grants have t...
News item 603
'sour grapes aside, what are culture ireland up to?' i think we n...
News item 606
hang on a minute... surely the feller who won the prize at art st...
News item 603
As someone who received a grant from Culture Ireland this year, f...
News item 602
try and make work that doesn't topple over in future!...
Do you have an opinion on this news item? If so, please click
here for our comments form.
| Responses so far |
| Comment 1 |
One may expect a strong reaction, but one should not expect
personal violence in a civilized society. The perpetrators
proved the mentality that Americans ARE like those in the
art work. Shame on you for blaming a woman for "asking for
violence" as has been the response to violence against
women throughout history. Get civilized.
|
| Comment 2 |
Shame on you. Lori Haigh was sexually abused as a child.
Like most who suffer this severe trauma, she responded (in
part) with some self-destructive behaviors. Based on that,
you question her credibility? I suppose you now plan to run
background checks on any artist you plan to write about,
and should anything controversial pop up, you'll question
his or her integrity?
|
| Comment 3 |
Hmmm, Drug addiction and Alcoholism... it would not surprize
me if she was also a Compulsive Gambler. Sexual, Emotional,
and Spiritual abuse can lead a person down these paths
especially when the Church and society have failed to
listen to her cries of pain and confusion.
She continues to cry out to the best of her ability.
|
| Comment 4 |
The fact that she is a sexual abuse victim renders your
article morally demented!
|
| Comment 5 |
There is no proof that there was an act of sexual abuse!
This never went to trial. The Catholic Church settled in
order to avoid large court costs. This woman has a history
of fraud and deserves to be exposed! She has been turned
into some kind of saint by the US media over this blatant
publicity stunt. RF.
|
| Comment 6 |
Isn't it the point of art to "elicit a strong public
response"? Or is it just to make money? Shame on you for
blaming the victim,a distorted response to the abuse of
childrenand women.
|
| Comment 7 |
If she got $1.2 million in 1992 why did she have to take a
job as an office manager the same year and embezzle a
measly hundred grand? Just curious.
|
| Comment 8 |
Thank you for the background on Ms. Capobianco. One
correction, she received the RCC settlement in 2002, not
1992. Here is a timeline:
August 1998: Haigh files for Chapter 7 bankruptcy to
sidestep the financial consequences of her embezzlement
activity.
August 1999: Haigh stipulates to a $96K settlement with
Trew, pending outcome of Chapter 7 application.
May 2000: Bankruptcy judge denies her application for
Chapter 7 bankruptcy and she now owes Trew the $96K
settlement money.
December 2001: After reading New York Times reporter Steve
Lopez' account of the sexual improprieties of her former
priest, Lenihan, Haigh sues the RCC on a claim of
molestation by Lenihan.
April 2002: The RCC settles with Haigh for $1.2 million,
without admitting culpability. Haigh pays off the $96K she
owes Trew.
Peter, you ask why are some bringing out these facts?
Because we like our city, we know that these piece of art
was somewhat ordinary for the region,we don't want to see
nameless faceless citizens maligned by a [word removed -
Ed.]. It's a con and the "marks" are working the hardest to
promote it. It's really a sweet con, read what some of
these "marks" are writing right here.
|
| Comment 9 |
Kudos to you! Few would be willing to report even this much
on Haigh.
Here's the relevant timeline (with filing date correction):
August 1998: Haigh files for Chapter 7 bankruptcy to
sidestep the financial consequences of her embezzlement
activity.
August 1999: Haigh stipulates to a $96K settlement with
Trew, pending outcome of Chapter 7 application.
May 2000: Bankruptcy judge denies her application for
Chapter 7 bankruptcy and she now owes Trew the $96K
settlement money.
December 2001: After reading New York Times reporter Steve
Lopez' account of the sexual improprieties of her former
priest, Lenihan, Haigh sues the RCC on a claim of
molestation by Lenihan.
April 2002: The RCC settles with Haigh for $1.2 million,
without admitting culpability. Haigh pays off the $96K she
owes Trew.
And I haven't scratched the surface on this [word removed -
Ed.].
|
| Comment 10 |
Can you say "blame the victim?" The bank was handing out
money, so it was asking to be robbed. She was dressed
"seductively", so "she wanted it." Hello
|
| Comment 11 |
Haigh's assailiants didn't judge her display in light of her
past actions. Therefore we should deplore their use of
violence as an objectionable act regardless of Haigh's
potential for opportunism. Your argument that we should
forgive violence is about as convincing as an argument that
girls just "ask to be raped" by wearing revealing clothing.
You've committed the logical fallacy of ad hominem tu
quoque, irrelevant information displayed as red herring
designed to discredit the objections of the accuser (Lori)
that she has suffered a wrong. I suppose it is good
information to bring to the table, but only to make other
art-gallery owners feel less vulnerable about the
possibility that their free expression is under fire. Well,
guess what, it is, regardless of whether or not you display
your art for attention-grabbing motives.
|
| Comment 12 |
This article is way off track.
|
| Comment 13 |
What Lori Haigh did or did not do in the past is irrelevant.
In San Francisco at least, we still believe in freedom of
speech. So now we're to fear some art because it's too
"dangerous"?! Who's gonna decide which art that is? Wake
up.
|
| Comment 14 |
On Comments 8 and 9 above: despite the similarity of wording
they were posted from different internet-protocol
addresses, though within 20 minutes of each other. Peter
|
| Comment 15 |
the priest lenihan wrote a letter to the pope revealing his
molesting tendencies and asked to be let out of the
priesthood. He admitted what he'd done. It didnt go to
court due to the supreme court ruling DAYS before his trial
to let all offenders go if there offense was over 7 years
old.
[see www.cath4choice.org/
spanish/
SexAbuseChart.htm - Peter.]
|
| Comment 16 |
Check out a response to this article:
http://fenimorecooper.
home.mindspring.com
|
| Comment 17 |
Re comment 15, Lenihan admitted to only one underage
molestation and that concerned Mary Grant, who got $25K in
settlement. He also admitted to 3 affairs with adult
females. He made no concession concerning Haigh's
accusation, which (according to her) followed her reading
of Lopez' account of Lenihan's previous admissions.
|
| Comment 18 |
Upon the "good work" of background checkers, fascists and
vigilants allways aim to kill the messager.
Wake America!
The fascist mystical and sexual perversions when expose
elicit such an incontrolable rage that they go an out of
mind experience. A temporal insanity.
Then they go to their temple, church or synagogue to appease
their murderous feelings, for they know that easly their
thirst for blood could turn to hurt their families.
|
| Comment 19 |
PLEASE NOTE:
We are not taking any more feedback here. Many thanks to all
who have contributed. Peter
|
Failed to execute CGI : Win32 Error Code = 2
Back
to top of page
|
|
