This is Sooraya Graham's work that was returned to her damaged after being removed from the fine arts wing by an offended viewer. IMAGE COURTESY SOORAYA GRAHAM
Taylor Rocca, Roving Editor Ω
Sooraya Graham is a normal student just like anyone else at Thompson Rivers University (TRU).
She goes to class and does her assignments, just like any other student.
She never realized that with her most recent assignment she would start such a controversial cultural discussion that would ultimately end in her art being damaged and improperly removed from a class display.
Coming from Northern B.C., Graham is a Canadian Muslim and a fourth-year fine arts student.
Like many other artists, all she wanted to do was foster discussion using her artwork.
With the events that have transpired since she first displayed her work, Graham has people talking not only at TRU, but also throughout Kamloops.
“People think I am so foreign, so different and they can’t relate to me somehow,” Graham said. “But at the same time, I’m just like an every-other-day Canadian girl. I do the same things, I wear the same things just underneath [the veil].”
Graham’s art depicts a Muslim woman holding a bra.
The woman in the piece is wearing a niqab, the traditional veil or cloth that many Muslim women adorn to cover their face.
“With my artwork, I was trying to create a discussion point,” Graham said, “for Muslim women, for veiled women and to kind of show light of how we are just normal women.
“I wanted to have an image that displayed something that every woman could relate to.”
Graham completed the class assignment and with the help of professor Ernie Kroeger, she displayed her work alongside other classmates’ assignments within the fine arts department on TRU campus.
Shortly after the work was put on display, it came to Graham’s attention that the piece had been removed from the wall upon which it was hung.
“We’re always told that our voice is important and that we can say something with our art,” Graham said. “It is shocking when someone tries to silence that.”
After contacting the chair of the fine arts department, Lloyd Bennett, Graham was informed that a business card had been left behind in place of the art.
The card belonged to a staff member at TRU World, and she was shocked at that revelation.
“I did not expect to hear that,” Graham said. “I thought maybe [it was] someone who would not understand [the artwork] versus someone who is expected to show a different type of behaviour.”
According to TRU administration, the artwork was not taken down in an official capacity.
“There was an individual that was offended and she took the artwork down,” said Christopher Seguin, vice president advancement for TRU.
“That TRU World staff member was acting on an individual basis.”
The artwork was eventually returned to Graham, though not unconditionally.
“The person [who removed the art] had gotten in contact with Lloyd and they had my image,” Graham said. “They weren’t willing to give it to me if I was going to put it back on the wall. They were holding it hostage, I guess you could say.”
In an ironic twist, this development was right in line with the motivation that Graham had when she was initially inspired to create the piece.
“With art, there is always going to be a little controversy,” Graham said.
“You can dislike it, you can argue about it but to physically get in contact with an art piece and rip it down and destroy it, that is such an invasion of my personal space as an artist, to have someone censor what I can do.”
According to Seguin, it was more miscommunication than censorship that resulted in Graham’s work being removed from the wall.
“In no way did TRU at any point want to censor an artistic piece of work,” Seguin said. “We honestly thought it was a poster being tagged up on a board that we had to investigate.”
The only question involved with that assertion is that Graham’s artwork is much larger than the size of a standard U.S. letter-sized poster and was hung as a part of a class display of visual arts assignments.
The question remains as to how it could be mistaken for a poster to begin with.
The TRU World staff member responsible for removing the artwork was unavailable for comment.
Graham wears the niqab as a personal choice.
She believes that some people in Canada have the misconception that women who wear the niqab are somehow oppressed or forced into doing so. That is a part of what motivates her art.
“In a lot of Western media, you often see the veiled woman as oppressed, or as a fundamentalist, or this pacifistic woman,” Graham said.
“And that’s not the case. I think it’s something that needs to be broken as a stereotype.”
The wearing of the niqab started as a Bedouin tradition, originally being more of an upper class, Middle Eastern tradition as opposed to just an Islamic tradition.
In general, it is not enforced that women of Islam must wear the niqab.
It is merely a choice, part of what Graham wanted to shed light on.
“I am a huge activist for naqabi rights.
“I think it should be a choice for any individual,” Graham said. “I don’t think women should be forced to wear the veil, but I don’t think women should be forced not to wear the veil either.
“I’m just saddened that individuals decided that they did not like this discussion and that they did not want to participate in this discussion,” Graham said. “They wanted to take it right off the table, or the wall.”
Graham uses her art to try to give a voice to the Muslim woman.
Despite Canada being such a multicultural and welcoming country, this event is just one example of how unrest and controversy can still exist within such an accepting place.
Canadians often pride themselves on being such vibrant, welcoming people who don’t discriminate against or judge individuals or groups that might be different from them.
For the most part, there is a lot of truth to that.
Unfortunately, discrimination still exists within our country and the extent to which this incident rose to is what alarms Graham the most.
“That’s what I love Canada for. I will fight for your right to argue with me on everything. I will fight for you [to be free] to not like something,” Graham said.
“That’s part of being Canadian; it’s to create a discussion point. If we stopped talking about things just because we don’t like it or it makes us feel uncomfortable, we would get nowhere.
“This is such a multicultural country and I had pride seeing that veiled woman up on the wall because it did create discussion in my classes and I was able to explain more about the veil and the history of the veil.”
As of Apr. 2, Graham’s artwork has been put back on display in the TRU Art Gallery.
Pingback: Kamloops: Controversial art creates cultural conversation « BC Arts News
I think whoever it was should make a public apology to Miss Graham. I think the public would be interesting in hearing the TRU World Student Advisor’s reasonings, so that we can understand why the image was so alarming to her. She should also make herself known, so that we don’t blame all of the TRU World Student Advisors: Amit Goel, Adrian Conradi, Lolina Koopmans, Jamshid Mirzabekov, Yoshie Ozawa, Staffen Liu-Calver, Teresa Wei, Sultan Almajil, Reyna Denison and Eric Kim.
I think a public apology is the least we should see happen. I look forward to seeing the disciplinary action taken (if any) by the school in regards to this. As far as I know, taking private property at that doesn’t belong to you without permission is considered theft, and damaging property that doesn’t belong to you is considered either mischief or vandalism (though I’m no legal expert, and am not sure what warrants the different charges). I get the impression that Ms. Graham doesn’t want to pursue legal action, but that doesn’t mean there should not be any disciplinary action taken by TRU itself.
Thanks for reading and chiming in on this story.
Being a recent TRU graduate, living in the Middle East, several notions in this article strike me as odd.
One being the narrow mindedness surrounding the issue of Islamic cultural and religious customs. The niqab, hijab and aabaya that some Muslim women wear are not designed to negate a woman’s femininity, sexuality or fashion preferences. They are worn in order to appear modest. A woman wearing a niqab and holding a bra should not be any more shocking than an unveiled woman holding a bra, but apparently it is.
Which directly leads into my next point– Canadians for the most part, are not welcoming, non-judgmental and non-discriminating, but perhaps the opposite. In my opinion, we (Canadians) are not educated with realistic information or images regarding the diverse ethnic groups represented in our population. This needs to change.
I believe that if Canada wishes to uphold this image of “being such a multicultural and welcoming country” we need to let go of some major stereotypes and fears and educate ourselves with relevant information.
People are people, let’s stop getting hung up on how a person wears a piece of cloth.
Veil or no veil, that’s a nice bra and a nice photo.
As a photographer, as staff member at the photography school, and as a human being I am appalled by the behavior of the staff member. At the same time, I’m pleased that in this case a much wider discussion has started as a result of that censorship. I’ll be posting this to our students with the hope that they understand that their work, their art, will always be worth fighting for and should always be free of censorship.
To Sooraya Graham, -A true fine piece of art. I Love it !!
Your picture is a perfect example of ‘ what truly is Art ‘ as we all can see or perhaps can hear from others, your piece is appearing to be ‘the talk’. A fine example of “a picture is worth a thousand words !” Your piece of work has captured so many different views and perspectives and who says that one answer is actually correct. Your picture is a fine example of each of us as an individual in Canada. -I see a beautiful woman allowing to make her own choices and her own decisions without barriers, and freedom from everything. Doesn’t matter what she is wearing or holding..it’s still is has the same meaning regardless. -Would one criticise a child/ or elderly person holding a toy, picture by the same Artist, or a picture of a naked model ? Yes, I said elderly person, because we have no idea really what the person in the picture is really thinking, again another fine example -It is a special captured moment of a photograph -Welcome to the world of Art !!
When one judges negatively or gives criticism, especially regards to art and a writer’s piece of work, most likely is one(s) who is/ or those who are lacking being educated themselves. (specially in Art work)
(PS: Sooraya Graham, I believe that you are at the beginning stages of becoming very successful in the world of Art- you have a special viewpoint of what Art really is !)
-As well, I personally hope my message personally goes to her, she truly is really wrongly judged.
thank you, Lea Sorensen
~~~~~~~~~~
I suggest all to read the following before making any more judgement. (as well read the whole Art discription on website to become more educated upon -what is Art) I really do hope that those with negitivity owe this wonderful Artist an apology.
” From Wikipedia: Art
The nature of art has been described by philosopher Richard Wollheim as “one of the most elusive of the traditional problems of human culture”.[7] Art has been defined as a vehicle for the expression or communication of emotions and ideas, a means for exploring and appreciating formal elements for their own sake, and as mimesis or representation. Art as mimesis has deep roots in the philosophy of Aristotle.[8] Goethe defined art as an other resp. a second nature, according to his ideal of a style founded on the basic fundaments of insight and on the innermost character of things.[9] Leo Tolstoy identified art as a use of indirect means to communicate from one person to another.[8] Benedetto Croce and R.G. Collingwood advanced the idealist view that art expresses emotions, and that the work of art therefore essentially exists in the mind of the creator.[10][11] The theory of art as form has its roots in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, and was developed in the early twentieth century by Roger Fry and Clive Bell. More recently, thinkers influenced by Martin Heidegger have interpreted art as the means by which a community develops for itself a medium for self-expression and interpretation.[12] George Dickie has offered an institutional theory of art that defines a work of art as any artifact upon which a qualified person or institution has conferred “the status of candidate for appreciation”.[13]”
Website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art
~~~~~~~
Good for her. It seems to me seeing the niqab makes it too easy to ascribe the sterotype of the oppressed woman, when it only takes a moment of thought to realize that in many cases the woman underneath the niqab has chosen to wear it. I am an art lover and I enjoyed the scene caused by this: what better result of your art than to expose someone who acts with the exact small mindedness upon which you are trying to shed light? Again, good for her.
Clearly an issue of someone trying to stir up controversy, trolling in real life.
I am not Muslim, however, I am religious and find the concept of intentionally mixing sex and Religion to be inflammatory and completely unnecessary. I would be just as offended if the woman in the photo was wearing a Nun’s habit. What message could this type of “Art” possibly be trying to send? All I see is provocation.
The story has made International Headlines.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2129351/Photograph-Muslim-woman-traditional-veil-cloak-holding-bra-sparks-protest-Canadian-university-students.html
The placement of the undergarment is a bit of an issue.
It suggests a posed portrait, not just catching an action in a moment in time as implied in news coverage.
When folding laundry, most women surely don’t hold the garment up in front of ourselves as if deciding if it will look well on us? We do at at table level to flatten it for storage.
The effect is either to hightlight the breast area for contrast, or to suggest the woman is thinking about it the garment, not just doing normal housework It is an art work, not just a photo to be printed up in mural format as a
class assignment.
For a woman observer, it does less to show we’re all just females under the outer garments, than to remind one of scanty pinup girls of the second world war era with the twist of the body being enveloped, not in a state of undress.
Pingback: A Photo of a Muslim Woman and a Bra Sparks International Controversy
A good story by Taylor Rocca of the Omega. No wonder it has been picked up nationally and internationally. Too bad the Omega has closed up shop for the summer. There are strong hints that within this story is an important follow-up. Hopefully some TRU student council members are on duty over summer break.
Vice-president Chris Seguin’s comments are key to the story provided by Omega writer Rocca. Seguin is quoted as saying: “There was an individual that was offended and she took the artwork down,” and “That TRU World staff member was acting on an individual basis.”
Translation: The university is not involved. The university is not legally liable here.
Oh, really.
Let’s examine this, step by step. Bear with me. This is important. I’ll tell you why it’s important as we continue.
First, as I understand the matter, Graham, a TRU Fine Arts student, placed artwork of her creation as a TRU student in public view inside the university for TRU students and faculty to view. Second, a university staffer took that artwork, clearly identified herself as a university staffer by intentionally leaving her TRU business card in place of the artwork she took from public display, and then, when contacted by the use of her university business card, linking her directly to her place of employment where she works in official capacity as a university staffer, demanded conditions from the student before she would return the artwork to the TRU student.
Notwithstanding Seguin’s comments, I submit that to any reasonable person that sounds like official capacity. In fact, I believe it would be unreasonable to take the position it was not official capacity.
But third, that’s exactly what Christopher Seguin, a Thompson Rivers University vice-president, does, with his above-mentioned quotes.
So some questions.
If the university staffer a) seized the photograph, b) left the university business card so she could be contacted as a university staffer and then, once so contacted, c) demanded conditions be met before the artwork created in a university program by a university student be returned, then by what authority did she demand those conditions be met?
The student council should be seeking its own legal advice on that one before it contacts the vice-president to explain his position, and the university’s position.
Here’s why my interest in this issue and why the TRU vice-president’s comments so interested me.
I have heard of this position taken before. Not from him, but from another post-secondary school vice-president.
In Alberta, between 1975 and 1995, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, and the Individual Rights Protection Act of Alberta did not apply to students or faculty of any Alberta post-secondary school when any internal decision was taken by any Alberta post-secondary institution.
During that time no such decision could be reviewed by a court, for any reason. Alberta colleges, universities, technical schools and vocational schools were outside the jurisdiction of courts.
The reason, in part, was a 1975 court decision dealing with a University of Alberta professor named Vanek. He sought tenure. He was denied. He appealed. The university tenure appeals committee turned him down. He took the issue to court. He lost. In written decision on the matter the Alberta Court of Appeal decided that because the tenure appeals committee was not a statutory tribunal- that is, set up by the legislature- but an internal committee of the university, the court had no jurisdiction.
In 1995 a student on a student loan faced off against a college in Court of Queen’s Bench. The student had a good issue. The college sought to strike the issue down, no matter the merits. The Vanek decision was offered up as precedent.
As the case was heard, the judge asked the college’s lawyer to clarify the Vanek decision and what it meant. The judge asked “…does that mean they can- in Vanek or in this case- that a board could arbitrarily, capriciously, unfairly act to affect the rights of these persons without any cause for concern that the Courts might interfere with such a decision?” (Read: take the artwork and demand conditions.)
The lawyer for the college replied, “Yes My Lord, that is the bottom line.”
The judge further asked if the committee could sit absent knowledge of the student. The position of the college, through the lawyer, was that no matter the merits of the issue, the court had no jurisdiction to hear the matter at all.
It was a David and Goliath struggle. The college had tremendous resources and obviously a lot on the line. But the college student won. From that point on Alberta post-secondary schools were not outside the jurisdiction of courts.
Leading to that point a college vice-president reviewed an issue the student had concerns on. The student had been removed from a class by the department chair. The student sought redress, then saw the college inexplicably back off the matter when the student mentioned he’d seen a lawyer. The college vice-president at that time made the decision that the whole matter was a personal one between the department chair and the student and the college was not involved.
A ridiculous stance, but now you have some idea why that vice-president took that stance, which, if your news story is accurate, is so very similar to the position your own university vice-president has taken.
Your student government representatives should be asking why.
The core issue is not the photograph, or the bra, or tolerance or intolerance of cultural dress. Forget those. Important as those issues are to some individuals, they are all mere smokescreens hiding the core issue. The core issue is TRU’s attempt to minimize its legal vulnerability. Judging from the Omega provided quotes, the university position is that this is a personal issue and the university is not involved in it.
The question is then 1) whether the student has rights or not, and 2) if they can be impeded by a university staffer at will 3) with complicit or tacit approval by the university by taking the official position that it is not involved.
If you scratched your head when you first saw the university’s position as described and asked: Why would the university seem to turn a blind eye to this whole thing? You may have your answer now.
If your student government does not seize this issue for what it is, and the opportunity it provides, it may lose an opportunity to ensure the Charter of Rights and Freedoms apply to students and faculty in that institution. No one suspected in that Alberta college in 1995 that such protections would not apply, or that post-secondary schools could, in effect, overrule courts, the acts of legislature, or the acts of the Canadian parliament itself.
A detailed book on that 1995 case is must reading for your student body, it seems, particularly your student government and Omega writers. In fact, all student government leaders across Canada should have a copy. It’s a little known, but obviously a rather important, case for student rights- and those of faculty, I might add.
From reading your news story it appears that nothing has changed in almost 20 years.
Good luck.
The book, A Case of Sexual Harassment, is due out before the end of September. I’ll give the Omega an e-mail heads-up when it is available.
Thank you,
Lawrence Gleason
Lawrence, we don’t “close up shop” for the summer, we just publish monthly instead of weekly, and don’t have any staff…so we’ll be following up with the story, we just won’t likely have time to go very in-depth in our coverage, considering we still need to cover everything else happening around campus. We’ll do what we can, though.
Thanks for reading.
Since the recession hit back in 2007-08, I find people in Canada have become a lot less tolerant. Perhaps it has more to do with psychological conditioning since the Conservatives gained power, or since 9/11. The artist in question is brave because of her work. She should be commended. And her art should not have been damaged or taken down. This is censorship, and the control exerted broke the artist’s rights insofar as freedom of expression is concerned — a basic tenant of Canadian democracy. It is not enough to enforce censor because art offends. If this was the case, most of the art produced in Western Society would never see the light of day.
Reblogged this on Eccentric Designs by John King.
the staff member in question that took that artwork down is a muslim, so how can the article say that it’s “Canada” that’s intolerant?
Pingback: Bra Photo Forces Muslim Woman into Hiding | American Infidels