For over 33 years, the Frederick R. Weisman Museum of Art has showcased modern and contemporary art by internationally recognized artists, according to Pepperdine’s website. Now, it’s at the center of a censorship controversy.
After nearly a month of display, the Weisman Museum’s latest exhibition, which featured works from over 20 professional artists from across the globe, faced sudden censorship by Pepperdine administrators. After artists began requesting the removal of their art in protest, the exhibition was thrown into jeopardy and ultimately shut down by the University.
“This is just a mirror and microcosm of what’s happening nationally with the shutting down of really meaningful engagement between people that might not see eye to eye,” said artist Elana Mann, whose artwork was censored by University administrators.
Censorship Set in Motion
Throughout each year, the Weisman Museum hosts several exhibitions, some curated by the Museum’s director, Andrea Gyorody.
Gyorody curated the Museum’s most recent exhibition, titled “Hold My Hand in Yours,” which opened Sept. 6, according to Pepperdine’s website. Each artwork in the exhibition revolves around the human hand and its role as a symbolic image across multiple contexts. The exhibition was scheduled to be displayed until March 29.
“A lot of classes have come in and given rave reviews,” said Sam Backus, a Museum intern and senior Art History major. “Everyone seemed to really like it.”
The plans for exhibition were thrown into disarray Oct. 1. That day, Pepperdine administrators Lauren Cosentino, vice president for Advancement and chief development officer, and Nicole Singer, executive director for Advancement Administration, visited the Museum, Backus said.
Backus said the two administrators did not interact with her or the Museum attendant and waited at the front of the Museum until the arrival of Gyorody and Rebecca Carson, managing director for the Lisa Smith Wengler Center for the Arts. Gyorody gave the administrators a tour of the exhibition.
Backus said she noticed the group had been standing in front of artist Elena Mann’s portion of the exhibition for longer than the others, holding a discussion about the work that she could overhear bits and pieces of. After the tour, Singer came back and took photos of Mann’s artwork. While she didn’t know anything concrete, Backus was left wondering about what she had witnessed.
That afternoon, Mann said she received a phone call from Gyorody, where she was informed that administrators directed the video installation be removed by the Museum. By Oct. 3, the monitor on the wall was powered off.
Although the Fine Arts Division reports to the Office of the Provost, which oversees everything Pepperdine deems to be “academic activities and functions,” the Weisman Museum is part of the Center for the Arts (CFA), which reports to Advancement.
Advancement plays a role in advancing Pepperdine’s goals, including through fundraising and welcoming “friends of the University” who cherish the arts, according to a University spokesperson.
Under this structure, Gyorody reports to Carson, who reports to Singer, who reports to Cosentino. As a result, Cosentino has power over the Weisman Museum, a University spokesperson said. Because the exhibition did not include works from Pepperdine or student faculty, the University did not recognize it as “part of the academic enterprise.”
Art Professor Gretchen Batcheller said the arrangement of an on-campus museum being placed under Advancement is atypical. In her experience, museums at most other universities are treated as academic spaces and report to their equivalent of Pepperdine’s Office of the Provost. A University spokesperson pointed out Stanford University and University of West Florida as examples where a similar organizational structure exists.
Censorship of Art About Censorship
Some Museum guests said they assumed the monitor was facing a technical issue or was intentionally turned off as an artistic statement, leading to confusion. Student workers at the Museum were told by their boss, David Bird, to tell guests the University administration was responsible for the video’s removal, Museum attendant Jace Evans said.
The video in question, titled “Call to Arms 2015-2025,” is an 18-minute compilation of staged performances by Mann and other collaborators from the past 10 years. Performance artists can be seen singing and playing instruments, with some segments filmed at different progressive-led protests.
Several segments show performers using an arm-shaped sculptural instrument, which functions as a horn. The mouth opening of the instrument is located in the palm of a cupped hand, which covers the speaker’s mouth while amplifying their voice. Four of the sculptural instruments were on display in the exhibition, next to a 10-foot-tall photo collage of Mann and others using them.
The Graphic is publishing “Call to Arms 2015-2025” with Mann’s permission.
The “Call to Arms, 2015-2025” video censored by Advancement. The 2017 May Day protest segment begins at the 1:45 minute mark. Video courtesy of Elana Mann
Each clip is introduced by an intertitle that provides context, such as “after the apex of the COVID-19 pandemic,” “after Roe v. Wade was overturned” and “in the week of the Dr. Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh hearings.”
One minute-long video segment begins with an intertitle that reads, “in response to President Trump’s anti-immigration and anti-labor policies.” In the segment, performers with Mann’s sculptural instruments are shown shouting chants such as “No aceptaremos una América racista” (in English: “We won’t accept a racist America”) and “Say it loud, say it clear, immigrants are welcome here.”
Mann said beyond the protest chants recorded in this segment, she does not believe her video installation contains any overt political messaging. Most expressions in the video were “emotive.”
“My initial reaction was really just surprise and confusion,” Mann said. “I just didn’t really understand the decision why.”
Mann, who is hard of hearing, said she has made art about the act of listening for 20 years. She intends to promote peace, dialogue and the act of listening through her work.
In part, Mann’s artwork is about censorship and silencing, which she said made its censorship by Pepperdine administrators ironic. She said she did not initially receive any direct communication from University administrators about why her video was censored.
“That dialogue and space — for me to listen to Pepperdine, but also for Pepperdine to hear my perspective — is something I really, really desire, rather than just this decision that I don’t really understand, and just no chance for real meaningful conversation,” Mann said in an Oct. 6 interview, before she spoke to Cosentino or Singer.
On Saturday, Oct. 4, Mann officially requested the full removal of her contribution to the exhibition. She said the absence of the video compromised the rest of the artwork.
“I’ve never had this happen to me before, and I didn’t realize how sad I would be,” Mann said. “I was really proud of this work. I was showing the culmination of 10 years of a project, and was super proud to share it with the community at Pepperdine and also my broader community in Los Angeles.”
Another Artwork is Censored
On Friday, Oct. 3, artist Natalie Godinez, who is part of the nonprofit organization Art Made Between Opposite Sides (AMBOS), said Gyorody called her. Gyorody informed Godinez University administrators were censoring the AMBOS artwork, too.
The AMBOS installation, titled “Con Nuestras Manos Construimos Deidades” (in English: “With our hands we build deities”), is made from the collective effort of over 240 people, Godinez said. Some of them were refugees and asylum-seekers from migrant shelters near the U.S.-Mexico border who participated in ceramics classes for people belonging to the LGBTQ+ community, while others were families who have lived between San Diego and Los Angeles for generations. The installation consists of embroideries, woven textiles and ceramic hands molded by participants.
Godinez said administrators directed Gyorody to hide a fabric patch with the words “SAVE THE CHILDREN” and “ABOLISH ICE” embroidered on it, the latter message in reference to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The patch was subsequently folded inside the piece and hidden from view.
“I immediately started to think about how the political reality that we’re living in now with a lot of censorship happening — it’s being replicated on a smaller level with this kind of censorship at a school,” Godinez said.
Although AMBOS intended for Museum guests to touch the installation — for instance, by holding the molded hands of asylum-seekers unable to cross into the United States — administrators also requested the Museum to remove a sign on the wall that encouraged interaction with the piece to ensure the patch remained out of sight, Godinez said.
“The messaging of the piece is stripped away when people can’t interact with the work,” Godinez said.
Godinez said her understanding was the AMBOS installation was altered because of its political speech, which the University did not want to come across as endorsing. She disagreed with the idea an institution showing an artwork was equivalent to an endorsement.
“It just felt really unfair and against the spirit of having a museum at a school,” Godinez said.
Like Mann, Godinez did not initially receive any direct communication from University administrators regarding why her piece was censored. Because administrators directed the censorship without first having a conversation with AMBOS artists, Godinez said AMBOS felt most comfortable removing the piece from the exhibition altogether. Godinez requested its removal on Sunday.
Artists Escalate
After Mann and Godinez removed their pieces from the exhibition, word spread among other artists whose work was featured in the exhibition. By Oct. 8, at least 11 additional artists had withdrawn from the exhibition, despite not facing censorship on their pieces. Eight artists confirmed to the Graphic that they were removing their work, while three others were on a list Gyorody sent Mann.
“The silencing of artists, especially when their work addresses urgent social issues, undermines the very purpose of art and education,” said artist Sabrina Gschwandtner, who pulled out of the exhibition in solidarity with Mann and AMBOS on Oct. 5. “It’s clear to me that that’s not what they think at Pepperdine.”
Godinez said another reason AMBOS decided to request the removal of their artwork was in solidarity with Mann and any other artists pulling out on principle.
“It just feels like we need to stick together as artists and really support each other through this and not make it seem like we are okay with censorship,” Godinez said.
Mann said she was blown away by the solidarity other artists — including ones she had never met — showed in the wake of University administrators’ censorship of hers and AMBOS’ pieces.
“I was so surprised,” Mann said. “I didn’t ask anybody to do that.”
A Situation in Flux
The Weisman Museum was closed all day Oct. 8 for art deinstallation, which began around 9:30 a.m., when a crew of art handlers arrived to remove and package the majority of the exhibition’s artwork.
But at around 1 p.m., while the art handling crew took a lunch break, Gyorody was informed of last-minute negotiations happening between University administrators and the artists, said a person present for the conversations who asked not to be named. This prompted Gyorody to put the deinstallation on pause and send the art handling crew home for the day.
By that point, the crew had already deinstalled several pieces, including both of Gschwandtner’s pieces, which had already been transported to her studio, Gschwandtner said.
At around noon, Mann and Godinez each said they received a phone call from Singer. Given it was their first chance directly speaking with any Pepperdine administrator, each artist asked Singer why their pieces were censored during their respective phone calls. Neither artist felt they were provided with a specific rationale.
The two phone calls were also the start of direct negotiations between administrators and the affected artists, according to the two artists. Singer brought up a potential compromise: each of their works would be allowed to stay in the exhibition, unaltered, under the condition that a plaque be posted next to it indicating the artwork “does not necessarily reflect the views” of the Weisman Museum nor the University.
A University spokesperson said the intent of the disclaimers was to ensure Museum visitors “did not perceive that the Museum endorsed the views” of the artists.
Mann said she was open to having her video installation returned to the exhibition under the newly offered condition. While she believed the disclaimer would have stated the obvious — that an art museum doesn’t necessarily endorse the politics of its featured artists — she was happy to hear about the potential solution.
“That is a compromise in my mind,” Mann said. “They’re meeting me halfway.”
When Singer told Godinez about the newly offered condition, Godinez said she circled back with other AMBOS artists to discuss the possibility of reversing their prior removal decision. Ultimately, AMBOS decided not to change course.
Godinez said a compromise would have been more likely if the University hadn’t censored the AMBOS artwork before initiating any dialogue with her. The University’s lack of transparency on why the artwork was censored was also a point of contention for AMBOS.
“We don’t feel comfortable showing [artwork] in a museum that feels comfortable censoring work without having any communication with the artist,” Godinez said.
Despite Mann’s openness to the disclaimer plaque as a solution, she said she also did not feel like the University’s handling of the situation amounted to a “real” negotiation process. She took issue with the fact that the direct conversation between Advancement and artists did not begin until deinstallation was underway.
“A real negotiation establishes a space where both sides can share their perspective openly and honestly, like what their point of view is, why they did what they did and so on, and then speak together [about] a mutually agreed-upon solution,” Mann said.
Mann said Gyorody suggested the solution of including a disclaimer on each artwork to administrators on the day Cosentino and Singer first walked into the Museum, exactly one week prior.
“The University engaged in a concerted and deliberative process, which takes time,” a Pepperdine spokesperson wrote in an Oct. 10 email to the Graphic. “Andrea [Gyorody] was out of the office Thursday and Friday, October 2 and 3, and so the decision was made to resume deliberations with her on Monday, October 6, to explore options to resolve the matter before engaging the artists.”
Minutes after Godinez informed Singer of the AMBOS decision, Mann said she spoke with Cosentino over the phone for the first time. The prospect of the previously offered disclaimers became uncertain, leaving Mann confused about what happened since her conversation with Singer.
The Final Decision
The artists were first informed of the exhibition’s closure at about 6:30 p.m. on Oct. 8, when Singer sent them a statement announcing the decision.
The statement does not specify which party chose to close the exhibition, but according to a University spokesperson, Cosentino made the decision after holding “extensive deliberations with key stakeholders” after artists withdrew from the exhibition and the University’s attempts to resolve the matter failed. The University determined the use of the disclaimers was not a viable solution, in part because of other artists’ withdrawal from the exhibition.
“This outcome did not need to happen,” Mann said.
Provost Jay Brewster emailed a similar version of the statement to some Pepperdine faculty minutes after Singer’s email was sent to the artists. Unlike Singer’s version of the University statement, which did not include any characterization of Mann’s or AMBOS’ pieces beyond stating they were “political in nature,” Brewster’s version of the statement described Mann’s artwork as including “content with political overtones” and the AMBOS artwork as displaying “an element that was overtly political in nature.”
Because of Pepperdine’s established practice with the Museum to avoid “overtly political content” due to the school’s nonprofit status, they removed the two pieces, according to the University.
Since 1954, nonprofit organizations have had the freedom to take political positions, so long as they refrain from political campaigning, according to law firm Hughes Hubbard & Reed. Political campaigning can result in a nonprofit’s loss of its 501(c)(3) tax-exemption, according to the IRS. Mann, who has written government grants, said she did not believe her video installation engaged in any form of political campaigning.
But since President Donald Trump’s Sept. 25 memorandum titled “Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence,” also known as NSPM-7, advocacy groups such as the National Council of Nonprofits have warned nonprofits accused of opposing the second Trump administration’s priorities could be targeted. NSPM-7 includes instructions for the IRS, which has the authority to revoke organizations’ nonprofit statuses, to “take action” against certain tax-exempt entities.
The University statements sent to artists and faculty also said Pepperdine would honor compensation agreements made between artists and the Weisman Museum. One of those agreements was made with Mann, who the Museum commissioned to hold a performance with artist Sharon Chohi Kim and two others Nov. 8.
Mann said the planned performance will revolve around words the second Trump administration has flagged and removed from government documents since Jan. 2025, a similar idea to the “Ctrl + F” segment in the “Call to Arms, 2015-2025” video. Gyorody and Singer have both spoken to Mann about finding an alternative, off-campus venue for the performance to still take place. A University spokesperson confirmed the plans.
Aftermath and Response
After the exhibition closed, Mann said she would continue to make art that fights for the resiliency of the human voice, active listening and the power of the collective, all of which were part of her piece in the exhibition.
“I think the removal of my artwork from the exhibition shows me the power of art, and that Pepperdine was afraid of my artwork and of AMBOS’ artwork as well,” Mann said. “Artwork that was about freedom of speech, about silencing, about connections across borders, immigrant rights. All those ideas are powerful.”
In the wake of the censorship and closure of the exhibition, word also began spreading across Pepperdine campus. Shortly after 4 p.m. on Wednesday, Oct. 8, six flyers criticizing the administration’s decision to censor artwork at the Weisman Museum appeared on Pepperdine’s Freedom Wall.
An hour later, Backus and senior Art major Grace Bidewell emailed an invitation to an “Angry Art Night” event, which would take place in an on-campus art studio at 6:30 p.m. on Oct. 9. At the event, participants created art in response to the censorship, which Backus said they plan to post on the Freedom Wall next week for visibility.
“I’m just really disappointed in my University,” Backus said. “I don’t know if ‘embarrassed’ is the right thing to say, but I feel for these artists, and I feel for my fellow Art History majors, and my friends that are Art majors, and the Art professors and just the faculty and students in general that have come and seen the show and have connected with these pieces.”
She said she didn’t understand Pepperdine administrators’ requests to remove artwork they deemed “political,” given her perception that the administration itself engages in political actions of its own.
“They’re making a really powerful statement, and I don’t think it’s in a good way,” Backus said. “I’m just angry and upset, and I’m glad that I’m a senior because I know a lot of people can’t leave [after this academic year].”
Batcheller said throughout her 13 years teaching at Pepperdine, she has never seen the administration censor a piece of artwork for political reasons until now. In the past, student artwork has been censored for obscenity, and art from a non-student Weisman exhibition has never been censored after its installation for any reason.
Batcheller said she was concerned about how the censorship could impact Art students, student retention and student recruitment if Pepperdine becomes known as an institution that censors artwork. She also worried about the Weisman Museum’s reputation within the LA art community.
“I have a student that was openly weeping as I came in today,” Batcheller said. “It’s our discipline. It’s not like our feelings are hurt, it’s not that. It’s, I guess, ‘Why is this lens put on us?’”
Batcheller said the Weisman exhibition’s existence should be seen as an example of viewpoint diversity on campus, an idea the University claims to promote. She believes the recent censorship does the opposite.
“It’s really upsetting, but I’ve never felt more support from my professors, and the faculty and the workers at the Museum,” Backus said. “The way that we’re all mostly coming together and we’re showing support for one another and for these artists has been a really good feeling amidst all this uproar and chaos.”
For now, whether Weisman Museum will be empty until the annual senior art exhibition in April remains uncertain. Work is already underway in exploring potential opportunities for a new visual arts exhibition, according to the University.
Gyorody and Carson declined to be interviewed for this article. Cosentino did not respond to an interview request made through a University spokesperson.
Life & Arts Editor Haylie Ross contributed to the reporting in this piece.
__________________
Follow the Graphic on X: @PeppGraphic
Contact Henry Adams via X: (@henrygadams) or by email: henry.adams@pepperdine.edu
