One of the leading editors in the art world was dismissed on Thursday evening, following a decision by Artforum's publishers to terminate their employment. The reason cited was the staff's posting of an open letter regarding the Israel-Hamas war, which was deemed to have fallen short of the organization's standards.
Read more:
David Velasco, the publication's editor-in-chief for the past six years, said he was dismissed after working at Artforum, which is considered among the world’s most prestigious art magazines, since 2005.
“I have no regrets,” Velasco said in an email. “I’m disappointed that a magazine that has always stood for freedom of speech and the voices of artists has bent to outside pressure.”
Thousands of artists, academics, and cultural workers, including Velasco, signed the open letter which was published on October 19, and supported the Palestinians while criticizing the silence of cultural institutions about the Israeli bombing of residents in Gaza.
The letter initially overlooked mentioning Hamas's terror attack on October 7, which resulted in the murder of more than 1,400 Israeli lives, including infants, children, and innocent civilians. This omission was rectified after receiving feedback from subscribers and advertisers.
In the letter the signatures called "for an end to the killing and harming of all civilians, an immediate cease-fire, the passage of humanitarian aid into Gaza, and the end of the complicity of our governing bodies in grave human rights violations and war crimes."
In a statement by Artforum, the magazine said, "This was not consistent with Artforum’s editorial process. Had the appropriate members of the editorial team been consulted, the letter would have been presented as a news item with the relevant context."
"The open letter was widely misinterpreted as a statement from the magazine about highly sensitive and complex geopolitical circumstances. While a meaningful expression of advocacy from a large group of people in our community, the letter as it appeared on our platforms lacked the necessary context to make clear that it originated from outside the magazine."