Kehinde Wiley is asking the government to let him buy back a painting it took down from a foreign embassy. The artist’s request comes after the State Department removed his work “Young Artists After Siamesas 1960” (2015) from the US Embassy in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, citing his “violent and racist words and depictions.” The decision was announced in August, and the painting has since been taken down.
Wiley sent a letter dated September 24 to President Donald Trump requesting the opportunity to repurchase the painting. The move follows the August decision by US Ambassador to the Dominican Republic Leah Campos and Erin Scavino, head of the State Department’s Art in Embassies program, to remove the artwork.
“If your administration has determined that it no longer wishes to display the work, I would like to ask for the opportunity to purchase it back.”
The Letter to Trump
In his letter, Wiley detailed the two-year process behind the painting. He studied Dominican artists extensively and worked with young artists in Santo Domingo during its creation.
The request comes as Trump-backed officials are exploring whether the art can be sold. A spokesperson said in August that elected officials and the State Department were in discussions with lawyers to “ascertain whether the art can be sold.”
Sean Kelly Gallery has represented Wiley since 2010. Neither Wiley nor Sean Kelly Gallery responded to Hyperallergic’s request for comment.
Why the Painting Came Down
The State Department’s stated reason for removing the work was Wiley’s “violent and racist words and depictions.” The decision was announced in August, and the painting has since been taken down.
The timing of the letter suggests Wiley wanted to act quickly before any sale could proceed.
Wiley’s Side of the Story
Wiley’s response to the removal is notable for its restraint. Rather than attacking the decision, he asked for a simple transaction: he wants the painting back.
His letter emphasizes the work’s origins. The two-year study of Dominican artists and the collaboration with local young artists in Santo Domingo were central to the piece’s creation.
By asking to buy back the painting, Wiley frames the situation as a matter of ownership rather than censorship. He is not asking for the painting to remain on the wall; he is asking for it to return to his hands.
The State Department’s Position
The State Department’s position is straightforward: it removed the work because of Wiley’s public record. The spokesperson’s statement in August made clear that legal discussions were underway to determine whether the art could be sold.
The fact that the department is considering selling the painting raises questions about the criteria for such decisions. If the government removes art based on an artist’s words, it sets a precedent that could apply to any artist whose views are deemed unacceptable.
What Happens Next
The outcome depends on the State Department’s response. Wiley has offered to buy the painting back, and the ball is now in the government’s court.
If the department agrees to sell, the transaction would resolve the dispute. Wiley gets his work back, and the government clears the painting from its collection.
The Broader Context
This case involves a government institution considering selling an artwork removed over political disagreement. The State Department is not simply removing a work from display; it is considering selling it, which turns a curatorial decision into a financial one.
| Party | Stated Position | Key Figure |
|---|---|---|
| Wiley | Request to buy back | Letter to Trump |
| State Department | Exploring sale | Campos, Scavino |
A Question of Control
The core issue is who controls an artwork when it is created with public funding and displayed abroad. Wiley created “Young Artists After Siamesas 1960” (2015) with significant investment of time and resources, and he engaged directly with Dominican artists throughout the process.
The State Department’s decision to remove the work and consider selling it puts the government in the role of arbiter of artistic value. That is a dangerous precedent.
What the Paper Thinks
Clay Tribune believes artists should retain control over their own work. An artist’s public statements should not determine whether a work can be displayed or sold.
The State Department should honor Wiley’s request to buy back the painting. The government should not hold an artist’s work hostage over a disagreement with their views. That approach treats art as a political weapon rather than a creative product.
Final Word
Wiley’s letter is a measured response to a heavy-handed decision. He asked for the chance to buy back his own work, and he cited the labor and care that went into it.
The State Department should respect that request. Selling the painting to Wiley would settle the matter fairly, returning the work to the artist who made it.
This is a test of how the government handles art in public spaces. The right answer is the one that respects the creator’s rights.
Whether the government chooses to sell or hold the painting is yet to be decided. What is clear is that Wiley has made his position known, and the ball is now in the State Department’s court.
Where the paper stands
The paper backs Wiley’s request to repurchase the painting and is against the State Department using its own authority to take down art from an embassy without clear legal backing for the decision. The government should not hold an artist’s work hostage over a disagreement with their views.
When the State Department considers selling an artwork removed over an artist’s words, it sets a dangerous precedent. Art should not become a political weapon. The government should honor Wiley’s request to buy back the painting, returning the work to the artist who made it.
Readers should watch how the State Department responds to Wiley’s offer. If the government agrees to sell, the dispute resolves cleanly. If it does not, the question of who controls an artwork created with public funding will linger.
Source material: “Kehinde Wiley Requests to Buy Back Painting Removed by State Department,” Hyperallergic.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.