Angry Ex Speaks
It's the break-up that just keeps going.
Last week, I wrote about Doug Sanford’s photographs at the Fraser Gallery in Bethesda. The photographs, which were on display until last Saturday, depict e-mails Sanford received from an ex-girlfriend after he admitted infidelity.
This week, the angry ex came forward with a letter to the editor and a few more fighting words. See below:
Hello there,
I'm the elusive angry ex whose words are on display. What a saga this has turned into!
I want to thank you for attempting to locate me and for writing the only balanced article about this whole thing. I see that Ms. Fraser is using this all as a publicity stunt, so if it's come to that I'd like to at least get my two cents in.
I'd like to start by saying that after this whole thing began and I wrote e-mails addressing legality to Ms. Fraser, she prominently displayed those e-mails in the gallery along with my full name and e-mail address. This can be confirmed by anyone who attended the opening, or feel free to ask Ms. Fraser herself. So any attempt to “protect my anonymity” is in fact a blatant lie.
I don't want money and I don't want a lawsuit. I'm aware that I have no case. I want those pictures down. Or, if my words are going to be exploited, I'd like a voice. Enough people know who I am that I've received e-mail after e-mail telling me that I'm being publicly humiliated. Mr. Sanford chose my most simplistic words so that a small newspaper in Falls Church has called the “ex-girlfriend” “single-minded” and “blind.”
Mr. Sanford is wrong, I am not attached to those words. If anything, I'm ashamed of having even consorted with him after the break-up. Those photographs are a cruel betrayal on top of the myriad of betrayals Doug Sanford committed against me. Without getting into details, rest assured, every word in those e-mails was deserved. You can't begin to imagine what this man has put me through, and now the trainwreck is all on a public stage. I just pray that it doesn't escalate beyond this letter.
The fact that people are considering this art is laughable. A friend put it perfectly when he said that it's all very “thinly philosophized.” The word “universal” is the biggest no-no in any field, from photography to women's studies, yet it has continued to impress people. If a 25 year old kid walked into a gallery and had the same project idea, people would find it childish, vindictive and silly. But because Mr. Sanford is relatively established, charismatic, 42 (he is, by the way, twice my age), and can use words like “universality of collective experience” people fawn.
The whole experience has been a terrible reflection on the gallery. I just hope that people see through it before these sadistic people profit off of my pain.
Thanks
Sincerely,
Halley Bondy
Gallery owner Catriona Fraser responds: “Her e-mails were not exhibited or displayed at the gallery at any time.…I only had her e-mails to me in my folder. I've never seen her e-mails to Doug.…If anything, I did not want to bring her into this.”
Sanford did not return a call for comment.
UPDATE, 2/9: Fraser points out that neither she nor anyone associated with the Fraser Gallery contacted me about this story. She denies that Bondy's claims that the article was part of a "publicity stunt" to promote the gallery.
Comments
Leave a Reply
You can follow any responses to this entry through its comments RSS feed.
8:45 am
Wow, she is so obviously a nightmare, I hope the gallery and the artist profit heavily from her awful emails.
7:43 pm
Is this woman nuts? Everyone apparently tried to keep her name off the spotlight: the photographer ex, the gallery, even Gould!
And then she outs herself?
I think that she's seeking some "spotlight" of her own...
Tsk, tsk...
9:27 am
I think people are missing the point of all this. This scum who cheated on his girlfriend has decided to profit from his cheating. That would anger any woman. If any one is the nightmare, it's the guy. It's also interesting how everyone has an opinion on her. I didn't realize everyone out there was so perfect and morally elevated to do so.
10:15 am
Why all the focus on the "profit" part of this? Usually people don't make their art primairly to profit but instead to express something. He'll never get rich from photos like this that's for sure!
11:54 am
Agreed. Could it not be that this was his emotional expression to the situation? It's an expensive practice to be an artist. Few profit.
12:09 pm
Yes - he is a scum for cheating on his girlfriend, but wake up - what unknown artist "profits" from art?
Had the ex-girlfriend simply stayed out of it, the photos would have come and gone and nothing would have come out of it. Her name and identity were unknown to anyone until she revealed it herself in the above letter.
She's helped the scum tremendously by adding a lot of fuel to a little fire.
1:52 pm
I've seen the show and the pictures are hardly "exploitative". Each picture barely shows 3-4 words in focus. It's not like he used entire emails or even significant excerpts. If he just wanted to be cruel I'm sure he could have setup exgirlfriendshatefulemails.com and posted them in their entirely. On another issue: even someone only 21 years old should take responsibility for their choices.
2:44 pm
I think Sanford dodged a bullet with this chic....
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/chowdah/bios/halley_bondy.html
4:55 pm
Here's a question ... what the heck is a 42-year-old artist doing in a "three year relationship" with a young woman who graduated from college in 2006? Making some assumptions about age, and that the breakup didn't happen last week, the best case scenario is that this guy started dating her when he was in his late 30s and she was EIGHTEEN.
Does she have a legal case? Obviously not, as she herself seems to recognize. Does she have a right to be pissed off? I think she did then, and she does now. This case may have been good for Sanford's notoreity, but I don't think he's going to walk away from it smelling like roses, exactly.
5:36 pm
From the gallery website:
"I. Hate. You. Letters to a Cheating Boyfriend" by Doug Sanford examines themes related to infidelity through a series of photographs highlighting scathing statements contained in emails from his ex-lover. Originally created in an effort to face the fallout of his own personal actions, this intimate look at one persons pain and anger in contrast to another's culpability for it, illustrates the universality of our own collective experience.
Doesn't sound like he walked away at all.
6:29 pm
Did you read the Falls Church review that she linked to, though? That critic clearly left the exhibit feeling sympathy towards Sanford, and saw the author of the messages as unhinged and worthy of ridicule. While the statement in the gallery materials makes it seem like the work is presented as a straightforward mea culpa, it would seem that the works themselves are ambiguous enough that viewers can walk away with a very different impression.
7:12 pm
A little background from the artist:.
I created these images in the midst of my own personal emotional firestorm. The way most artists create their art.
As a personal exploration. You see, I was still in love with Halley when I started this project and hated myself for what I had done. I knew my cavalier actions had caused the end of a relationship that I had cherished.
I created the images not as a way to strike out, but as a
way to strike at myself. I intentionally titled the piece in a self deprecating way to focus the blame on myself. I took her messages as a call to action in my life. A signal to change destructive behaviours that had caused me and my loved ones great pain. I selected phrases intentionally focused on MY shortcomings. Phrases that were the most painful for ME. Phrases that I thought deserved my focused attention. I intentionally obsured any identifying elements to protect her and kept only those that identified me. Never to mock her. and always self recriminating. Embarrassed or not, I truly believe that SHE is the protagonist of the art work, not the villian.
My original concept for the work was 2 hand-made books of 20 images each, one to be sent to her, and one for me. Created as a way to show her I had spent a large amount of time reading and contemplating her words, and that I had internalized them. It was that simple.
It was for me to send to her.
People saw the images though, and most responded powerfully. People that knew us responded one way while others responded in another way entirely.
People closely tied to the personalities involved, bring to their
viewing experience their own loyalties and affections, as they should.
This however, colors their experience and makes it fundamentally
different from a viewer that lacks those very direct connections to the
Art work/atrist and his subject. For many of those viewers, each image instead becomes about their own
break-ups or experiences with betrayal, their own personal histories and issues completely independant of mine and Halleys.
I knew that something larger than my own personal experience with Halley was being touched. As a person that
creates images designed to touch people, this is success.
The images are resonant to some people because they hold real emotion. Not pleasant, or
happy emotion, no, they contain real pain, betrayal and hurt. Not
only Halley's but mine as well. Not only ours but also everyone that
identifies with the work. That much is true. The work makes many
people feel something. (granted not all, but what art does?) It makes poeple talk about issues. These things are what any artist aspires to.
Now to the issue of weather or not I should have shown it.
Truthfully, I am conflicted. The opportunity to show it came
on very quickly, and I was required to respond very quickly in order
for it to happen. As an artist I have always wanted to show my work
and this body seemed very powerful and true. When Fraser Gallery ( one of the more prestigeous photography spaces in our area) approached me, I was naturally flattered. I accepted without giving the deeper issues the thourough thought I should have.
I knew the show may embarrass Halley some, but we hadn't actually spoken to eachother in almost a year. I do regret any adiditional pain this show has caused for her. But, in the end , I stand behind creating the work and it's validity and pertinence.
The images:
http://www.photogroup-ftp.com/DS/ihu/
1:55 am
A little background about the "artist":
According to the so-called artist, he "selected phrases intentionally focused on MY shortcomings. Phrases that were the most painful for ME. Phrases that I thought deserved my focused attention."
Are we ignoring that the phrases suggest the over-the-hill, dead-beat (father) is a pathological liar, sociopath, cheater, stalker and abuser (physically and mentally). He has embraced his shortcomings (to say the least), so much so that he felt the need to publicly display them in order to give them his full attention. Mom, I hope you've requested supervised visits.
Are we ignoring that this 42-year-old unknown was (just that) a nobody until he exploited the words of his 21-year-old ex? Not only did this young woman incite this lowlife's personal growth (at the tender age of 42) but she also single handedly triggered the pinnacle of his career. Quite an accomplishment at 21. Not so impressive after decades of "aspiring [to] get people to talk," especially since we aren't talking about the pictures (of someone else's work).
If the ex has done anything, she has lent a helping hand to all women in the D.C. area by exposing this loon for what he is. Kudos!