Michael Howell, Part IV

For a long time Michael Howell was the only one who could open the Homeless Art Gallery, and he kept limited public hours. Visitors, including the artists who used it as their only studio and whose art was housed at the gallery, were able to drop in only two days a week at first. Michael had other commitments and couldn't operate the gallery more than that.

After I began coming in regularly Michael trusted the space to me for a few additional hours. I would show up Tuesdays and give Michael the opportunity to leave for a while, before returning to lock up. So, soon, the gallery was open three days a week. That continued to be the case until sometime in 1994.

A little about the physical space. The building is at the corner of 2nd and Bell. 2nd is almost level but Bell drops as you walk from the corner to the back of the building, so there's a direct entrance to the basement from the alley. The basement held the women's shelter, Noel House, still there. There was (and is) also a women's transitional housing program on the west side (back) of the first floor and above, called Rose of Lima. Rose of Lima was addressed on Bell Street, but both the gallery and Noel House shared the 2nd Avenue address. Rose of Lima, meanwhile, shared an internal door with the gallery and had internal windows that looked out into the gallery from their office space, so you could feel like they were spying whenever the blinds were open.

All this and the fact that AHA's primary concern at the building was keeping Noel House and Rose of Lima running, naturally created frictions. Those frictions were ultimately exacerbated by the fact that, in addition to being profoundly racist, Michael Howell was also deeply sexist and homophobic.

I've mentioned the racism, directed mainly at Asians. A freakish example of it occurred one day when we were leaving the gallery together, walking south. We were engrossed in a conversation as we approached Wally's, a little Mom and Pop store in Belltown run by a wonderful Korean couple. I wanted to get something in the store and suggested to Michael that we could carry on the conversation inside.

It wouldn't have been so freakish if he had just said, "No." Even "No, I don't like the people that run the store, I'll wait out here," wouldn't have been so bad. I didn't have to know what he didn't like about them. What he did that was so off the wall racist was get furious at me that I would do business with Koreans. It wasn't enough that he hated them, I had to hate them, too. He got angry to the point of sputtering. I went in anyway. When I came out he punished me by walking off in a babyish pouting sulk. He was as angry that he couldn't control me as he was racist. Control was important.

An apparent contradiction to that sort of behavior lay in the fact that he welcomed a Korean artist into the gallery. The contradiction is resolved by the nature of the relationship. Michael was in control of the gallery. Michael was not in control of Wally's. Michael could let one extremely talented Korean artist make his gallery look good, knowing that he could exclude any others. Michael also knew that he could potentially be accused of racism and was smart enough to know that the accusations could be headed off as long as he allowed token representatives in. He explicitly told me in private that he considered all that in allowing our Korean artist membership.

He also spoke to me at length about his theory that women can't be good artists no matter how hard they try, but that it was important to satisfy the wishes of AHA and the "Noel House dykes" by appearing to not exclude women.

Rather than grant space to any women artists, Michael Howell tried to make feminist points by offering art lessons to women. He made a point of reaching out to Noel House in particular, inviting them to send women up for help in learning art.

I think it worked for a while. Michael avoided using his disparaging homophobic language around Noel House residents and staff. The free art lessons were appreciated and gave the intended impression that Michael thought the women had promise as artists. Privately he told me it was a farce, the women weren't capable of learning, they were only good for crafts, and he had no intention of allowing "women's art" be hung on the walls of his gallery.

Arguing with Michael about any of his bigoted views would get you an angry tirade at first, followed by a flat refusal to continue the discussion further, followed by pouting and departure for the day. The next time you'd see him he'd pretend nothing had been said, and get irritated if you brought it up again.

I wondered how long I could continue to associate with the man. Being put in the role of an unofficial assistant made me feel I was endorsing his management. At some point the manifestations of his bigotry on that management would be too embarrassing, I thought. It turned out though that by the time it became unbearable to be associated with him there were other allies available and I didn't have to leave the gallery. I'll be getting to that.