Imagine a beloved museum, dedicated to preserving a unique art form, suddenly finding itself at the center of a heated controversy. That’s exactly what’s happening at the Hamilton Wood Type & Printing Museum in Two Rivers, where canceled artist residencies have sparked outrage, calls for transparency, and demands for new leadership. But here’s where it gets controversial: while the museum cites a leadership transition as the reason for the cancellations, critics argue that deeper issues—including a lack of accountability and diversity—are at play. And this is the part most people miss: the fallout has already cost the museum a significant portion of its revenue, raising questions about its future sustainability.
The Hamilton Wood Type & Printing Museum proudly claims to be the only institution in the world solely dedicated to the preservation, study, production, and printing of wood type. It also hosts a prestigious visiting artists program, showcasing printers who have made groundbreaking contributions to the letterpress craft. However, earlier this year, the museum unexpectedly canceled several artist residencies, attributing the decision to a leadership transition that left the board managing day-to-day operations while searching for a new executive director.
While the museum has since appointed Beth Kowalski as its new executive director, critics argue that their concerns remain unaddressed. In a November 1 statement, Kowalski acknowledged the controversy but emphasized the museum’s need to move forward. ‘We respect the rights of individuals and groups to voice their opinions, but we must focus on our critical preservation work,’ she wrote. Yet, this response has done little to quell the growing discontent.
The controversy reached a boiling point in mid-October when the Windgate Foundation, a long-time supporter providing over $414,000 annually through an endowment, sent a scathing letter calling for new leadership. Patricia Forgy, the foundation’s executive director, described the situation as a ‘full-blown crisis’ that resulted in a 25% loss of the museum’s earned revenue. ‘This trajectory is not sustainable,’ Forgy wrote, adding that the foundation would withhold future payments until specific demands are met, including the resignation of executive committee members, a clear plan to restore canceled programs, and a commitment to diversify the board.
One of the most emotional flashpoints in this saga was the cancellation of artist IBé Crawley’s residency with just one week’s notice. In an Instagram video, Crawley shared her frustration, stating that the only explanation given was that the museum was ‘reevaluating its initiatives.’ She attempted to speak with board members for clarity but was denied. ‘I even offered to pay a $100 daily fee to print there, but I was told I couldn’t print at all,’ she revealed. Crawley’s experience became a ‘tipping point,’ according to print art community members Desiree Aspiras and Jenn Graves, who launched a website and petition to address the museum’s actions.
Graves and Aspiras highlighted that Crawley’s case was not an isolated incident. Other Black artists had also faced residency and exhibit cancellations, issues they claim have been simmering for years. ‘People knew there were problems, but they weren’t discussed publicly until now,’ Graves explained. In September, Crawley and Graves met with board President Tracy Honn via Zoom, but the conversation yielded no meaningful results. ‘It felt like the issue wasn’t taken seriously,’ Graves said.
The backlash extended beyond individual artists. Multiple presenters withdrew from the museum’s annual Wayzgoose fundraiser, and attendees requested refunds, leading to the event’s cancellation. A petition demanding the resignation of the museum’s board and executive committee gained momentum, and a postcard campaign urged the Reva and David Logan Foundation, the museum’s largest funder, to intervene.
But here’s the bigger question: Can the Hamilton Wood Type & Printing Museum recover from this crisis, or is this the beginning of the end for an institution once celebrated for its unique mission? Critics argue that the museum’s lack of transparency and unwillingness to address systemic issues could spell trouble. Supporters, however, believe that with the right leadership and a commitment to change, the museum can still fulfill its vital role in preserving the art of wood type printing.
What do you think? Is the museum’s leadership to blame, or are there deeper issues at play? Should long-time supporters like the Windgate Foundation withhold funding until changes are made? Share your thoughts in the comments—this conversation is far from over.
