Jane Fletcher gave an oral interview to the San Diego Historical Society in 1984. Here is a transcript of that interview:
     Jane Fletcher: Jane discussed the furor over keeping the Artists Guild shows in the museum. It was in 1984 that she was interviewed. She'd explained her opinions from both sides, as she had sat on the museum's board as well as from the artists' point of view. She felt that the artists were not given the respect that other people within the museum are given and she felt that the museum should help the artists with their shows not demand that the artists pay for everything. She also stated that the statement that came out that "the Museum of Art in San Diego was too precious to be used for amateur artists," was very belittling, "because many are qualified artists-as well qualified as can be found anywhere." An article came out in the Sunday paper that for San Diegans to see San Diegan artists they had to go outside of the city.

     Here is an article published in the December 10, 1983 Artweek written by Peter H. Karlen:
ARTLAW
ART DESTRUCTION - THE VIKI COLE CASE
     "Caustic and irreverent Viki Cole, an artist living in the San Diego area, has found herself in the position of recruiting legal help for what she feels has been an attack not only on her work but on her reputation as well.
     The work in question could be considered a feminist piece with cynical commentary on personal relationships, men and money. Although Cole insists that good art has no gender, she admits that this particular piece reflects a feminist attitude. The seventy-two-by-sixty-four-inch work can best be described as a painting with multimedia collage on canvas, the whole floated between two pieces of plexiglass encased in birch wood. At the top of the canvas are the words 'As a Woman I Feel Bound to Tell You…' in the center of the canvas, encircled by fifty-four one-dollar bills sewn together is the phrase 'There will be substantial penalties for early withdrawal.' Perhaps the two phrases can be read together.
     Finally to make Cole's point of no longer putting up with token changes, the title of the work, as important and powerful as the visual statement, reads, 'When it comes to small change, Baby...The buck stops here.'
     Cole's outspoken piece was hung with other works that she included in her one-woman show at the San Diego Museum of Art in 1981. On the strength of that show, she was asked to submit the Money Piece to the San Diego television station KPBS, a PBS affiliate, to be included in the portfolio of the stations fund-raising auction….
     The piece was purchased for $350 by a La Jolla social activist, who was later quoted…. 'It just hit me in the eye…. I bought it for a friend of mine, who's an ex-banker.'
     The purchaser subsequently remarked that when the euphoria of the auction evening was over, she realized the piece would not make an appropriate gift, so she asked Cole…if the artist would be interested in repurchasing her own work. Cole, understandably, declined…. she decided to donate the work to another fund-raising auction, the 1982 Combined Arts and Educational Council (COMBO) benefit auction held in February 1983 in San Diego.
     Once again the work was donated to charity and auctioned, this time selling for $120. Once again the new purchaser contacted Cole and asked her to buy back the piece…. In a helpful mood, Cole contacted the purchaser, and though she declined to repurchase her own piece, she gave him the opportunity to place the work in her new three-person show held July 1983 in San Diego. This time the price tag read $1,500, a price determined by the new buyer.
     The work did not sell at the gallery show, and after the show closed the new buyer went to the gallery and, without interference from the gallery director who was present on the premises, opened the painting by removing the nailed bars holding the plexiglass, removed the layers of 100% rag paper and tore the canvas from the backing (which was securely held in place with clear silicone). Then dismantling and altering the piece further, he removed the fifty-four dollars in currency despite the fact that the money was sewn onto the canvas. Presumably, the money was later spent.
     Cole would never have known about the dismantling if the owner of the piece had not called a newspaper reporter to reveal the incident. The artists was shocked by what had happened…. She was angered that someone had deliberately tampered with an artwork that was contained within a sealed frame.
     When the purchaser was confronted with the artist's protests, he was surprised that the artist was disturbed by what had happened….
     The artist means to stick to her motto that 'there will be penalties for early withdrawal,' and she has brought a civil action under the California Art Preservation Act to recover damages….
     A good thing about the California Art Preservation Act is that it is enforceable…. And a losing defendant should expect an award of punitive damages against him or her on account of the deliberate and intentional alteration, mutilation, defacement or destruction of the work."

     Another article on this story came out in the San Diego Evening Tribune on February 15, 1984, written by Zenia Cleigh:
Indifference is seldom a stance taken toward controversial Escondido Artist/design teacher
     "VICKI COLE is one of those electric women about whom it is impossible to feel neutral.
     Some see her as a manipulative, threatening feminist, a capricious troublemaker who spouts tired rhetoric and makes people angry for the fun of it.
     To others Cole, 39, is a challenging risk-taker, a courageous woman thrashing out the conflicts of her own life on the canvas of art, a person capable of a playful, yet ruthless honesty.
     Whatever the verdict, indifference is seldom a stance taken toward the controversial Escondido artist and SDSU design teacher, who has alternately shocked and delighted the local art world with her decision to press a suit based on California Art Preservation Act prohibiting the mutilation or alteration of works of art.
     Cole filed suit in San Diego County Superior Court Nov. 3 against Peter MacDonald….
     The suit asks for $49,000 in damages as a result of an incident at the Maple Creek Gallery… last summer. MacDonald acknowledges that at that time, he removed from the frame the canvas of a work of Cole's which he owned, and took off the 54 $1 bills that had been sewn to the piece.
     The 6-foot by 5-foot 4-inch work, titled 'Money Piece (When it Comes to Small Change, Baby, the Buck Stops Here),' had been through an arduous rejection process by the time that happened….
     Scott Rudolph, Cole's Attorney, sites Section 9-87 of the California Civil Code, which says: 'No person except an artist who owns and possesses a work of fine art which the artist has created shall intentionally commit or authorize the intentional commission of any physical defacement, mutilation, alteration or destruction of a work of fine art.'
     Although some members of the San Diego art community complain that seeking publicity is Cole's main motive, most seem pleased that the pioneering California art preservation law (New York passed similar legislation last year) is being put to the test.
     Nancy Livesay, president of the 250-member San Diego Artists Guild, said it's her impression that artists support the challenge more than the specifics of the case, but added: 'I personally feel it will be an interesting test of the law.'
     Pat Barnett, president of the 350-member Artists Equity Association here, said of Cole: 'A lot of people will gripe in private, but when it comes to standing up in public, very few will. I'm proud of her for doing this.'
     Yet a respected local artist who knows Cole well added: 'This could very well injure her career. In a sense, that kind of thing makes you too hot to handle.'….
     The words on the 'Money Piece' read: 'As a woman I feel bound to tell you there will be substantial penalties for early withdrawal.' It is a statement about placation, Cole said, about how women bend over backwards to keep peace. For her part, she said, 'I have placated my whole life. And I'm not doing it anymore.'….
     Bob Mansfield of the SDSU art faculty, however said: 'I don't think most people see and know Viki for what she is. Viki takes chances. She dares to go where no one else wants to go. She's trying to chart psychological, philosophical and sociological territory. She is in many cases a person who puts her money where her mouth is.'…. A person who pushed herself to the edge, it's the ability to not take life or art too seriously that keeps Cole sane, she said. That, and 'All the people who know that they're not perfect. They're the ones that I love so much.'"

     Mark-Elliot Lugo wrote this review for the February 17, 1984 San Diego Evening Tribune:
Guild exhibit no better or worse than in past
     "The San Diego Artists Guild All-Media Membership Exhibition'…. Since the demise of the Biennial California-Hawaii show in 1978, the San Diego Artist Guild All-Media Membership Exhibition has occupied a position as the most prestigious art competition held annually in this city.
     The reputation of this event is largely based on the Guild's affiliation with the San Diego Museum of Art and the place the exhibition is held - in the museum itself. Membership in the Guild is strictly regulated, open only to artists whose work had been submitted to a jurying process by the Guild's board of directors. Although the annual Guild exhibitions are good, they're not great. This is probably due to a variety of factors. Among them a subject mentioned here before: museum administrators and curators, who are usually selected as jurors, are, one suspects, reluctant to take risks in selecting really different or unusual pieces for an exhibition with which their name is connected. They fear their reputations could be jeopardized if they are perceived as having made mistakes in aesthetic judgment. Others argue that museum officials usually rise to their positions through administrative ability rather than because of an eye for art.
     Artists, believing that museum representatives are basically conservative, are themselves reluctant to submit their more adventurous work, preferring to be represented by a conservative piece rather than being totally rejected (or 'not accepted,' as the notification cards are tactfully worded.)
     Other complicating factors also come into play. Many established artists, whose work could add a lot of excitement to Guild exhibitions, don't feel the need to become members of organizations such as the Guild. One can hardly blame them for not wanting to risk the potential humiliation of having their work rejected. However, other well-known artists make a point of joining simply to lend their support to the art community.
And then there's the basic question, which is not going to be addressed in this review, of whether San Diego's and the Guild's artists are, given the artistic climate in this city, provided the chance to really flourish and exploit their potential to the fullest. Of course, we all know the answer to that one!
     In any event, the 1984 San Diego Artist Guild Exhibition is no better and no worse than previous Guild exhibitions; in other words, among local competitions, it is probably the best, but still light-years away from being as good as it could be. Indeed, it makes one yearn for the good ol' days when the Biennial California-Hawaii exhibition, a victim of the San Diego Museum of Art's austerity policy towards local artists, reigned supreme.
The Guild show this year is a compact, nicely diversified, professional-looking exhibition, although, as usual, a few weak pieces slipped by the juror. Thirty-four pieces were selected by juror Henry T. Hopkins, director of the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, from 222 entries. Overall, technique and presentation, which seem to have been overriding concerns of the juror, are impeccable, particularly in the works of Hiroshi Miyazaki, Jean Swiggett, Michael Wheelden, Brian Battles, Charles Turner, Johanna Hansen, Ron Tatro, John Edwards, and Thierry Chatelain.
     Adding to the illusion of quality is the very elegant exhibition layout and design by the museum's head of design installation, Darcie Fohrman, perhaps the best ever for a Guild exhibition.
     Unfortunately, more than the aforementioned characteristics are required to make an exciting work of art. Although it is very difficult to be original, several pieces in this exhibition seem overly derivative or similar to other artists' work. Some artists seem to be showing the same type of work year after year and even though the work is competent, that is getting boring. Still others are not showing their best work."

back to top