Catherine Hanaway challenges the placement of Witness; its St. Louis hosts defend the choice
Catherine Hanaway questions the notice and process for placing Witness outside Rung for Women. The organization and Gateway Foundation defend the selection, citing its artistic value and relevance to women's lives and work.
Case period:
Published by The Dispute Index editorial teamPublished Updated
Overview
Catherine Hanaway questions notice and neighborhood input for the planned placement of Witness outside Rung for Women. Rung and the Gateway Foundation defend the sculpture's relevance to women's autonomy and the organization's work. No specific enforcement action has been announced in the cited material.
Read the full background
Hanaway's October 22 post (opens in a new tab) calls for answers about the planned installation and neighborhood input. She quotes residents' religious objections and cites the artist's explanation of the work.
Rung and the Gateway Foundation told St. Louis Magazine (opens in a new tab) that the sculpture fits Rung's mission and has artistic merit. The foundation is providing it on permanent loan.
The proposed site is outside Rung's building in the Fox Park neighborhood. A neighborhood name does not establish that the work occupies a municipal park. The cited statements do not identify an enforcement filing or establish a permitting violation.
People in this case
Catherine HanawayDirectly involved
Response record
Responses
Choose one response filter, or select All responses to see the full record.
3 responses. Newest first.
Rung for WomenRung for Women, through a spokespersonDirectly involved Before this statement
The magazine asks Rung about the installation outside its offices.
"perfectly reflects the strength, resilience, and determination of the women who walk through our doors"
Defended or excusedCase context: Catherine Hanaway challenges the placement of Witness; its St. Louis hosts defend the choice
Full statement and sources
Rung says the sculpture fits the women who use its career-development services and welcomes the planned installation.
After the statement
Rung says it has been preparing the grounds since September.
Rung for Women and Gateway Foundation defend the placement of WitnessStatements supplied by Rung for Women and Gateway FoundationWhy this label?
The reference is placement outside Rung's building. The organization defends that choice by connecting the work to its mission.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Gateway FoundationGateway Foundation, through a spokespersonDirectly involved Before this statement
The foundation provides Witness to Rung on permanent loan.
"foremost for its artistic merit and beauty"
Defended or excusedCase context: Catherine Hanaway challenges the placement of Witness; its St. Louis hosts defend the choice
Full statement and sources
The foundation says it selected Witness for artistic merit and for its treatment of women's autonomy, belonging and representation. It considers the work a fit for Rung.
After the statement
Its statement also connects the sculpture's themes with an organization supporting women's professional futures.
Rung for Women and Gateway Foundation defend the placement of WitnessStatements supplied by Rung for Women and Gateway FoundationWhy this label?
The reference is the sculpture's placement at Rung. The foundation supplies an affirmative artistic and institutional justification for the selection.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Catherine HanawayMissouri attorney generalDirectly involvedBefore this statement
Hanaway attributes a religious objection to residents and describes the sculpture's proximity to churches.
"Missourians deserve answers about the secrecy and placement, and we intend to get them."
CondemnedCase context: Catherine Hanaway challenges the placement of Witness; its St. Louis hosts defend the choice
Full statement and sources
Hanaway criticizes the process surrounding the planned installation and says her office intends to seek answers.
After the statement
The post promises answers without specifying an enforcement action.
Catherine Hanaway questions the placement of Witness in St. LouisPost 2113402658182558021Why this label?
The reference is the planned placement and its process. Hanaway expressly criticizes secrecy and inadequate neighborhood input.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Sources
(2)
Original post
Catherine Hanaway questions the placement of Witness in St. Louis
About this source
Hanaway calls for answers about notice and neighborhood input. The post attributes the religious description to residents.
- Author
- Catherine Hanaway
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
Rung for Women and Gateway Foundation defend the placement of Witness
Relevant passage: Statements supplied by Rung for Women and Gateway Foundation
About this source
Ryan Krull reports the planned installation outside Rung's building and includes the organizations' explanations for selecting the sculpture.
- Author
- Ryan Krull
- Published
- Accessed
Share or embed this case
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the case page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Catherine Hanaway challenges the placement of Witness; its St. Louis hosts defend the choice
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/cases/catherine-hanaway-witness-sculpture-rung-st-louis
The Dispute Index. "Catherine Hanaway challenges the placement of Witness; its St. Louis hosts defend the choice". First published: 2026-10-26. Last updated: 2026-10-26. https://disputeindex.com/cases/catherine-hanaway-witness-sculpture-rung-st-louis