This piece is the second in a two-part series examining the history behind Shepard Fairey's work on the Tufts campus.
Last semester, artist Shepard Fairey created two murals on Tufts' campus. The first was soon destroyed by weather and posters that students pasted over it. Sherman Teichman, along with members of his class who had worked to bring the Shepard Fairey mural to campus and leaders in the campus community, was distressed by the posters placed over the artwork shortly after its installation.
--To read the first article in the series, click here--
"I have tried to bring the concept of open debate and a Hyde Park environment to the university," Teichman added, "but this was an installation sanctioned by the university and part of a formal exhibition for the ICA, not a site for destructive exchange."
The curator of one of Fairey's shows, Pedro Alonzo, found the interventions to be concurrently disheartening and exciting. He explained that street artists tend to respect each other's work, responding to each other by working in the same area but not directly on top of others' pieces. "The fact is that it is art," he said. "I'm just sorry that they did it on the work."
But Alonzo speculated that Fairey might appreciate certain aspects of the interventions. "What Shepard Fairey wants is to engage in a dialogue, he wants to wake people up about their environment and the use of public space, and at the same time he wants to question use of public space."
Pieces of the original mural continued to be torn down after posters were pasted over it. Several weeks after the political posters went up, another student pasted images of marijuana leaves on the wall.
Amy Ingrid Schlegel anticipated that the mural would live a relatively short life. "The additions on top of it made it impossible to appreciate the artist's imagery," she said. "So we received permission from the ICA and the artist to remove the mural."
But the work lived on in people's words and action even after it was gone, generating discussion and controversy.
"It was good that there was a debate about art on campus, that's always valuable," said Abramson, adding that the mural's on-campus presence may have encouraged students to look at the rest of Fairey's work in context at the ICA.
On the wall where the mural had been, the conversation continued. Members of the EPIIC class came together outside of class and built a frame on the wall with a note inside, imploring the campus to use the space for intelligent expression.
Teichman recalled what happened next. "Somebody destroyed the frame, rang the doorbell here, and ran away leaving the broken frame with a note saying ‘You missed the point.' Frankly, I got the point."
Teichman was disappointed with this reaction to what he felt was his class's heartening response to the removal of the mural.
Alonzo recalled how, after that point, the imagery on the wall continued to evolve. He happened to be on campus after someone chalked a large fish on the wall with a speech bubble next to it containing an image of Alan Greenspan.
The apparent dynamism of the conversation on the wall excited Alonzo. "Not only did [Fairey] elicit a response from the student body, he energized that wall to remain a platform for some kind of discussion, turning it into a bulletin board for people with ideas."
On July 30, Fairey returned to Tufts to create a mural with new images, which many on campus believe is visually and conceptually stronger than his previous one.
Fairey completed the mural as he was wrapping up the ICA show, several weeks after criminal charges relating to his work throughout the city had been dropped.
Schlegel expects that this work, too, will be ephemeral. "Ultimately, this mural is temporary, and after it is eventually removed, the memory of the work and the dialogue it generated will be its primary contribution to the life of this campus."
A student who asked to remain anonymous remains proud of the work done by "Guerilla Performance Art," the class which put posters over Fairey's original mural. "The student response was mixed but ultimately positive as it created a lively discourse, which took place both on the wall, in the Daily, online and in dorms and dining halls across campus," he said.
Schegel hopes the new mural will incite further discussion -- though perhaps not one that will culminate in altering the mural. "Perhaps because Fairey's source imagery is so concealed, altered and aestheticized, a mural like ours sends mixed messages in its ambiguous, double-edged, or satirical imagery about state control, surveillance and democracy," she said.
Abramson believes that, regardless of the controversy, the mural was an important step for the university. "Last spring, it was quite a lot to have Shepard Fairey come here and complete the public art on the library roof."
"Hopefully there will be more of that," Abramson added, "and the students will continue to engage in it."
