Mural’s loss stirs up energy to preserve art

When a mural depicting the work of late artist Robert E. Smith was painted over the last weekend of February, some local arts supporters began to mobilize, intent on resurrecting the lost work and protecting others.

The mural at 400 W. Walnut St. was covered in gray primer followed by a black topcoat. It was an initiative of the building’s new owner, David Pere, who is moving his business, FMTM LLC, into the space this spring.

FMTM, which stands for From Military to Millionaire, offers counseling to service members who want to obtain financial freedom, according to Pere, and he plans to replace the mural honoring Smith with a patriotic design sporting an eagle as its centerpiece. That work will be by Texas-based muralist and graffiti artist Austin Sepulveda of Osten Art.

Pere admits the mural honoring Smith was not his aesthetic, but he said he did not realize what it meant to others.

“I understand now that that mural was important to a lot of people,” he said. “We were unaware of the significance.”

Nicole Brown, a local real estate agent who was formerly the executive director of Sculpture Walk Springfield, is someone who understood the significance, and upon learning of the removal of the mural honoring the former Springfield resident, she mobilized. She joined Jesse Tyler, a partner with Springfield lifestyle brand SGFCO LLC, to start an effort to bring back the mural in a new location.

It was Tyler’s Feb. 27 social media post that alerted most people to the loss of the mural, which he photographed as it was being painted over.

Tyler called the destruction of the mural egregious.

“There was no reason for it to happen to one of the most important and beloved pieces of public art downtown,” he said. “The absurdity of this is clear. Everyone knows this is wrong the moment you see it.”

Tyler and Brown have been working to morph awareness into action, raising funds for the mural to be reestablished downtown in a different location.

Brown said she started a fund, called the Public Art Protection Fund, with Community Foundation of the Ozarks Inc.

While she doesn’t know how much a new version of the mural will cost, she said the goal is to raise between $25,000 and $50,000.

“If the wall that is chosen needs work, that can often double the price of a mural,” she said. “There are just a lot of unknowns, and we’ve only just started.”

Brown said she is not sure how much money is currently in the fund as she continues to reach out to potential donors.

Tyler thinks some good may have come out of the incident.

“There’s an incredible amount of energy being shown around this, and I’m thinking a lot about how that gets channeled,” he said. “If we don’t want to see these things covered or deteriorating, they must be maintained – not just physically, but with the maintenance of reminding people that they matter to us.”

Among the good things is a desire by Pere to chip in, Tyler said.

“I talked to David and was really encouraged to know he wants to help recreate the mural,” he said.

Tyler and Brown said they want the funds they raise to be released to an established arts nonprofit when work on the mural begins. Tyler said a public GoFundMe will be established once an agreement with a nonprofit is in place, and he anticipates that step will happen in early March.

The two also said money raised beyond the amount needed to recreate the mural can be used to support maintenance and preservation of existing public artworks or to further activities and work that celebrate Smith’s legacy.

As to where the new mural will go, Brown said that’s not yet known, but she and Tyler have been contacted by some downtown building owners with walls that are available.

It’s notable that a community effort is bubbling up to replace the iconic mural, credited to artists Ben Bunch and Ryan Thayer, because it was a community effort that led to the original work, according to Brown.

“It will essentially be the exact same way it was done originally,” she said.

The mural showed a downtown Springfield scene, with whimsical characters like a child on a skateboard, a yellow dog and a man drinking a beer, and even two celebrities: Elvis Presley and Ray Charles.

If the images looked childlike, there’s a reason for that. Smith was classified by the museums that displayed his work as an outsider or folk artist who created beyond the bounds of formal training. His work has been shown in the Museum of American Folk Art, Vanderbilt University, the Springfield Art Museum and multiple galleries, according to an online bio by Jenny Filmer at the website of Marcia Weber Art Objects.

The mural was based on an original painting that is owned by Springfield metal artist Russ RuBert, Brown said, and he has given his permission to use the work as a template for its replacement.

The cooperative aspect of the project appeals to Brown.

“Public art for me has been really cathartic. It’s a way to give back in a really positive way,” she said. “The idea of it is just to make someone feel inspired, make someone’s day better and add color to the gray world out there.”

Larger message
Leslie Forrester, executive director of the Springfield Regional Arts Council Inc., also sees public art as a chance to mobilize for the common good.

“There are plenty of reasons to divide up, but art and culture should not be one of them,” she said. “There’s a mourning piece, but now what do we do next?”

The initiative that’s underway to replace the Smith mural is one step, Forrester said, and another is to join organizations that support the arts or to advocate for support from elected officials.

“This could turn into a beautifully unifying event, if we’re willing for it to be such,” she said.

Forrester sees a place for education – like promoting the fact that a public art asset on private property can add value to a space.

She noted arts organizations also have some learning to do.

“We’re having a lot more conversations internally and with our board, not only to figure out how to replace this mural but to protect art for the long term,” she said.

A better registry of Springfield’s public art is needed, and the registry must serve as an active resource to understand where the lifecycle of a piece of art might be, Forrester said.

“Does it need some love? Is it faded because of the sun? Who’s the artist, and is there an agreement in place?” she said. “There are many things we can be doing as a community to take better care of public art.”

Many pieces of art have become beloved hallmarks of the community, Forrester said, and so the community has to take care of them.

Forrester said many communities have what is often referred to as a percent for art program, considered a standard best practice for robust public art programs by requiring a certain percentage of total budgets for public projects to be set aside for artwork.

“Public art is a piece of Forward SGF,” she said of the city’s comprehensive plan. “At some point we’re going to have to talk about ways to support and maintain it.”

Forrester also believes a public art commission is needed to ensure that there are clear lines of communication within the community about public art assets.

“Occasionally pieces have to come down,” she said. “They have a life cycle, and sometimes they cannot be repaired or restored.”

These occasions require a transparent process, and even for work located on private property, such a commission would be an important resource for guidance and support.

“This incident is a great reminder that we can’t take our eyes off the ball,” Forrester said.

Competing rights
The removal of the Smith mural highlights an issue about competing rights: the rights of private property owners to modify their property and rights inherent to a piece of public art.

It’s not quite as simple as a private owner being able to do whatever is desired with a property, according to Corey Kilburn, an attorney who represents artists on issues pertaining to intellectual property through RoundTable Legal LLC.

Kilburn indicated that some rights exist for public art through the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990.

“Both property owners and artists have rights,” Kilburn said. “The key is where those rights intersect.”

Federal VARA law grants visual artists what it refers to as moral rights, Kilburn said.

“They include a lot of different things – attribution rights, rights from things being distorted or misinterpreted, and the biggest aspect is the right to prevent intentional destruction,” Kilburn said.

He advised that property owners and potential purchasers take care to discover any documents pertaining to agreements between building owners and muralists.

“Sometimes there’s not – things can get a little gray – but VARA rights exist outside of any contract,” he said.

Kilburn noted that not every mural automatically qualifies for VARA protection, but work that has recognized stature through longevity, critical acclaim, media coverage or public engagement may. It’s something that would be determined in a courtroom, he said.

Pere said he tried to exercise due diligence before removing the mural, including, he said, a query to the city’s Planning and Development office to ask if removal of the mural would be permissible.

Pere said he was told that while structural changes would require a permit, there were no code-related issues with paint, so he didn’t have anything to worry about.

Pere said that he could not remember the exact person he consulted.

Springfield Business Journal reached out to the city to verify Pere’s understanding of his right to paint the mural. In an email, Steve Childers, director of Planning and Development, indicated an issue like this should be approached with care. He added that the owner’s understanding of the rules specific to the mural were not entirely accurate.

Childers said there is a difference in the approach to be taken to a building that is on the local historic register and one that is not. The property in question is not, he said.

The city also took up the issue in a March 2 Facebook post, stating, “Property owners have the ability to make decisions about changes to their buildings within the framework of city regulations.”

The post encouraged continued dialogue on the issues raised by the mural’s removal.

“We appreciate the passion community members have for public art and downtown character,” it stated. “We also respect the rights and responsibilities of private property owners.

“Moments like this highlight the importance of ongoing conversations about how we celebrate art, preserve history and support property owners all at the same time.”

Despite all that has transpired, Pere said he probably would not have done anything differently, though he acknowledges that some were deeply disappointed over the loss of the mural.

“I don’t know that I would use the word regret,” he said. “I maybe would have bought a different building, but we were planning to paint a mural on whatever we bought. Do I sympathize with them? Yes. Am I still very proud of what we’re building? Yes, and I still would have made the same choice.”

Pere said he paid $500,000 for the building, and he plans to pay $50,000 for a patriotic mural, plus another $100,000-$150,000 for infill.

Staple in the community
Meg Wagler, muralist and director of mural-focused nonprofit Overlay Inc., said her initial response to the loss of the mural was disappointment at a core level.

“This piece was a staple in the community regardless of whether or not it was liked or revered by all people equally,” she said. “That’s the beauty of public art. If you don’t like a piece, move past it. If you do like it, have brunch nearby; take photos.”

Wagler said diversity of styles is important, and the mural that was covered was an homage to an internationally acclaimed artist and was painted by community members.

“It’s a disappointment as an artist that a building owner acts with such disregard about that artwork, but also as a community member to say that was part of our visual textural fabric of what we have attached identity to,” she said.

As a leader of an arts organization, Wagler said, what this means to her is that there should be some structural guardrails and processes in place to protect artwork.

She added that her organization is available to answer questions if any property owner or prospective buyer wants to ask about best practices for working with existing or planned murals.

For the original Smith mural, which went up in 2000, volunteers raised both funds and brushes to pull it off.

And more than just the community chipped in. Brown said Smith, the artist – in his 70s at the time – was also present during the project, giving his blessing and watching the art emerge.

“My understanding, too, is Robert came out after everyone had left and got on a ladder and fixed things he didn’t like about the piece,” Brown said. “He was part of it. A lot of people don’t realize that.”