To the Editor:
Michael Stroup's op-ed raises a number of interesting points about the future of the Hovey Murals ("What About the Hovey Murals?," March 6).
While I agree with him that art should be contextualized and qualified rather than censored, I disagree with his assertion that the murals are not racist because they constitute art.
Art can have -- and more often than not, does have -- an agenda and a voice. Art can be racist (minstrel shows and blackface), anti-Semitic (recent political cartoons published in Middle Eastern papers), feminist (Judy Chicago's "Dinner Party" installation) or nationalistic (Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will").
All of the above examples are art, yet they all convey a message. The Hovey Murals do the same, and while the message should certainly not be censored, nor should its existence and its racist nature be categorically denied.
Stroup also claims that the portrayal of the naked woman reading a book upside down is not racist because it is accurate and reflects the College's concern with the education of indigenous women.
Ignoring the question of whether the image is racist, his argument that it is accurate is extremely flawed.
The College had no interest in educating women, especially women of color, until the mid-twentieth century.
Additionally, what is accurate about learning in the nude? This woman is being objectified, and not being given a fair and precise representation, as Stroup argues. His use of an image that objectifies women to argue proof of "Dartmouth's noble history" is ironic, but in some senses, appropriate. While this image may be an accurate view of how Dartmouth viewed women, it is far from noble.
I join with Stroup to urge planners to consider the fate of the murals with the destruction of Thayer. This art is an important and problematic part of Dartmouth's history, and deserves to be preserved.
However, I also believe that we should continue to think critically about the art's meaning and context.
