It seems totally appropriate the artwork was taken down. It was an attempt to provoke, and then co-opt the result of that provocation through somewhat surreptitious filming to produce another work of art, all hosted in a public place which could not be expected to be an art venue, using emotionally charged imagery of a scale that could not be avoided. I generally appreciate art that is provocative and performance art, but at least a performance artist confronts the reaction to the work through their presence. If an artist wants to do something that emotionally charged, I think they need more skin in the game than this guy had.

All the article claims happened, as far as I see, is that the art was taken down, and the school apologized they didn't take it down earlier. The language the school used in its apology seems a little hyperbolic, but whatever. Assuming this is the sum reaction against the artist (and maybe there are more repercussions), then I think that's all a reasonable risk that an artist takes and the artist should take his punches and move on.

Creative defacement of the art would have been a more interesting in-kind response, but I suppose that ship has sailed.