I thought it would be a good idea to share an essay I wrote about the Mexican Muralist. It is not an essay that talks about what the muralist are or did, but rather how their work was shaped into a culture by official government. The sharing of this essay is simply to do that..share. I am by no means claiming this writing as a thesis, nor as a means to an end. Perhaps it would just taste good with your coffee on a bored and lonely morning....
Hope its worth the read..
Mexican muralism has become known as revolutionary art. Its visual language has become a symbol for
Mexicanidad, labeling what is Mexican.
This idealization of a new Mexican culture was not created by accident,
rather it was strategically imposed onto the country. In my essay, I will speak about the
networks/connections that took place by President Alvaro Obregon, the minister
of public education- Jose Vasconcelos, and the Mexican Muralist “los tres
grandes” (Jose Clemente Orozco, Diego Rivera, and David Alfaro Siqueiros) after
the Mexican Revolution. In addition, I
will write about how murals and museums played a large role in creating the
concept of mestizaje, a cultural blending between Europeans and the Indigenous
population (Spanish and Indians) to unify the country.
General Alvaro Obregon became president in 1920, following
the conclusion of the Mexican Revolution.
According to Robin Adele Greely in her article titled Muralism and
the States in the Post-Revolution Mexico, Obregon realized that the country
needed to be reconstructed due to its devastating effects of the war, however
the reconstruction did not solely depend on economic recovery but it also
required a “comprehensive manipulation of symbols of Mexican identity on both
cultural and political levels“. In his
first year of office Obregon appointed philosopher Jose Vasconcelos as Minister
of Public Education.
Vasconcelo’s initiated a program with the concept of
Mestizaje. He believed that the
artist-intellectual was a “redeemer” for the oppressed. “Art and knowledge must serve to improve the
condition of the people”- Vasconcelos.
It is important to note that Vasconcelos was a Criollo, a Mexican of pure Spanish blood with a
philosophy that dealt with the idea that racially mixed people were superior to
pure races. Obregon and Vasconcelos both
were true believers in the political power that the arts possessed.
In the book Mural Paintings and Social revolution in Mexico,
the author Leonard Folgariat explains that in the pursuit of Vasconcelos
nationalistic goal to define what is Mexico, he was granted by Obregon 33
million pesos and an extra 30 thousand pesos to be spent at his
discretion. Vasconcelos used the money
to decorate buildings with mural paintings.
In a letter from Vasconcelos to Alma Reed an American
researcher of Mexican art, he wrote “ the majority of the painters under our
department worked under orders. Left to himself, the painter does not know what
to do with his brush…..”. By
commissioning Muralist to deliver his message of Mestizaje he believed that the
spirit of the people would be lifted.
The artist hired were many, however I will focus mostly on David Alfaro
Siqueiros, Jose Clemente Orozco and Diego Rivera.
The murals produced during 1920-24 strategically omitted
violent imagery or any reference to the Revolution. The murals became more of a history
allegorical type of paintings. A perfect
example of such style may be found in Diego Rivera’s mural titled Creation
(1922-23).
Located at the National Preparatory School in Mexico, the
mural speaks about the biblical story of Adam and Eve. Its figurative imagery relates very closely
to a Italian classical style. However
the figures seem to be depicted as a cross breed between the two cultures-
European and the Indigenous. Anna
Indych-Lopez stated in her article titled Horrores, that the mural
visually had to deny the horrors of the war.
Rivera’s indegenismo style of painting- chose not to represent
revolutionary acts to the public. Again,
public murals that were commissioned by Vasconcelos prohibited the use of
violent imagery.
In the article titled Muralism and the State in
Post-Revolution Mexico, the author Greely stated that the mural by Rivera
titled Creation “emerged as the principal symbol of Vasconcelos’
mystical nationalism…in order to give art a redemptive, regenerative role in
post-Revolutionary Mexico“. Vasconcelos
was also quoted saying “Diego danced to the tune that I played!…Rivera painted
in a docile and submissive manner whatever he was ordered to.”
Another Example of a Mural that was dictated by the
Vasconcelos is Maternity. This
mural was painted by Jose Clemente Orozco, at the National Preparatory School
in Mexico City. Maternity May be
described as a mural that addresses Italian Renaissance paintings. It is a figurative mural with six women and a
baby that takes center stage. The blonde
Madonna is sitting in the middle of the mural nude and holding a baby. The
other women are depicted as angels and are hovering over the Madonna. This
mural similar to Creation by Diego Rivera, does not make any reference
to violence. Instead it reflects on a
non-indigenous beauty, a nude female figure with European features and blonde
hair. The attention that highlights
European beauty is what makes Orozco’s mural different than Riveras‘.
Robin Adele Greely describes three reasons that Obregon and
Vasconcelos created government patronage for.
First, it was to communicate to the world that Mexico was modernizing,
Secondly, to “use Muralism internally to construct an ideology of cross-class
national consensus” and Thirdly to include the peasantry masses as a symbol of
a unified state. This symbol would be
urban and rural and therefore unifying the classes under the term
Mexicanidad. The Obregon and Vasconcelos
artistic strategy lasted less than four years.
After 1923, Vasconcelos artistic dictatorship and his
strategy ultimately came to an end with Obregon term in office. Obregon was subjected to internal and
external political and economical pressures and in 1924 Obregon was forced to
name Plutarco Elias Calles as his successor.
In addition, Vasconcelos went into exile and Obregon put a halt to all
the mural projects.
December 9, 1923 dates the genesis of El Machete, the
Syndicate of Technical Workers, Painters and Sculptures. “To the Indian race humiliated for centuries;
to soldiers made executioners by the praetorians; to workers and peasants
beaten by the greed of the rich; to intellectuals uncorrupted by the
bourgeoisie” - excerpt from the
manifesto. The author of the content was
David Alfaro Siqueiros and among the signers were Xavier Guerrero, Fermin
Revueltas, Diego Rivera, Ramon Guadarrama, Jose Clemente Orozco, German Cueto,
and Carlos Merida.
It is important to
note that shortly before Vasconcelos gets forced into exile, the manifesto El
Machete is published. Was the
manifesto a response by the unionized artist to the unstable Mexican Government
that they would no longer have their art context be corrupted? Lets remember that at this time artists were
no longer receiving any patronage from the Mexican Government so does that show
that the Manifesto posed little (if any risk) in being published. Meaning that if patronage was already cancelled
then they had nothing to lose with their rebellious manifesto. Or perhaps the Muralist felt that enough was
enough and they would no longer put up with the governments artistic
dictatorship. I believe this is a
question worth asking.
During the Post-Vasconcelos era the muralist began individual
endeavors. According to Greely and other
sources Orozco began his series of drawings, Horrors of the revolution,
which were the exact counter part of the murals previously painted. Rivera continued to develop his stylized, now
iconic images of workers and peasants.
Siqueiros put away his brush and decided to engage into political
activism. It is also noted by Greely
that Orozco exiled himself into the United States.
The art work that is created after 1924 is important to
discuss because it reflects the artists true intentions to paint “for the
people” of Mexico and it highlights their feelings of turmoil after the
revolution. This is especially true for
Orozco and Siqueiros, since they both witnessed the revolution first hand. According to author Anna Indych-Lopez, Orozco
became an illustrator for a newspaper called La Vanguardia, during the
Mexican revolution. This gives evidence
that Orozco lived the revolution at first hand.
Los Horrores de la Revolucion was a series of ink drawings that
Orozco created as a commissioned piece for Anita Brenner, an American
journalist and writer of Mexican artist.
These drawing were produced from 1926-1928. Orozco finally makes the revolution his
subject matter in his art and depicts it as truth- violent and bloody.
Orozco’s ink drawing series may easily be compared with Goya’s,
Los Desastres de la Guerra (The Disasters of War). The Rape, is a black and white drawing
from the series that depicts a half-naked women, pinned to the floor by
soldier. A bottle, and two soldier hats
are found on the floor of the room where the disaster took place. The drawing contains a lot of tension and
violence described as the visual destruction of the revolution by Anna
Indych-Lopez.
While Orozco was creating his commissioned in drawings, Diego
Rivera was could be found in The United States.
In December 1931, Rivera had an exhibition at the new Museum of Modern
Art in New York City. “His exhibition at
the preeminent museum represents one of the most significant events of the
1930s through which to examine not only his appeal to audiences in the United
States but also the way Mexican muralism came to be understood by and exhibited
and promoted to U.S. residents.”-Anna Indych-Lopez .
Finally in 1928, Alvaro Obregon’s successor Plutarco Elias
Calles started a campaign for social renewal, the last year of his presidential
term. His idea for social unification
was to finish rebuilding the Palace of Fine Arts. The goal for the palace was to house national
dance, theater, music, and fine art.
If we interpret the manifesto El Machete correctly it
would be clear to assume that the muralist had a straight-forward agenda since
before of the inauguration of the Palace of Fine Art in Mexico City. In their declaration they stated they would
no longer be subordinated by government and they would not allow their subject
matter to be corrupted.
Three of the signers of the manifest El Machete would
eventually emerge as Los Tres Grandes.
Diego Rivera, David Alfaro Siqueiros, and Jose Clemente Orozco. However according to Mark Coffey in his book
titled How a Revolutionary Art Became Official Culture the Mexican
government commissioned Jose Clemente Orozco and Diego Rivera to execute
permanent frescos in the palace.
However, throughout the decades more muralist such as David Alfaro
Siqueiros, Rufino Tamayo and Jorge Gonzalez Camarena would also added to the
list of commissioned artists.
The Palace of Fine Arts in Mexico City was inaugurated on
September 29, 1934. Permanently painted
at the Palace of Fine Arts in Mexico City is the controversial Rockefeller
Mural or Man at the Crossroads. The
infamous controversy over the portrait of Lenin that Rivera painted in the New
York version of the Mural was destroyed.
However, Rivera was given an area inside the palace to re-execute the
mural.
In the Palace you will also find the mural titled Catharsis
painted by Orozco. The mural contains
elements of the Futurist art genre.
Mechanical destruction, prostitution, and violence would be the best way
to describe its subject matter. Orozco’s
mural is very different that Rivera’s in a couple different manners. Orozco’s mural deals with a more
confrontational and negative view of contemporary Mexico, while Rivera deals more
with agriculture and symbols.
Alejandro Anreus argues in his article Los Tres Grandes,
that although the three muralist were tied by the manifesto and its ideology-
they individually had radically different views of art and politics. And as a result they chose to rarely been
seen together in public.
In 1947, Mexican President Miguel Aleman was able to
successfully have their pictures taken side by side. However the picture taken was a production of
a publicity stunt done by the President to represent them as a trinity of
Mexican mural painters, as described by Anreus.
Furthermore, Anreus also mentions how the three muralist were always in
argument with each other since they were divided by their profound ideologies
and stylistic differences.
Anreus uses a an article written by Siqueiros to continue his
argument of the feud between the three muralist. The article was published on May 29, 1934,
ten years after the manifesto was signed.
According to Anreus, Siqueiros defined Rivera’s art as “retarded,
incapable of working outside the traditional fresco, and lacking the
technically inventive capacity needed for revolutionary art“.
In December of 1935, Rivera published a retaliation to
Siqueiros article. The response was
published in Argentina’s magazine Claridad. Rivera calls Siqueiros an “opportunist,…. and
an artist who had not yet produced a consistent body of work in a mural format“. Rivera defends his work by stating that it
is his right to sell to capitalist patrons, because this would allow light to
shine on his work in a non-socialist world.
Ultimately, the feud although important to note does not
necessarily depict the muralist as enemies.
At Rivera’s death, Siqueiros praised his colleague and in addition
according to Arneus each muralist wrote or dedicated autobiographies or memoirs
and felt strongly that in writing they could set the record straight.
What is interesting about this feud between Rivera and
Siqueiros is that there is a clear path of connection that may be seen as a
residue of the event. From Siqueiros
article being published in the issue of New Masses Rivera’s response in Claridad
magazine in Argentina. This linage of
writing indicates that publicity was active for the Muralist in the
Americas.
Siqueiros was the only muralist that actually fought in the
Mexican Revolution. Therefore, it may be
easier for a muralist viewer to note the differences in Siqueiros and Rivera’s
visual language. For example, In
Siqueiros mural From the Porfiriato to the Revolution is a perfect
example of Siqueiros ideology. The mural
symbolizes the “will of the people”.
Composed with peasants gathering
and mobilizing with sticks as weapons to confront the soldiers the mural stands
as a symbol for revolt. The workers
faces are painted with anguish as in stating enough is enough, the composition
contains direction given by a fallen peasant that is now being carried by the
marching masses.
If any muralist carried a more straight-forward depiction of
Mestizaje, that would be Diego Rivera.
Diego Rivera arguably the most popular of the three big muralist focused
his murals on meshing peasants and workers a cross-class ideology that
Vasconcelos concept dealt with. As
stated before Rivera was in Europe during the Revolution. He was seen as a Mexican painter that adopted
a French style and a painter that was disconnected with his country. Even in the beginning of the patronage
provided by Vasconcelos, Rivera was forced to live in an rural town for a month
in an attempt to have him re-connect with his country. Only after that was he able to receive
patronage from Obregon and Vasconcelos.
In Conclusion, Mexican muralism has proven to be one of the
greatest modern art movements of the twentieth century. Its genesis may even be compared to the
Parisian Academy, which its main purpose was to produce propaganda. President Alvaro Obregon and philosopher Jose
Vasconcelos Mestizaje concept initiated a visual language that became a
national identity for Mexico.
The Mestizaje concept was initially intended to hide the true
realities of an unstable and corrupted Mexican government by providing “ideal images” of cross-class
integration to the public. By painting murals that omitted violent images and
visually represented cross-class assimilation, it was thought that peasants and
workers were less likely to revolt against its government.
Vasoconcelos and Obregons initial project became the origin
of the Mexican mural movement. Their
network and the patronage that they provided to the artist allowed for artist
to meet and work together.
Coincidentally or not, after the conclusion of Obregons presidency in
1924 mural artists unionized and wrote a manifesto title El Machete. This manifesto was created to represent the
artists ideals and to state the fact that they would no longer be corrupted by
their patrons and that they were making murals “for the people”.
It is made clear in Anreus article that “los tres grandes”
ideologies were not the same and that the idea of authenticity also came into
question. Diego Rivera was in Europe
when the revolution was taking place, Jose Clemente Orozco participated in the
revolution as a cartoonist for a magazine titled La Vanguardia , and
David Alfaro Siqueiros was the only muralist to have fought in the war. This created tension between the three
muralist as to who’s art was more valid.
Those facts call into question on how in today’s art world “los
tres grandes” or the big three are packaged together as a movement. Similar to Leja’s argument on how Abstract
Expressionism was packaged so that it was made easier for the rest of the world
to acknowledge as powerful and important.
It was too important for Mexico to be able to convey to the world that
they were civilized and modern. And they
did that by unifying the muralist into one group that represented Mexicanidad-
what it means to be Mexican.
Mexican culture has always been visual rather than
literary. Perhaps this is the reason why
Mexican muralism was able to be transformed into a revolutionary art form that
became official culture.
***pictures were taken by me during my visit to Mexico City in 2014. I added them to make the reading more fun, but they do not necessarily correspond to the essay***
