Revolutionary art as official culture- An essay/ investigation on the impact of Mexican Murals on the country.

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***