In 1932, Diego Rivera was commissioned to create what is arguably his most famous and controversial fresco, Man at the Crossroads at Rockefeller Center. During this time, the United States was facing a threat from Communist ideas that appealed to the working class, which had been severely affected by the Great Depression. Communism was viewed by many Americans as a serious threat to capitalism and their current way of life. Rivera’s mural caused so much debate because of his use of numerous Communist elements, especially a portrait of Soviet revolutionary, Vladimir Lenin. Although Rockefeller was a strong supporter of Rivera, the artist’s refusal to remove the image of Lenin forced him to order the destruction of the mural in 1934. Not long after the mural was destroyed, the Mexican government commissioned Rivera to recreate Man at the Crossroads in the Palace of Fine Arts in Mexico City. The fact that Rivera’s fresco could be rejected so vigorously by one country and embraced by another, presents interesting questions about who authorizes and supports the production of public art. Why is art censored on some occasions? Ultimately, public art is almost always attached to the interests of the individuals who have the monetary resources to support its creation.

Due to its critical nature,  Man at the Crossroads was praised by Mexican stakeholders and denounced by American stakeholders, exemplifying how the choice of whether or not to commission public art is deeply entrenched in the interests of individuals who have money. The fresco is characterized by having two polarizing sides. On the left side of the panel, Rivera included images of threatening looking soldiers who are ready to attack, a group of policemen assaulting protestors, wealthy individuals indulging in frivolous habits, and even venereal disease microbes. On the right side of the panel, Rivera included images of peaceful protestors with red Communist flags, and he even included an image of Vladimir Lenin holding hands with several workers (Paquette, 144). When these two sides are put together, it is clear that the left side is portrayed as the “evil” capitalists that bring war and destruction, indulge in bad habits, and refuse to protect workers’ rights; however, the right side presents an “enlightened” Communist side that will bring peace and fight for the common people. These two sides are in clear tension with one another, constituting a “provocatively bipolar view of U.S. capitalism and Soviet Communism” (Paquette, Revolutionary Ideologies). Because the United States was fighting an ideological war against Communism during this time period, it is clear that Rivera’s Fresco presented a threat to the status quo of the time.  Mexico however, was instituting a new vision for the future of the country during this time. However, in the early 1930s, Mexico was instituting the “Six Year Plan”, which asserted the government’s commitment to serve the interests of the working class (Paquette, 144). Since Man at Crossroads conflicted with one side’s interests while coinciding with the other’s, it was easy for Rockefeller to simply destroy the mural in his building, and equally as easy for the Mexican government to commission its recreation. The fact that the future of Rivera’s piece depended on who agreed with its message, reinforces the idea that public art is dependent on the interests of the people with resources.

Although public art is almost always attached to other people’s interests, Banksy’s work is an example of this form of art without any strings attached. Unlike artists such as Rivera, who seek to get commissions from governments or private individuals, Banksy takes his work directly to the streets. Rather than waiting for someone to allocate some money to paint something in a specific location, Banksy creates art in publicly visible surfaces without asking permission beforehand. Like Rivera, Banksy also tries to convey a message and tries to make people think about certain issues; in fact, Banksy has tackled a wide range of social issues such as immigration, poverty, and corruption. What differentiates Banksy’s work from Rivera’s, is that Banksy is not dependent on whether the person that commissioned the piece agrees with its message, since no one commissions Banksy’s work. In the book Mapping the Terrain, Judith Baca argues that “Public art could be inseparable from the daily life of public space, it could have a function within the community and even provide a venue for their voices” (Baca, 135). Banksy’s work is a perfect example of what Baca is trying to say about Public art, since it blends with the environment and serves as a platform to ignite discussions about various topics.

Most public art will almost always be bound to the interests of whomever is paying the artist, but there are exceptions. Rivera’s Man at Crossroads was initially destroyed by Rockefeller because the Communist elements would not be tolerated in the United States at the time, but was later recreated by the Mexican government because its message aligned to the country’s new socialist direction. Banksy’s work however, is a wonderful example of how art does not necessarily have to be attached to someone else’s interests. Banksy’s brilliant, spontaneous and sometimes playful works, still carry powerful messages without depending on someone else’s commission. Public art will never be entirely free from other’s interests, since every public surface is owned by someone, but it can still be a powerful platform that can start conversations about serious issues that might otherwise go unnoticed.

 

Works Cited

  • Paquette, Catha. “Revolutionary” Ideologies and Discursive Struggle: Diego Rivera’s 1934 Mural Commission at the Palace of Fine Arts.” Latin Americanist, vol. 54, no. 4, Dec. 2010, pp. 143-162. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/j.1557-203X.2010.01095.x.
  • Lacy, Suzanne. Mapping the Terrain: New Genre Public Art. Seattle, Wash: Bay Press, 1995. Print, pp.131-138