March 2017 – Winter 2017 Seminar Blog

Entry 5

On My Final Reflections

This course re-lit my interest in art history, and I don’t know if I’ll be able to let go of that. I loved learning about every detail of these artist’s lives, hearing what other people had to say about them, and connecting it all to try to give definition to society at specific points in history. Throughout this course, I often found myself thinking of the Big Three Mexican mural artists’ attitudes in distinct theories.

Jose Clemente Orozco praised nothing; he painted all parts of the world with a critical eye, from the struggling revolutionary populations in blind chaotic revolt to the oppressor’s grasping opportunistic greed.
David Alfaro Siqueiros praised some things; his fervent support of Communism and his radical beliefs set him on one side of social progress. His art had an extreme modern quality, and his numerous manifestos showed his love of proclaiming the virtues of certain beliefs.
Diego M. Rivera praised everything; he painted the whole world, from the traditional indigenous to the futuristic industrial, with enamored devotion. His infatuation with the world was apparent in his style, as he carried objects past the point of realism to a point of expressionistic fidelity. Technology, nature, wars, music, people, and social systems all came alive in his work, humming with vitality and mechanical functionality. He saw the world, as we all do, in his own way and he loved it all. This personal style was a manifestation of this, and the seeming contradiction of his personal beliefs is simply an authentication of his infatuation with the world.

I think this is where my fascination with Diego Rivera comes from. I think of myself like this, in the way that while I am critical of everything, I love it all. I think that in reality, all 3 of these artists share that quality and “theory”. But to me, Rivera was the one who showed it the most, and never held himself back from his pursuit of the truth.

Entry 4

On the Final Draft of My Research Paper

This term, my writing process was no doubt most difficult between the initial draft of my research paper and the final draft. I’d never written a research paper of this length before, and at the same time as I really wanted to be thorough I also wasn’t quite sure what depth was appropriate. I presented a lot of ideas, because I really enjoyed my research and learned a ton of interesting information that I wanted to bring up. My main challenge was how to make all of these points come together to contribute to a more streamlined idea. I think I tackled this mostly by presenting them in an order that made the most sense to me. This was often chronological, in regards to Rivera’s time in Europe, but it also involved making sure transitions to other less related ideas were smooth. I wanted to bridge the gap between Rivera’s experience with European Cubism and his later mural work in Mexico and the U.S. I’m not sure how effectively I did this, but I tried to do it through a discussion of his aesthetic style that carried over from Europe to his work in the Americas. Finally, I wanted a conclusion that came back to the ideas in my first paragraph but also connected these ideas to a broader significance, which was the idea of the role of an “artist” in society. I argued that an artist’s place is not to choose or present moral judgement, but to express one’s unique view of the world and all its truths. Rivera never really chose a side; he was constantly writing political and social paradoxes with his life. However, I wanted to argue that this was essential to his role as an artist, and that we as viewers of his work shouldn’t focus on his political message. Instead, we should take his work as a vital and colorful exhibition of the thoughts and visions of a man who lived his life in pursuit of constantly seeing more. We should take his scores of experiences as support for his ideas, and his credibility comes from these sometimes contradictory involvement with many people, places, and ideas.

Discussion 7: On Cradle Will Rock and Art & Power

I think the film Cradle Will Rock is a really great piece of cultural and historical expression. While it’s a bit dense and confusing, it’s a really wonderful portrait of an influential and transcendent moment in time, as well as a compelling celebration of humanity’s goodness.

I think one of the greatest things about the film is how its technical production was so effective in communicating feelings to viewers. The whole thing is fast-paced and chaotic, just like the time in which it is set. The turnover time between lines is very short, so the conversations almost seem sped up. Throughout the movie, the camera moves with the action, and this motion is the main driver of the plot. Because of this, scenes bleed together, and each individual storyline seems connected. At some points, it quite literally zooms out of one scene so that we can see another larger scene. In this way, the movie gives the feeling that viewers are watching a play. Since the movie is essentially about a play, this is quite effective in making the audience feel connected to the theme.

There are definitely also a few aspects of the movie that hinder its message. First, the fast pace of the scenes is really hard to keep track of. I’ve watched this movie several times now, and I think it took a few times for me to really understand some things, simply because I missed certain details because they happened so fast. Another byproduct of this has to do with the quick turnaround of the spoken lines. When the characters talked, I felt as if I could hear the script through them. And I don’t think this necessarily had to do with the actors’ capabilities, but more to do with the way the script was written. It felt staged, which I don’t doubt was intentional, but which also just felt a bit hollow. For this reason, and because the movie didn’t delve into any one character’s life especially deeply, I didn’t feel very empathetic at any moment. I never really felt very attached or very involved. Many of the characters felt like stereotypes, which made the film feel a bit more like a history lesson than a drama.

Nonetheless, the movie was really great at illustrating a specific moment in time very clearly. I also think, just like Tim Robbins’ essay mentions, that the final production of the play does make a spectacular ending to the film. It wraps everything up nicely – all the things I hadn’t been able to keep track of before – and it is finally an emotional moment. The courage it took those actors to stand up like that, as well as the irony and humor in the play, is really compelling. The whole film does seem like it’s never stopping, rushing forward, leading up to this moment. Which is in its own way effective. I only wish that I had more emotional moments with deeper characters, so that I may have felt more involved as a viewer.

Discussion 6: On Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera

I think Taymor’s portrayal of the life of Frida Kahlo is beautiful. It strengths lie in its execution; its marvelously well-made and all the cinematography choices add to the themes of the plot. It’s a wonderfully romantic version of the life of a well-known artist, and it manages to capture a Frida spirit without pinning her down. I loved the film for a long time, but reading the film review after watching it for class changed my opinion of it a great deal. I simply don’t think it gives her the credit she deserves as an artist. It treats her as a woman, and defines her as Rivera’s wife more often than as herself. Throughout the film, she is shown in pain, and much of this pain stems from her relationship with Rivera. Every time he cheats on her or they fight, she is shown lapsing into a melancholy state of disenchantment accompanied by some traditional Mexican musical number. This may have been very real in her life, but I think it was a little pointless to focus on in a film about Frida herself.

Similarly, Frida’s artwork and persona all seemed to stem from her deep sense of herself and her inward gaze. Her paintings were literally “brought to life” – stylistically gorgeous, but leaving viewers with the express idea that her artwork was just about herself. True, her paintings were personal, especially compared to Rivera’s über-political artwork. But she was an artist, and art is rarely purely personal. She had her own ideas and her own take on life and the world in a broader sense, which she incorporated into her work. Those should have been given just as much attention as her personal emotions in the film.

However, the movie did a great job at capturing certain things. The music, the costume design, the cinematography and the design choices all spoke to a Mexican-ness that is important to the portrayal. Overall, I think the best part of the film was Selma Hayek’s performance as Frida. She did a wonderful job portraying her playfulness, her strength, her ability to be simultaneously masculine and feminine, and her depth as a person.

Discussion 5: Revolutionary Mexican Artists

I think that in terms of pure output, Orozco was the most “revolutionary” of los tres grandes. Meaning that he created work that was the most effective in bringing about revolutionary thought and eventually action. While Rivera’s work was more openly political and firm in ideology, he lacked a clear revolutionary energy. Siqueiros, on the other hand, was plenty innovative and aggressive with his ideas, but he lacked coherence and dedication to any one idea. Orozco, however, managed to conquer both of these issues by refusing to pick a political dogma and instead taking the side of the constant individual revolutionary, criticizing every side. By virtue of not promoting any one idea, his work was far less easy to criticize, and much easier to listen to.

The murals Orozco painted often depicted several sides in tension, like in The Rebellion of Man and Hidalgo. In both of these murals, each side is depicted in chaos in his via negativa. His approach to the concepts of oppressor vs oppressed and tyranny vs revolution paralleled his treatment of the contrasting “ideal” and “reality”. His ideology stemmed from an version of libertarianism that drew from anarchy and valued the freedoms of the individual over the cause of any party. Because of this, he painted the time he lived in – a time of many parties dueling and fighting over different dogmas – as it was (chaos). His style works for this purpose; it’s a highly emotional aesthetic packed with energy, tension, motion, and bright colors that never fails to impact a viewer. Through a fiery and powerful aesthetic including heavy symbolism, he creates a disgust for the masses which ultimately inspires the only true revolution, which comes from individual independence of thought.

entry 3

On My First Research Paper Draft

I wrote my research paper draft in two sittings.

The first time was at 8:00 am in Novack Café, working from my initial proposal. This was the day that the first two pages were due, so we could discuss our papers in peer groups. I started with my introduction, in which I fleshed out my goals and guiding ideas for the first time. I had a good progression, I thought, from the importance of my topic, to my position on it, to the questions I was trying to find answers to. After my intro, I started summarizing information I’d read in the biography I checked out, and applying it to my topic.

I took notes as I read the biography, which was really helpful. The way I went about this was important. I wrote down quotes that I thought would be useful and that were pertinent to my topic, making sure to record page numbers. I also jotted down important details about Rivera’s life that seemed like they would have influenced his later work. I found his early years so interesting, because they were obviously pretty formative, and his career as an artist started at such a young age. This information has been very helpful as I try to form ideas about the influence of his art in Mexico. However, one of the things I worry about is drawing too heavily from one source. Once I read my other books more thoroughly, I think I’ll be able to provide more of a range of information that can support more balanced ideas.

The second sitting was from about 11:00 am to 1:30 pm on a Saturday, on the upstairs floor of the dining hall. It was remarkably productive. (These morning hours seem to be the best times by far for me to work) I incorporated more of my notes from the biography into the paper, expanding on my previous ideas, and I also analyzed one of the works I included as a source in my initial proposal. I started looking at his cubist works, as I think this will make up an important chunk of my paper, but I didn’t have a ton of time so that will be a big part of what I investigate in the coming days.

entry 2

On Finding Sources

Collecting sources on a topic that involves the visual arts is a bit more complex than I’m used to. I’m beginning to see that original artworks will compose a large part of my bibliography. Especially because I’m analyzing Rivera’s style, these primary sources are important in creating a credible argument. If readers can see exactly what I’m talking about, my points will seem much more relevant.

For my first annotated bibliography, I used two sources that were pieces of art. The first was a cubist painting by Rivera, and the second was part of a later mural of his in Cuernavaca. In finding these sources, I had to first write out my ideas so I’d see what I needed. As I explained my research questions and laid out the information I was interested in finding, the works that I needed to analyze became more clear. I think this happens not just with artworks and primary sources, but with all reference material during the research/writing process. We learn a little bit, and then we ask questions. We form these questions into potential ideas, and then we investigate more deeply. The ideas, though, are what guide our research. So, before I found sources, I had to have an idea of what I might want to say or at least ask.

By the time I finished coming up with my research proposal, I had a good idea of what I wanted to find out. Namely, I wanted to learn more about Rivera’s experience with European modernism, and his cubist period. I went for in-print sources because books seemed the most credible, and were both full of interesting perspectives and a wealth of information. I checked out a biography, “Rivera as Epic Modernist”, and two books on Rivera’s cubist works that were full of images. This was a good starting place to establish and hone my guiding research questions, and to prompt a search for more sources. Reading the biography has put additional questions in my mind, and in the time before my final paper is due I will find a few more sources to answer them. After considering this information, which is to a large extent primary source material, I will look for a scholarly opinions on my topics to broaden my context and bounce my ideas off of established opinions. However, I think it’s important to start with primary sources so that we form our own ideas.