The Authorization of Public Art

The central question of who authorizes public art is primarily dependent upon who commissioned the particular piece. Was this art commissioned privately or by the government? This question is paramount because it consequently determines who the piece of art was created for. In the case of privately commissioned art, pieces were likely created for the individual who commissioned them. However, a governmentally funded art display is usually created for the citizens of the country and the public as a whole. The Mexican Muralist movement, inspired by Dr. Atl, is a great example of governmentally funded art.

 

Figure 1 Obtained from http://www.1000thingsnyc.com/rockefeller-mural/

The Rockefeller murals in New York City, painted by Diego Rivera and commissioned by Nelson Rockefeller, and the Rockefeller family, are an example of a privately funded piece of public art. These murals were destroyed before their completion because Rockefeller himself, and the people he represented, did not approve of them. Vladimir Lenin, prominently displayed in Rivera’s mural entitled Man at the Crossroads, and the communist overtones ingrained throughout the mural were enough for Rockefeller to reject it. In a scene from the 1999 film written, produced, and directed by Tim Robbins entitled Cradle Will Rock, Nelson Rockefeller is sitting at a dinner table among other elite members of society discussing Rivera’s work among other artists’ controversial works. Rockefeller abhors the idea of painting with political ideologies in mind and much prefers painting to be simply aesthetically pleasing. Thus, Rockefeller wanted to use his power and overarching influence to create a new wave of art without political involvement. The privately commissioned piece was halted after much tribulation simply because Rockefeller did not like it. Therefore, privately funded art, even though it is public, can simply be authorized by the individual funding it and created largely for the individual’s pleasure and not the public. Sharing similar ideas to Dr. Atl, Diego Rivera painted this mural to make a point and neither Atl nor Diego ever shied away from conflict.

 

Figure 2 Obtained from https://www.pinterest.com/pin/35747390763273289/

In contrast, Dr. Atl’s design of the glass curtain in the theatre of Mexico City’s Palace of Fine Arts is an example of governmentally funded art. Eventually constructed by Tiffany’s and originally commissioned by Porfirio Diaz, the glass curtain is a depiction of the Valley of Mexico and its two renowned volcanoes Popocatepetl and Iztaccihuatl (Murillo, Gerardo “Dr. Atl”). Diaz commissioned this piece of art to display the natural beauty in the country of Mexico. It was commissioned for the citizens of Mexico and intended to be seen by all visitors of the extremely popular Palace of Fine Arts. Dr. Atl, who specialized in Mexican landscapes, and especially, volcanoes, was the obvious choice for whom to design this piece (Dr. Atl and the Revolution in Mexico’s Art). Created during the Mexican Revolution, it was intended to evoke a sense of pride in the Mexican people for the beautiful country that they live in. Unlike the mural in Rockefeller Center, this piece of art was created for the enjoyment of the general population of Mexico.

 

Figure 3 Obtained from http://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~hsa23/Art_pages/orozco_rich.html

The Rich Banquet while the Workers Fight, painted by Jose Clemente Orozco in the National Preparatory School in Mexico City, is another example of a governmentally funded piece of art. This highly disputed and controversial piece, commissioned by Jose Vasconcelos, was clearly painted for the common people of Mexico by satirically enticing a sense of criticism, and possibly, hatred towards the wealthy elite. (Jose Clemente Orozco and Diego Rivera – The Murals) Dr. Atl also condemned the elite, especially the intellectual elite, and denounced formal education altogether. Sharing revolutionary sentiments, both Dr. Atl and Orozco avidly promoted the mestizaje. In the 1920’s, the mestizaje culture began to grow exponentially and gain political traction. This power vacuum was contrasted with the elitist group in Mexico, once known as Los Cientificos, which many people, including Orozco, sought to diminish or eliminate. This piece was met with harsh criticism from both ends because of not only the obvious negative portrayal of the glutinous elite, but also the evil-looking lower class depicted in an almost barbaric fashion. Nevertheless, Orozco painted this piece to entice revolutionary sentiment among the common working man in Mexico. If Rockefeller, or any wealthy elite, had commissioned this piece it is practically a foregone conclusion that it would have been destroyed immediately upon creation if not prior to being finished.

 

Figure 4 Obtained from http://www.diegorivera.org/creation.jsp

Through the shift towards Mexican fresco styles, Diego Rivera’s Creation, located in the Bolivar amphitheater further exemplifies how government-funded art serves to appeal and unify people. Rivera’s first ever mural, commissioned by Jose Vasconcelos, is useful to analyze because within the piece one can observe Rivera’s shift in style from European to a newer Mexican style, which he became so famous for. (Rochfort 22) Rivera had just returned from Europe when this mural was painted, and this transition is clearly evident through his mural’s Italian fresco painting composition. (Rochfort 22) However, the middle of the mural is where the piece’s identity begins to shift from European to Mexican tones. The interesting subjects of plant life, animals, and a large mestizo man atop the middle of the mural reflect a uniquely Mexican thematic composition. (Rochfort 22)

This shift is necessary to note because it was aided by the man commissioning many of Rivera’s paintings at the time, Jose Vasconcelos. At the end of 1922, after Rivera had spent most of his previous years overseas in Europe, Vasconcelos sent Rivera to the city of Tehuantepec and to other parts of Mexico so that he could reacquaint himself with his country (Rochfort 22). This move marked the beginning of a drastic change in Rivera’s work: Rivera was painting for the audience of the Mexican people, and the people needed something they could relate to and identify with. European fresco styles were completely foreign to the average uneducated Mexican. Nevertheless, this new, uniquely Mexican style of fresco was naturally appreciated by all of the citizens, and most of the proceeding murals in the 1920’s and 30’s were painted in that manner. While Rivera denounces Dr. Atl’s influence on him, likely because of a personality conflict, it is obvious that the two share similar sentiments toward the mestizaje and the Mexican Revolution. It is likely that Rivera was still influenced by Dr. Atl, most likely during his brief time at the Academy, but the influence was not as profound as with Siqueiros and Orozco.

In essence, public art commissioned by the government evoked a sense of nationalism, whether through beauty or through a controversial political statement. However, private commissioners have the ability to filter art and choose its message. The Mexican government, as well as individual artists themselves, utilized the universal language of art to depict various messages to citizens. Similarly, Mexican nationalism, pioneered by Dr. Atl, inspires artists to produce authentically Mexican Art. Artists like Rivera became renowned for their uniquely Mexican art, and thus, paved the way for the muralist movement. Their ability to paint for a greater cause rather than economic prosperity was necessary in pioneering a change. The government’s role in commissions is circularly intertwined with the nationalism in public art: one inspires the other. Thus, the public art movement marked a crucial moment in the development of Mexican nationalism through mural paintings.

Works Cited:

See annotated bibliography at end of Research Paper