Skip to content

Discussions

Transforming public spaces at Dartmouth College & elsewhere

What is the purpose of public art? What is the significance of an art museum for society? What did the Mexican muralists and/or Walter Beach Humphrey strive to do through their/his mural art? How and where can public art and/or museums make a difference? What purposes do you think art should have in our society? How do the Hovey Murals represent some of the issues we have been discussing about art and society?

Share your thoughts on the significance of public art as a manifestation of culture, an inspiration for debate, and as a potential stimulus toward the transformation of society.

Public art is meant to be for the people, which is the very reason these forms of art, whether its graffiti, street art, or murals, are very accessible. In contrast, museums have more of a reserved feeling to them, in my opinion. The works in museums are packaged and curated, which can heavily differ from public art that is uncensored and sometimes not even commissioned by the government or city. Also, everything in a museum is planned out, from the placards describing the work and the artist to the frames the pictures are put in. In this way, I feel the purpose of art museums is to inform, while uncensored, raw public art is more meant to evoke emotion in a passerby, whether it is a small moment of happiness or to make them stop and think about the nature of this world. Because public art is less restrained, it should be a powerful tool of expression and persuasion. Something extremely important of art itself is the fact that it is harmless, yet it can be so moving and influential.

However, at the same time, the level of emotion or opinion in public art is controlled by who is ultimately behind the art. The more the artist has control, the more controversial it may be, while the more approval from the government or from a private group it needs, the less the artist has control over what or what not to portray in the art. I feel that the more control the government, upper class, or private groups have, the more the public art grows closer to being similar to the art of a museum, more unreachable and distant.

However, today, after viewing the Hovey Murals, I feel my views on censorship, which is the topic of my final paper, have changed. Before, I thought censorship and too much control from the government or a private group was not good and was ironic in America, since the U.S. is known for freedom of expression. However, I feel like the mediation of the viewing of the Hovey murals has been beneficial to Dartmouth. Although a lot of times, the censorship of art is meant for protection of something, such as reputation, I feel in this case, it was justified. If the Hovey Murals were not covered or mediated, it would send a message to the students and the public that this negative view of Native Americans is acceptable. At the same time, I feel it is beneficial that the school did not completely forbid entry into the murals because this shows that the school has accepted its history and will move on from it, using this as a learning opportunity. Thus, the mediation of the Hovey Murals is a form of censorship but for a justified purpose.

Revolutionary Mexican Artists

Which of "Los tres grandes," in your opinion, was a "revolutionary" in the work that he did during his lifetime? Why do you think so? What examples of this artist's work and life would you consider revolutionary? From what you have learned about him, how would you describe the ideology and style of this artist?

Overall, I would describe Siquieros’s ideology and style as radical and fearless. He was not afraid to express his extreme thoughts or experiment with new art forms. He was a revolutionary in his character and in the work that he did. He was very aggressive and the opposite of soft spoken, often picking fights with Rivera over the topic of politics and communism. He also fought in both the Mexican Revolution and the Spanish Civil War and these political and physical battles influenced his work greatly. These fearless, outspoken traits make him a revolutionary because they inspired his controversial ideas. For example, when he painted América Tropical, he depicted the controversial image of a crucified indigenous man being oppressed by an eagle, a blatant critique of American imperialism. But nonetheless, he still painted this image and did not change his ideals and stance even when his mural was whitewashed. I believe this strong will, attitude, and beliefs make him a revolutionary figure.

I also believe that his work is revolutionary, innovative, and radical. He not only incorporates his rebellious ideas into his work, he also paints in a distinct manner. Unlike Rivera and Orozco, Siquieros began to paint on the exterior of buildings and developed a new method to be able to do so. He also incorporated the architecture of the building into his work, such as in the Portrait of the Bourgeoisie, where he incorporated vanishing points into the work. He also had an experimental lab where he would use methods such as splatter painting and dripping in his works. He was not afraid to break free from tradition and try something new, a quality of a revolutionary. 

Revolutionary Mexico

Consider how the Mexican Revolution was instrumental for the inception of the Mexican muralist movement. How did this time of tremendous social change influence the key artistic and political figures of the early twentieth century? Why do you think "Los Tres Grandes" painted what they did on the walls of the National Preparatory School, the Ministry of Education, the National School of Agriculture in Chapingo, at the Palacio Nacional, and in other locations?

Consider how Mariano Azuela's novel, The Underdogs intersects with the mural art that we have been viewing up until now. Are there parallels between the artistic representations of Orozco, Rivera, and Siqueiros, and Azuela's fictional representation of the Mexican Revolution?

The political turmoil definitely had an immense affect on the muralists of this time, especially since what they all hoped to depict was the truth of the situations happening at that time. For example, many, such as Rivera and Orozco drew satire and caricatures. They criticized the aristocrats and the wealth gap by depicting the wealthy trampling and taking advantage of the poor. I think the reason muralists painted these issues is to bring attention to these issues. Unlike a piece of writing or another form of communication, art is universal; everyone can understand and interpret a picture. Especially for public art, the works of Los Tres Grandes would attract a lot of attention to themselves and also an issue they deeply cared about, whether it was their political viewpoint, communism, or. 

I believe there are parallels between Azuela’s novel and the muralists’ works, as both are trying to send a message about the revolution. We can see that a theme of The Underdogs is the question of what the purpose of the revolution is, especially near the end of the novel when everyone seems to be fighting for the sake of fighting or for no reason. This is criticism towards the revolution, and likewise, the murals are often a criticism of society as well. For example, Orozco’s mural at Dartmouth is a criticism of utopia and modernity, with its dark, negative depictions of education, technology, Christ, and the future. Although both written and drawn works are critiques of society, they both also have a lot of pride for their heritage in them. Both the novel and the murals depict and show contrast between the indigenous people and Europeans. In the novel, Macías and his crew are extremely proud of their humble beginnings and seem to judge those, such as Cervantes, who are of lighter skin. In the Dartmouth mural, the indigenous are shown hard at work, laboring and building new technology. 

The Orozco Murals at Dartmouth College

What were your first impressions of the Orozco murals and their location in the Orozco Room in Baker Library? Reflect on the these murals from an aesthetic and historical perspective.

My impression of the Orozco murals is that it is extremely detailed, even the tester panel which I had never seen or heard about before. He put attention and thought into everything, from how the figure in the tester panel faces the window to the warmth or coolness of the colors he was using. From an aesthetic perspective, I really loved the colors and continuation he had through the murals, such as how the mural mirrors each other from across the room, how he conveys similar themes in the west and east sides of the building, as if the west and east sides are reflections of each other. I also thought the colors grew in vibrancy as we moved from one side to the other. The people in Migration were darker, mainly painted in a few cool shades, but Christ on the other side was all different colors and not dark at all.

From a historical perspective, I thought this continuation and reflection of the two sides of the mural could represent the idea of the repetition of history. In the Rochfort book, it talks about how Orozco wanted to represent a single conflict: humanity's endless struggle. I believe that the repetition of themes on the west side, from pre-Columbian times, and east side, from post-Cortez times, show how history repeats itself. I also thought it was really interesting how Orozco chose to present many cultures, from Egyptian to the indigenous people to Spaniards to Americans. Especially in the panels Cortez and the Cross and American Civilization - Anglo-America, I feel this further enforces the idea that history will repeat itself, no matter what kind of people we are.