When considering public art as a form of revolutionary expression, the work of three famous Mexican mural artists, Los Tres Grandes, comes to mind. After the Mexican Revolution, artists José Clemente Orozco, Diego Rivera, and David Alfaro Siqueiros all created works of public art meant to promote the revitalized post-revolutionary national identity. Although the Los Tres Grandes are the most prominent revolutionary muralists, their use of public art draws many parallels to the use of murals by republican artists in Northern Ireland during the Troubles era. The Troubles was a period of volatile political violence in Northern Ireland during the mid to late twentieth century. Much like Los Tres Grandes, Northern Irish nationalist artists used public art to influence their audience towards supporting anti-elitist, revolutionary sentiment. Paralleling the Mexican Revolution, the republicans’ goal of liberating the populous from external society influences and creating an autonomous culture allowed mural art to operate as an effective tool. Before the artist’s work and message can be contextualized, it is necessary to examine of the political makeup that existed at the time of the work’s creation.

The Troubles refers to the period of guerrilla violence between republican and loyalists belligerents over the status of Northern Irish statehood (McAllister 1). The republican sector of the population consists of Irish nationalists who believed that they needed to exercise violence to further their goal of uniting with the Republic of Ireland and freeing themselves from British Rule. On the other end of the spectrum existed the loyalists. With a much larger constituency than the republicans, loyalists wished to remain part of the United Kingdom and were willing to counter the violent actions of the republicans to do so (McAllister 1). Unlike the Mexican Revolution, the Troubles cannot be considered war, as politics eventually outweighed violence.

Despite the Troubles never exceeding sporadic violent skirmishes, the republican cause was rooted in revolution and drew many corollaries to that of the revolutionaries in Mexico. The republican sentiment was that British rule had oppressed their existence and native culture just as Spanish colonialism had in Mexico. British colonialism led to the reduction of the native Irish languages, social values, and political and economic systems. On top of this, seventeenth century penal laws restricted the Irish from inheriting land, holding political office, and numerous other civil restrictions. Considering this history of oppressions, it is understandable that nationalists left under British rule by the 1921 portion of Ireland would feel oppression (Rolston 69). Rolston affirms that despite disparity between British and Irish culture and values, “partition cemented the differences” (71). As the nationalist religious affiliation was by vast majority Catholic compared to the Catholicism practiced by the British and the unionists, there was an institutionalized predetermination to the oppression of nationalists. Children attended separate schools based on religious affiliation, which ultimately resulted in nationalist and unionist schools. On top of this, the alienation felt by the nationalists forced them to practice their traditional Irish forms of sport, song, and dance in private. This separation created a clear social hierarchy where nationalists fell to the bottom in all facets, including in art and expression (70).

The history of mural art usage by republican activists was catalyzed by this aforementioned subordination of nationalist ideals. Prior to the Troubles, unionist sectors of Northern Ireland were free to create murals, and there existed a history of doing so. The 1954 Flags and Emblems act prohibited the public exhibition of nationalist symbols, a restriction greatly limiting the ability for republican artists to express their culture through public art (Rolston 72). Because of these limitations on the freedoms of republican artists, it took numerous events to slowly inspire the production of nationalist art. First, nationalist sympathy found its way onto walls in support of the hunger strike held by nationalist prisoners against the policy of internment. Secondly, the complexity and quantity of murals increased after the death of Bobby Sands, a popular protestor and symbol of the nationalist cause. Thirdly, mural art came into full swing when nationalist political part, Sinn Féin, gained legitimacy as a campaigning body. Overall, nationalist mural art in Northern Ireland trended from more primitive work to full murals containing artistic skill and properties. Despite this, an overreaching aspect of this work is the desperation of the artists to further their cause. This these is summarized by author Joseph McWilliams who states the following:

            “Art emerging from the ‘eye of the storm’ might very well produce more force then feeling. It might even produce propagandist pictures, owing more to art than to painting.” (Rolston 52)

Figure 1 – Belfast, 1981

In August of 1971, after the internment of 300 nationalists who were not afforded a trial, the cultivation of nationalist symbolic artifacts began inside the prison walls (Rolston 74). These modern prisons, called H Blocks, allowed the prisons no materials in which to create letters or art, but the prisoners managed to smuggle out some haphazardly created relics, which helped to spur support for their cause on the outside of the walls (75). Where mural art began was this support for the prisoners. Becoming increasingly defiant, supporters began affixing slogans onto walls. The most common of these slogans was “Smash H Block”, a direct message of support for the internees, as seen in Figure 1 (76). As the volatility of the internment situation increased, more care was exercised in creating the slogans. Activists now began to paint base layers underneath the letters and use stencils to create the lettering (77). At this juncture, the graffiti-like work of the nationalists began to take on a form approaching mural art. A harrowing reminder of the risk that these artists took came with the 1980 death of sixteen-year-old Michael McCartan. McCartan was shot dead by police for painting a single word on a wall. The police officer was found not guilty; he claimed McCartan was holding a gun (102). With this example in mind, it is apparent why artists were reluctant to created expansive art until a full movement was in action.

The next step in the evolution of republican Mural Art came with the death of Bobby Sands. In response to the interment of himself and many others, Sands elected to begin a hunger strike in March 1981 (Rolston 76). Ironically, the image of Sands held by the media displayed him as a friendly, warm character. As Sands became an increasingly popular figure in the media, his reputation grew and the image failed to achieve the Northern Ireland Office’s goal of depicting Sands as

Figure 2 –  Derry, 1981

villainous (77). After Sands’ death resulting from his hunger strike, the number of murals in nationalist areas skyrocketed. As seen in Figure 2, the smiling photograph of Sands used by the media became the face of the hunger strike and of the overall nationalist cause. This marked a transition in republican mural art, as the use of a distinguishable face, elaborate colour and complexity, as well as the sole quantity of murals had not been seen before in nationalist communities (79).

When the hunger strikes ended, the content of the mural art shifted from the hunger strike to political topics. The republican political party, Sinn Féin, had begun to gain political legitimacy and would benefit greatly from the end of the hunger strikes. Those who involved themselves in the cause through supporting various organizations around the hunger strike now had to look outwards. This new outlet for their support became Sinn Féin (Rolston 89). This influx of support resulted in the party gaining significant portions of the nationalist vote. As seen in Figure 3, the political murals maintained the style of mural that became popularized during the hunger strike era.

Figure 3 – Derry, 1983

Within these three stages of republican mural art during the Troubles, it is important to examine what made public art an effective way to convey messages. Rooted in the republican cause is the desire to gain a voice amongst subordination. Exercising this voice publically through murals and slogan painting allowed the artist a way of defiance against their oppressor. As stated by Rolston:

“Murals are part of the process of political definition; their function is mobilization… in the midst of the battle, murals are not just folk artifacts but a crucial factor in the politicization of the community. Politically articulate murals simultaneously become expressions of and creators of community solidarity.” (Rolston 124)

Rolston’s quotation summarizes not only the need for a medium of expression, but also the unifying properties of the murals. The target audience, nationalists whom republicans hoped to win the support of, are liable to be swayed by iconic imagery that exists in an accessible and relatable form. Capitalizing on this, republicans used mural art as a primary form of communication with their audience. This ensured that their message would be conveyed in a widespread manner that did not need to be sought after. Another unifying aspect of the murals was the method in which the art was created.

Unlike Los Tres Grandes in Mexico, the art created by republicans during the Troubles did not stem from professional artists with government commissions. In fact, it was quite the opposite. Due to republican mural art in Northern Ireland being illegal and unsanctioned, the art had to be created quickly and usually involved a team of people. Murals gave civilians interested in supporting the cause a way to do so. Republicans supporters would offer their services to the mural artists by protect the murals from police and dissuading the officers from taking action against numerous amounts of people around the mural during its creation (Rolston 103). Because of this illegality and sporadic creation of art, unaccredited artists created many of the murals, especially those painted early in the Troubles. In terms of known artists, most were untrained. They simply were inspired and saw mural art as a way to contribute to the forwarding of the republican cause. One example of this is Kes, an artist responsible for many of the murals created in the Beechwood Area of Belfast. In a 1985 interview, Kes outlines how the artists goals in stating:

“And rather than just mess the area up with dirty old slogans, just “Smash H Block” and all, all over the place, we could do the same thing, put the same view across, only in an artistic way, and also clean up the area. We’d bring more support from the people seeing the youth aren’t just out to burn and wreck the area.” (98)

Kes’ quotation gives light to the notion that despite the previously outlined transition in the style of art, the ultimate goal of spreading the republican cause remained at the root of all action. Another artist, named Digger, who was also untrained, was responsible for creating the murals in the Ardoyne area of Belfast (98). One of the few artists with training in art was Derry’s Joe Coyle. Despite his training, Coyle worked alongside many untrained young people who assisted him in his work. Because of the situation in which the art was being created, the murals were done by free hand, without the use of mechanical aids, scaffolding, or the popular technique of projecting a slide onto a wall and painting over it (99). Ironically enough, it is the haphazard manner in which the murals were created that allowed them to succeed. As time and resources were almost perpetually scarce, the ambition of the amateur artists allowed them to persevere against odds that a professional artist may not have felt comfortable working under. This form of unregulated mural art existed free of government intervention until after the volatility of the Troubles had subsided.

Prior to the mural art movement manifesting itself with the republicans, unionist mural art existed in a non-controversial form. These murals mainly were painted around the Twelfth of July to celebrate King William III’s victory at the 1690 Battle of the Boyne, which solidified protestant existence in Ireland (Hill & White 72). These unionist symbols were allowed to exist free from nationalist challenge as a result of the previously referenced 1954 Flags and Emblems Act. However this phenomenon was altered by the increasing use of murals in Northern Ireland by the republicans. The new murals created a propaganda war, where communication existed between the murals of the paramilistic parties on both

Figure 4 – Derry

sides of the conflict (Rolston 108). This phenomenon is most clearly seen in Figures 4 and 5. The first piece, located in Derry, is one of the most iconic images representing the Troubles. This republican image signified to the audience that Derry was a republican hotbed and served as a clear statement of the political standing in the area. In response to this, artists painted Figure 5, a declaration that the Sandy Row area of Belfast held strong loyalist views. The creation of this mural was meant to mirror that of the republican Derry artist.

This practice led to mural art essentially becoming another stage of warfare between the two parties. As the sides both recognized that violence would not give way to a solution, the Troubles wound down during the 1990s (McAllister 1). Despite this, the sentiment of the loyalist and republican combatants remained in support of their respective causes, and with this, the murals remained as a memory of this volatile period.

Figure 5 – Belfast

Although the themes depicted in both the Mexican murals and the republican murals in Northern Ireland were both revolutionary, Northern Ireland’s public art was not regulated like the art of Mexico until recently. After the Mexican Revolution, Minister of Education, José Vasconcelos, began to sponsor the production of murals (Rolston 114). The goal of the artwork was to promote and celebrate the authentic culture and identity of Mexico that had been restored through the revolution. Although both republican and loyalist murals during the Troubles both sought to rouse support for their respective causes, they did not unify the nation as a whole. In 2006, the Arts Council or Northern Ireland launched the “Re-Imaging Communities Programme”, a government initiative similar to that of Jose Vasconcelos’ post-revolutionary program in Mexico (Hill & White 75). Like the Mexican initiative, the program represented a new government involvement in public art with a contrived goal of controlling the message portrayed to the public. This initiative worked to regulate the mural art of the Troubles to and ensure that images of public art evoke unification amongst citizens. The program strove to repaint murals seen to be divisive with ones considered to be more representative of a cohesive population (Hill &

Figure 6 – Belfast

White 76). This endeavour is exemplified in Figure 6. The iconic “you are now entering loyalist Sandy Row”, has been covered and repainted with an mural of King William III, a image of British nationalism still valued in this sector of Northern Ireland, without the problematic aspects of violence and partition represented by the Troubles. This program correlates to the political structure of post-Troubles Northern Ireland. Now that the Troubles period has passed and there is much less unrest, the government has sought to regulate public art to create a sense of unified national identity.    This is similar to how the Mexican government elected to use public art as a tool for unification of the population only when it became appropriate. This meant that the revolution had to end and leave the population malleable in order for this attempted unification to be effective.

When considering the work of Los Tres Grandes and the republican artists in Northern Ireland, one main difference is apparent. In the case of Mexico, the revolution was successful, whereas the republican goal of creating one unified Ireland failed. The implication of this is that the Mexican artists created art reflecting on a victorious war, whereas the republican artists were making art in the heat of battle as a way to wage their war. The Mexican artists also were afforded much more comfort, as they were paid to create art that would appeal to the majority of the population’s views. On the contrary, the republican art depicted messages that were against the more common sentiment.

Despite these differences, a common theme runs through the heart of both the work of Los Tres Grandes and the republican muralists in Northern Ireland. This theme is revolution seeking the celebration and preservation of traditional cultural rights and values. Republican murals took a great deal of evolution before they reached art comparable to the work of the Mexican artists, but nonetheless, the goal of artwork remained revolutionary. In both cases, the artists elected to use their artistic abilities to further their struggle for liberation.

 

Annotated Bibliography

Andrew Hill & Andrew White (2012) Painting Peace? Murals and the Northern Ireland Peace Process, Irish Political       Studies, 27:1, 71-88, DOI: 10.1080/07907184.2012.636184

This article by Andrew Hill and Andrew White provided me with information regarding post-Troubles art in Ireland. My other main source, a Bill Rolston text, focused solely on work created during the Trouble. Because of this, I relied on this article to provide insight into the peace building government initiatives after the Troubles, namely the “Re-Imaging Communities Programme”. I also extracted a simply history of the unionist murals that existed prior to the Troubles from this publication.

McAllister, Brendan. “A Brief History of “The Troubles.” Peacebuilder Online. N.p., 25 Feb. 2009. Web. 15 Mar. 2017.

I used this short article by Brendan McAllister to provide me with a reference source for information regarding the basic history of the Troubles. I simply needed basic dates and information about the Troubles for historical context, without much detail, so this short article sufficed.

Rochfort, Desmond. Mexican Muralists: Orozco, Rivera, Siqueiros. San Francisco: Chronicle, 1998. Print.

I used Rochfort’s work to reassure the lessons on Los Tres Grandes that we discussed in class. The Mexican artists were not the primary focus of my essay, so I did not extract many facts or citations from the text. However, it was important to use the Rochfort text as a quality piece of literature to confirm the assertions I made about Los Tres Grandes to be correct.

Rolston, Bill. Politics and Painting: Murals and Conflict in Northern Ireland. Rutherford: Fairleigh Dickinson UP, 1991. Print.

Bill Rolston is the most published author on the history of mural art in Northern Ireland. This particular text served as my most frequently referenced source. Rolston provided historical context for the creation of specific murals. I also used this text to provide insight into how the style of the mural art progressed throughout the course of the Troubles. Rolston’s work also provided specific examples of artists and outlined the process of creating the murals and how the community was involved in doing so.