Final Research Paper

The Politics of Art

Art can often be seen as the Hermes of beliefs and ideologies, used as a tool to express the message from the artist themselves or those that commission the art, to their indented audiences. Many times the combination of the ideas reflected in the art and location where that art is placed, is symbolic and representative of the main values of the artist or who commissioned the art. This symbolism is the essence of the muralist movement of the 1930s throughout México, as the Mexican government became the fathers of this artistic movement, with the goals to further a more unified cultural and national identity after the revolution. A movement that began as a national reminder of the importance of its people and the ideas of the revolution in México turned in to an international movement when these artists, specifically Diego Rivera, received commissions in the U.S. However, images that would have adorned formally elitist institutions, that would have been sanctioned and commissioned by the Mexican government, and reflected ideas of freedom, cultural pride, revolutionary history, and political and ideological freedoms, were seen as images of dissent, disrespect and harsh criticism once commissioned and sanctioned by private American institutions.

In order to analyze this cultural discrepancy in the politics that allow for the commission, completion, and exposition of certain pieces in public places, Rivera’s Man at the Crossroads at Rockefeller Center and its reproduction at the Palacio de Bellas Artes, will be examined. In order to better understand the relationships between politics and art, firstly the battling political ideologies of the time, in this case Capitalism and Communism, as well as their relationships with the countries of México and the United States in the 1930s must be explored. Along with the relationship between ideology and country, ergo government, the relationship between ideology and artist must be established. Diego Rivera was said to be an active member of the Mexican Communist party, and his relationship with Communism is often portrayed in his work.

Secondly, the role of the location and commissioner will be inquired. In this section, questions will be asked in reference to how the location, and implicitly the audience, carry influence as to what ideologies are permitted to be displayed and for what reasons. Using the piece Man at the Crossroads as the main example, the location of the lobby of the Rockefeller Center as well as the private commission by one of the United States’ richest family, and the ideologies they stand for, can be observed as a main reason the mural was deemed obscene and then destroyed. However, the location of El Palacio de Bellas Artes, as symbol of the former elite, as well as the lenient government headed by Lázaro Cárdenas, allowed for the mural to be reproduced as a symbol of freedoms of political expression.

The aim is to investigate how certain political ideologies, specifically the struggle between Communism and Capitalism, influence artists and the art they produce, as well as how they influence those that commission the art and allow for it to be displayed.

México, United States, and Communism in the 1930s

The 1930s was a tumultuous decade. Internationally, the world saw the rise of authoritarian and single party states that brought a looming cloud of total war in the latter half of the century. This decade also saw a myriad of ideologies like fascism, communism, and democracy, fighting for power and dominance in the global political sphere. The United States saw serial disasters, both natural, in the forms of droughts and dust storms, and manmade in the form of the Great Depression that brought poverty and riots on its own. In México, due to intertwining global economies, the effects of the Great Depression are also visible but México saw a changing political climate with the ascension of Lázaro Cárdenas to the Mexican presidency.

The relationship between the communist party and Mexican is one of turbulent history bouncing between intolerance and persecution to ultimate validation and coexistence. During the Maximato, which can be defined as the period of historical and political development in México from 1928 through 1934 under Elías Calles who was also known as “El Jefe Máximo” (Carr 44). By the late 1920s and early 1930s any activity by the Mexican Communist party received ferocious repression. Dozens of members of the Mexican Communist Party (PCM) were often subject to killings, beatings, or exile to Islas Marías, a penal colony off the pacific coast (Carr 45). The government received extreme criticism of tyranny when they were responsible for the killing of 21 peasants supporters of the PCM in the town of Matamoros June 1930 (Carr 45). This lead to convincingly established labels of fascism during the Maximato, which led to a series of protests against the actions of the Mexican states urging for political tolerance. The politics of the country began to shift to the right, including the politics of the PCM in response to official persecution. Due to this overall shift to the right, the ascension of Lázaro Cárdenas to the presidential palace in December of 1934 marked the beginning of a leftward shift in political and social developments (Carr 46).

Although Cárdenas was not an official member of the PCM he granted the party various rights and recognition. Cárdenas lifted restrictions on the party’s press, and ordered the release of communist political prisoners. Aside from granting the party their rights, Cárdenas suppressed institutions, like the Department of Confidential Services in the Ministry of the Interior, that would frequently attack and persecute the left (Carr 47). The great contrast between the Maximato of the early 1930s and the Cárdenas administration by 1938 is shown in communist media exposure. El Machete is the Mexican Communist newspaper. Under the Maximato, El Machete circulated incognito despite great obstacles, often hidden under sacks of grain or circulated through railroad men (Carr 47). However a stark contrast can be seen as under Cárdenas, El Machete circulated daily and the PCM had its own weekly radio program, La Hora del Pueblo (Carr 47).

The Cárdenas administration witnessed worker and peasant mobilization on such a large scale not before seen in Latin America. Cárdenas experimented with worker and peasant self-management along with radical widespread agrarian reform that included attacks fortresses of agrarian capitalism. The Cárdenas administration was marked by large transformation of foreign owned oil companies and cotton haciendas to bringing them under public ownership of the state (Carr 47).

Although Cárdenas proposed and supported the communist movement, he was part of to the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), not the PCM. However, this political tolerance stems from fundamental similarities between the original ideals of the Mexican Revolution of 1910 and the fundamentals of the communism ideology. Both ideologies exalt the workers and the common people as the foundation and backbone of the entire civilization and policies are made to protect and make the way for them to climb on the social ladder and achieve the level of social and political recognition that they deserve. This similarity on the foundations of these two ideologies is the main reason for the great tolerance and acceptance from the established government in the face of explicitly communist or leftist public art, newspapers, and demonstrations. This places a stark contrast to the fundamental ideologies of the neighboring United States.

In the United States from 1900 to 1929 saw great expansion in industry and agriculture and even saw one of the greatest standards of living worldwide (Herner de Larrea 39). However the Great Depression of 1929 greatly altered the economic environment for the majority of the country. However, the United States remained a cultural and ideological melting pot, where an outspoken communist could publically rally and organize freely (Herner de Larrea 39). However due to culminating McCarthyism, this freedom turned to censorship and persecution. After the United States had gotten itself out of the depression through Federal programs like the Federal Theatre Project, the Works Progress Administration and other programs under President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal as well as booming industry due to involvement in the Second World War, it once again became the epicenter of industry, science, and technology, something that in Rivera’s mind, México could never achieve (Herner de Larrea 41).

Rivera and Communism

Rivera’s relationship with the Mexican Communist party can only be described as turbulent. During his time and travels throughout Europe from 1907 up through the late 1920s Rivera was exposed to European schools of artistic technique, but most importantly Rivera was exposed to European schools of ideologies and philosophy that led him to elite social circles that included Alfred H Barr Jr., a founding director of the Museum of Modern Art. In 1927 Rivera was invited to the Moscow celebration of the 10th anniversary of the October Revolution. Later in 1928, he was commissioned to paint a mural for the Red Army Club in Moscow (Tibol 98). This exposure to communism drew Rivera toward this ideology, however he embraced it to his own modifications. This adaptation and blatant criticism of uber Soviet policies, caused conflict in Moscow, enough to have him ordered to return to México by the Soviet Authorities in 1928 (Herner de Larrea 18). Upon returning to México in1929, Rivera became part of the Mexican Communist Party along side his contemporaries like David Alfaro Siqueiros.

As a member of the Mexican Communist Part (PCM), Rivera received enormous criticism and hate from more established and involved members of the party as Rivera often accepted large and lucrative commissions from the American Capitalists. The greatest critic was Siqueiros. Siqueiros was established member of the PCM, a writer for the communism newspaper El Machete, and a staunch Stalinist, “ y fue usado, a escala internacional, Como un instrumento para atacar a Rivera y destruirlo como pintor revolucionario debido as su simpatía hacia el bolchevismo leninista envés de el Stalinismo” (Tibol 111). Siqueiros himself along with other members of the PCM denounced Rivera as a sellout who is not truly dedicated to the oppressive cause of the proletariat. As well as being considered a sell out, Rivera was criticized for being a hypocrite who would paint beautiful frescos about the rise of the oppressed but would accept commission and socialize with those same oppressors. Years of these attacks prompted Rivera to make a big statement to prove himself loyal to the fundamental ideals of the Communist cause. This decision to make a communist statement coincided with the commission by John D Rockefeller Jr. and his wife to paint a fresco in the lobby of the new Rockefeller Center in New York City.

Man at the Crossroads

The piece itself is a fresco on a 63-foot wall. At the center of the piece there is a worker using some sort of machinery and in front of him there is a hand holding a large orb containing depictions of cell reproduction and atoms. From that centerpiece stems four outstretched ellipsis that divide the mural into four other sections. Each ellipse contains images of biological cells or formations and images of planet and stars, definitely emphasizing the man at the crossroads with science. The bottom section depicts images of fruit bearing plants; this can be used as a symbol of agriculture. In the upper section right above it, it shows images of machinery and industry, a soldier line, and a worker’s protest. This is a direct juxtaposition of two ideologies that the man portrayed is at the crossroads with.

Rivera, Diego. Man at the Crossroads, Rockefeller Center of the Arts, NYC, USA, original 1932, Controller of the Universe, Palacio de Bellas Artes, México City, México, 1934 reproduction

He can either chose to live a simple agriculturally-based existence or move into the modern world of industry and great machinery while accepting all the problems that go along with it like war and protest. The section to the left shows images of wealthy looking women playing cards while others dance and smoke behind them. Also there are images of police trying to control a protest. This section is meant to symbolize capitalism and the elite class. Again directly across, in the section to the right, at the center we see Lenin who is surrounded and joined at the hands by a large crowd.

Figure 2 Rivera, Diego. Man at the Crossroads, Rockefeller Center of the Arts, NYC, USA, original 1932, Controller of the Universe, Palacio de Bellas Artes, México City, México, 1934 reproduction

Women dressed in white who seem almost angelic also join them, as well as other major members of the communist party like Trotsky and Karl Marx himself. This section is meant to represent communism. The mirror placement of these two opposing ideologies again presents the choice that the man portrayed must make, a life of riches plagued by corruption and violence or the peaceful cooperative existence within a communist utopia. It wasn’t a coincidence that Rivera decided to depict his communist and intellectual utopia at the epicenter of the most industrialized country of the 1930s.

Figure 2 Rivera, Diego. Man at the Crossroads, Rockefeller Center of the Arts, NYC, USA, original 1932, Controller of the Universe, Palacio de Bellas Artes, México City, México, 1934 reproduction

Rivera believed that Leninist technological utopianism could easily fit and be a part of capitalist America, as he captures themes of centralized planning and industrialization (Linsley 7). Rivera also depicted a sort of redemption for humanity, in the face of poverty, looming war, and México’s own colonial past in the form of an ideal, cooperative communist wonderland, in a country that has “enforced and popularized mottos like time is money and the poor man is poor because he doesn’t work” (Herner de Larrea 38). The mixed symbolism of the politics within the themes of the piece mixed with the symbolism of the politics of the commissioner and the location caused great conflict that led to its destruction.

Fall at Rockefeller Center and Rise at Palacio de Bellas Artes

In 1932 John D. Rockefeller Jr commissioned Rivera to paint a fresco for the lobby of the new Rockefeller Center of the Arts (RCA). Before beginning the piece Rivera submitted a preliminary sketch to the Art Commission, representing the Rockefeller family to ensure that the piece would represent their interests and expectations of the piece. The Art Commission of the Rockefeller family set the theme of the piece and requested a “Man at the Crossroads looking uncertain but hopeful of the future” (Herner de Larrea 42) and had to show “human intelligence controlling the powers of nature” (Herner de Larrea 42). After Rivera had sent a very detailed description of what the fresco would be like:

“Man is represented in three forms: The Peasant who takes form the earth the products which are the origin and basis of all the richest of humanity; the city Worker who transforms and distributes raw materials supplied by the earth; and the Soldier who, under ethical force which produced martyrs in religious and wars, represents Sacrifice. The telescope brings the plants into man’s vision and the microscope makes the infinitesimal living organisms visible and comprehendible to man. Man looks with uncertainty but with hope toward a future, more complete equilibrium between the technical and ethical development of Humanity, which is necessary for a new, more human logical order”

-Diego Rivera (Herner de Larrea 42).

 

Based on the description of the piece, Raymond Hood, the representative of the Rockefellers, approved the sketches and the commission. Arriving in 1933, Rivera began to work on the mural. As the mural progressed the labor leader began to take the form of Lenin and increasingly red (communist) imagery began to feature the mural. Upon receiving a telegram to “change the head of Lenin and other Communist propaganda” (Herner de Larrea 44), Rivera claimed he would rather have the mural destroyed, than see it mutilated. And the Rockefeller family did just that and covered the mural, then had it destroyed.

Covered Man at the Crossroads, 1933 NYC, USA

The response of the media was loud and clear. The New York Times was instrumental in writing articles that deemed the mural un-American, however hundreds of protesters gathered at the doors of the RCA supporting Rivera’s right as an artist. The reaction of the public was equal and reactionary, rather than incendiary, and it did not influence the decisions of the Rockefeller family.

While Rivera had been working on the mural, his ideologies and beliefs began to shine through more and more each day. This means that it was not the exact portrait of Lenin that triggered the destruction but more like it was the portrait of Lenin that was the culminating element that made all the subtleties, blatant. The Rockefeller family, as one of the most American, wealthiest, and politically established families in the country could not stand and be represented by elements of communism in the midst of capitalist-communist tensions, it would be almost traitorous. Rivera also had much to prove to the communist party. By choosing to illustrate the leader of the October Revolution and choosing destruction of the mural over alteration, he sent an explicit sign used to provoke him communist detractors (Herner de Larrea 44). The politics of the artists clashed with the politics of commissioner and in this case, because the mural had been paid for, the commissioner had full right to destroy it.

After having his commission at General Motors cancelled and working without pay at centers of communist militants, Rivera was asked to recreate his mural on a smaller scale at Palacio de Bellas Artes in México City. Mexican President, Lázaro Cárdenas, granted this commission. Even though Cárdenas was a member of the PRI, he was seen as the most liberal, lenient, and supportive to the communist cause than any president before him. His motivation and rationale for allowing this seemingly extremely controversial mural lie in the facts that firstly, the PRI is so established and has so much control of the general politics and dissent in the country that communism is barely a blip on their radar, so artists, to a certain extent, were given a great amount of freedom with their pieces, and secondly many of the fundamental ideals of the Mexican Revolution correlate with the Communist Revolution. Both causes sought to free the oppressed masses from the economic and social chains set on them by the elite class. The commission to reproduce this mural can also be seen to serve as a symbol of freedom of political expression to the international community.

Throughout the epic piece that was Man at the Crossroads by Diego Rivera, one can clearly see how the politics of the artists, ergo the subject matter of the piece, as well as the politics of the commissioner and location are key factors that determine whether or not a work of art is shown to the public. Due to this political conflict between Rivera and the Rockefeller Man at the Crossroads, in all its glory, will forever be a paradise lost.

 

 

 

 

Annotated Bibliography

Carr, Barry. Marxism & Communism in Twentieth-century Mexico. Lincoln: U of Nebraska, 1992. Print.

This book is a historical reference about the political ideologies of Marxism and Communism in 20th century México and how it affected the government, politics, art, and society of the time. Author Barry Carr is a professor at Latrobe University at the university Institute of Latin American Studies. His areas of focus are the history of México and Cuba as well as impact of Leftist political ideologies in Latin America. This source mostly provided me the historical and political background in México at the time of commissioning and painting certain murals.

 

Herner De Larrea, Irene. Diego Rivera: Paradise Lost at Rockefeller Center. Mexico City: EDICUPES, S.A De C.V., 1987. Print.

This book contains historical information such as original newspaper clippings and a historical timeline of the events surrounding the painting and destruction of Rivera’s mural at Rockefeller Center. The author Irene Herner De Larrea is a Mexican writer with areas of focus on Mexican art, film, and folklore. This resource was of great significance as it was able to provide first hand responses and opinions to the event, provided a genuine picture into the ideologies and beliefs of the time. The book also contained a heavily details historical timeline of Rivera’s work up through the destruction of the mural at Rockefeller, that help put those responses in order of the events that occurred.

 

Linsley, R. “Utopia Will Not Be Televised: Rivera at Rockefeller Center.” Oxford Art Journal 17.2 (1994): 48-62. JSTOR [JSTOR]. Web.

This source is an article in a journal and explores the ideologies behind the Rockefeller family that commissioned the piece then destroyed it but also the ideology and influence of other people involved as well as their ideological motives. This piece also puts the time and society into perspective with the piece and the reaction to it. This source was ideal in providing ideological reasons and motivations for the actions taken by each side of the mural, and how their ideologies and motives cross over or are interdependent on each other.

 

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

This book provided reproductions, art analysis, and immediate historical information about the artists and the works themselves. This book contained such information on the three big Mexican muralists; Orozco, Rivera, and Siqueiros. The main criticism of this source would be the subjectivity of art analysis and how those claims, even though may contain historical leverage, may be also based on personal opinions and bias. The author Desmond Rochfort has also written books that go into more detail into the life and art of Diego Rivera. This source was used to provide information on specific pieces at specific periods of time, as well as another point of view when it comes to the interpretation of the art itself.

 

Tibol, Raquel. Arte Y Política Diego Rivera. México, D.F.: Editorial Grijalbo, 1986. Print

This source is a book that relates the political ideologies of México and those that Diego Rivera adapted to the art that he produces. The source entailed Rivera’s political history, as well as that of México and the works that arose out of them. The author Raquel Tibol was a critic and historian of Mexican art as well as a writer on Mexican film, literature, and culture. This source provided direct insight into the beliefs and ideologies that were the backbone of the themes of his art.

 

Mural Art in México & US