The Mexican Mural Movement: Diego Rivera, Jose Clemente Orozco, and David Siqueiros, Study notes of Art

Download The Mexican Mural Movement: Diego Rivera, Jose Clemente Orozco, and David Siqueiros and more Study notes Art in PDF only on Docsity!

Mexican Mural he

ovement

muralists produced the greatest public revolutionary CAN .'v1EXI E

• Latin America throughout this century, and their influence of

has been far- - paintings in Nicaragua ll t recently in the wa

when e 1930s; th was a time, during There s. hing and continuou

ey have th since then but USA, Britain, and in the in also felt as.

1 -ely entered artistic discourse.

als mur adequately presenting the of major difficulty is that ,\

d, they can- ce produ for although portable murals were selves, ~~m

all painted were als Mur in its setting. work the of give a sense

gracefu l colonial church es: sit of ·er M exico in different kinds

halls n tow ildings, schools,bu ministerial of palaces, the patios .d

stair- awkward nd d museums, in positions ranging from dark a

buildings. modern of ades ;: fo prominent e th es to

l ra the cultu of vigorous and creative most e thewer muralists The

e th of revolutionary Mexico, w ith a powerful sense of guard an

against the regime 1910 in violent revolt The their art. of l value iac

for ten years, during w hich off and on had blazed Dfaz Porfirio f

me the President's chair in Mexico was often vacant. A cataclys-

of set or programme event, never full y harnessed to any single -1ic

in Morelos reform Zapata's struggle for agrarian oughth s- teres t Jl

a brought the Revolution - and remained a fundamental issue was

the former of inauguration The 2 new consciousness to Mexico.

in- ident, in 1920, es Pr as Obregon der Alvaro ea volutionary lre

move- which the mural in optimism hope and of ted a period iat

Revolution revealed Mexico to us,' Octavio 'The ment was born.

it gave eyes to the And better, it gave us eyes to see it. 'Or said; azP

of the relatively halting response with contrast By 3 ' .... painters

novelists, the painters flooded the walls with torrents ofimages, in a

the l, presenting ca al, satiri ic allegor realistic, modes: of variety

history s, Mexican society, its aspirations and conflict of faces many

cultures. nda

arts al the visu of were several reasons for the dominance There

the immediately, Most muralism. of and the cultural primacy

Obregon hom Vasconcelos, w se Jo philosopher and revolutionary

Education, w as of the University and Minister of made president

it, bout what was unusual a programme; to a mural committed

er revolutionary con-und others launched ith , compared w though

subject or any direction concerning style of ditions , was the absence

h wit. Vasconcelos left his artists free to pick their themes, matter

unfo reseen consequences. His visionary plan was rooted in a social

to Pythagorean concepts and to the pos- both theory indebted

(preliminary Madero I. sco Fra11ci an O 'Gorman. Ju 7.

of Room the Revolurio n in cudy for the mural

on paper and canvas, il , penc d. , n. e) tl as Chapultepec C

on Vicky and tiec ll m. , C o0c 11 0X 45 s, panel ve fi of one

Marcos Micha.

,. (detail erse v ni e U th f er o ll troCon , Man a, Diego River .1 7

Mexico , es Art as ll o de! Palacio de Be se Mu esco, fr 1934,

). BA(!N City

MURAL MOVEMENT MEXICAN THE

down it seemed to come but Education, of the Ministry of ting in

water con- of than dipping the brushes in a bucket more ttle li

, unt nopal cactus leaves. Also perhaps to be taken into acco · ming -

ast for those artists like Rivera and Siqueiros w ho had been in le ~

Cubist the of was the fact that several artists formerly ::urope,

for e- a large scal on ambitions to paint ng were also developi u ~1ilie

his populist orientation, of Delaunay, and, closer in terms ;iscance

Leger. t:.,rnand

T hirdly, the Revolution sparked fresh research into the 'Indian

whether of issue great the rumbled which beneath roblem',

which placed con- of the results two, or was one nation .lexico'.

nthro- archaeologist and a The art. of the role on ht derable weig 1

published Patria, Fo,jando logist Manuel Gamio 'explained in his

country a of workings the in no social interloper is art why 1916,

Charlot ead'. So Jean br of those as widespread as its uses are ·here

: triaPa Fo1jando to quote from on going ro te, :,:

etic matters contribute sub- th aes in view of Divergent points

The Mexico 's social classes. of tantially to the pulling apart

cla e middle Th e-Hispanic art. pr Indian preserves and practices

• pre the by art qualified European preserves and practices a

s its art im acl ss cla ed aristocratic ll so-ca The Indian. or Hispanic

. European to be pure

both let us observe ... purism Leaving to the latter its dubious

ethnic and economic dif- by are already split They her classes.ot

of e and an economic betterment tim of workings The ferences.

popu- the of l fusion ca e ethnith contribute to ll the native class wi

... factor. potent a prove fusion will also al ltur lation, but cu

is le class share one criterion w here art midd native and When

be culturally redeemed, and national art, one ll concerned, we sha

have become a ll national consciousness, wi of the solid bases of

JO fact.

b-ta es Such ideas, in bringing the vis ual arts to the fore, helped to

a as lish the cultu ral and political framework by which muralism

necessarily not did but promoted, national art was established and

with nor e, their rol of conception own h the muralists' wit coincide

i ed abovequot In the passage d. the social message their art conveye

da working is notable that the Indians occupy the position the

applicabL. that model w as no t fully but a Marxist model, in w ould

majo two the ween al difference bet ulturc profound of e us beca

and class working Indians are all not ocial groupings, and because

cul- class are Indians. Rather than aiming at the working the lla not

in demanded, at least ts s li a mur tural fusion outlined above, the

and bourgeois art (easel painting), of the eradication e, principl

their model for the socialist as pointed to the native Indian tradition

'a fighting educative art for all'. t: an open, public ar of ideal

Social, Political and Aesthetic Princi- of the 'Declaration 1922 In

formed Syndicate ofTechnical Workers, Painters newly the of ples'

on dependence artistic of centuries repudiated Sculptors and

etic:th a native aes of in favour Europe

THE MEXICAN MURAL MOVEMENT

The nobl e work of our race, down to its most in significant spiritual and physical expression s, is native (and essentially Indian) in origin. With their admirable and ex traordinar y talent to create beauty, peculiar to themselves , the art of th e Mexican people is the most wholesome spiritual expression in the wor ld, and this tradition is our greatest treasur e. Great because it belon gs exclusively to the people and this is why our funda- men tal aesthetic goal must be to socialize artistic expression and wipe out bourgeois individualism. u

In practice, thou gh, the differences between a native 'popular' art and the muralists' 'people's art' were not resolved.

The elements of this polemical national art were beginning to take shape on the wa lls, and they were very different indeed from the first murals commissioned by Vasconcelos. Those were genteel universalist a ll egories, conceived in 'the gentle aesthetic calm that preceded the impending plastic storm'. 12 Rob erto Montenegro who was currently enjoying considerable success, together with Adolfo Best Maugard and Carlos Merida, with paintings in th e 'soft' picturesque nationalist sty le then in vogue, and who had also been involved with Dr Ari in the important exhibition of Folk Art in 1921, was commissioned to decorate th e old convent church of Sa n Pedro y San Pablo. He painted a Dance of the Hour s, with twelve lightly draped ladies dancing round 'an armoured knight who lean against a Persian tree of life gay with giant blooms a nd chirping birds , on a gold background'. 13 The nave of the church wa decorated by Xavier Guerrero (w hose generous good sense and technical expertise was to be of great help to the n ew artists) with garlands of flowers. In a rather more dynamic, flamboyant spirit, Dr Atl worked in the patio on 'flaming depictions of Mexican scenery - tropical nights with a million coloured stars, blue surf under orange billowed clouds pounding against red rock ', using hi impermanent home-made 'A d-colours'. Diego Rivera disliked Dr Atl's work as much as he scorned th e flat decorative arabesques of Montenegro; none th e less, his first mural, Creation, which he started at the very end of1921 in the audi- torium of the ENP, was still in line with Vasconcelos' taste for vague allegories. Rivera's gran d scheme brought together figure representing Mexican types dres ed in picturesque costume [Pl. 7.6], and others representing the arts, and civic and theolo gical vir- tu es Qustic e, hope, faith, etc.), the who le topped by a symbol of

'T he LIGHT o E or PRIMAL E ERGY'. 14 What concentrated critical

a tt ention on thi mural by the already famous artist, recently re- turned from a ucce ful career as a cubist painter in Paris, was it vigorou mix of cubist vo lumes and simplifications, and borrow- from u ttroce nto and Renaissance Italy, especially Giotto and Ian elo. 1 u · o al a s a ski ll ed and articulate polemicist, had already ched fro m Barcelona a blast against the flat archaic style of pie-

THE MEXICAN MURAL MOVEMENT

The mural movement was increasingly concentrated in the hands of 'Los Tres Grandes': Rivera, Orozco and Siqueiros. But in the early, heroic years between 1922 and 1924, the y oung artists com - missioned by Vasconcelos to help decorate the walls of the ENP - Fernando Leal, Ramon Alva de la Canal, Fermin Revueltas, Jean Charlot, Emilio Garcia Cahero - made important steps towards its consolidation. It was Revueltas, according to Charlot, who first used the 'hieratic white-clad Indian', which Rivera was to make so fami li ar, in his D evotion to th e Virg in of Guadalup e. Leal broached a new, darker form of Indianism in his Feast at Cha/ma [Pl. 7.7], which took as its theme a recent incident in a Puebla village: ' ... During the course of a religious dance round the statue of the Vir- gin, the concussion caused the image to fa ll down in its glass case, leaving exposed a sma ll figure carved in stone of the goddess of water, w hich had been hidd en sin ce tim e immemorial under the rich mantle of Our Lady. ' 16 Leal and Charlot had chosen to paint their murals on wa ll s oppo - site one another, at the top of the main ENP staircase; a lth ough dark and awkward, there was the advantage that the 'diagonal thrust' of the wa ll was a complete contrast to the rectangular easel picture. Charlot, who had been assisting Rivera on Creation, began his own wa ll in April/ May 1922 - in fresco as opposed to Leal's encaustic - on the subject of the Mas sacre at th e Templo Mayor. A remarkable ble nd of U cce ll o a nd Leger, it was the first mural to treat the Con- quest, and depicts ro botic and faceless armoured Spaniards driving blood - red lances into defenceless Indian priests and people ce lebrat- in in their temple in Te nochtitlan.

MOVEMENT MURAL MEXICAN THE

'th as should be m entioned in this context who Another artist

i be called a painter fo r the people', to deserves who first artist

, he had been Orozco Atl and Dr Like Siqueiros, 17 Francisco Goitia.

• ro y, parm Pancho Villa's with actively involved in the Revolution,

the of the spot 'vivid, realistic paintings and drawings on ducing

Vasconcelos, and of arm he evaded the long Although '. war civil

frescoes he had planned, his modest complete even the to failed

the poor, especially Indian of battle, and of the aftermath of studies

their dead, were undoubtedly a powerful sup- mourning , women

.11]. painting [Pl. 9 new to the port

muralism were the fresco of this first phase of culmination The

Rivera by and ENP, the of courtyard main in the Orozco by cycles

was bit- Orozco Education. of the Ministry of floor ground the on

their attitudes to a nationalist of terly opposed to Rivera in terms

Revo- Mexican history and the of art, Indianism, interpretations

lution itself, and his murals, avoiding the clear-cut political and

earliest The Rivera, can appear ambiguous. of historical message

were, like ENP, the of floor ground the on however, frescos,

in- these, the relatively Of universalise and allegorical. Creation,

shocking more one to survive; the only was the Maternity nocuous

those so badly among 7.8] was [Pl. Cross his Destroying Christ

repainted Orozco the hostile Preparatoria students that by defaced

ambiguous are the powerful and grotesque all at Not them in 1926.

, ap Political]unkhe Forces, Reactionary The the middle floor: on satires

a as early career Orozco's where etc., Leaders, False and the Liberty

quieter much a floor top the On evident. most is cartoonist

and -digger, , The Grave Farewell The Mother's· sequence, including

the of families on treats the hidden effect ld, e Battlefi e th to Return

violence. of years

of Rivera's murals for Vasconcelos' recently restored Ministry

pub- amid considerable 1923 March in Education were commenced

Cross. his es1royit1g D sc Cl,ri ente Orozco,Clem Jose 7.

•· AJ'"ll Ane de Museo .. 93xl30cm canvas. on oil 1943,

•· o•· version later A. D:lk.\ Gil Carrillo Carmen T. de

192-= oi mura; destroyed

1irusrry

o c acular literal expression in the Detroit Indu stry frescos

__~[Pl. - .13] and pow erful social criticism of the exploitation

r. Characteristic too is the contrast between industrial

. · o: the latter, Rivera celebrates as vital and pictu- r than backw ard and poverty-stricken. (A more r enration of the contrasts between a backward u er noou rural. 1exico, and a modern industrial Mexico, in which natur l re ource are full exploited, appear in a fresco by Ju an O Gorrnanenti 1 d Credit Transform s M ex ico [Pl. 7.15], painted for what i no,v rhe Banco International in Mexico City in the 1960s.) The manner in w hich Rivera moves from the represe nt ati on of daily life in a implified realism, to allegory and sy mbol , i parcl , po ible because of the panel arrangement; later, he w as to absorb the e la t elements into comf1ex formal patterns of great pr ecision, a in .\11a11 at the Crossroad s.^2

As O bregon near d the e nd of his four-year Presidential term, poli- tical trouble began to resurface. Hostility to the murals, particu- lar! among the relatively conservative students of the ENP, led to direct action and the regular casual defacements the painters had cone nded wi th became more serious damage, especially to roz o , ark. In 1924 Vasconcelos resigned, and, his protection

16

MOVEMENT MURAL MEXICAN THE

of the early phase nd, a ithdrawn ssions were wmmi ed, the comov re

dispersed, or withdrew the painters of Most r.e ov alism wasmur

la ado de Am to assist went Siqueiros where , ra adalaj a Gu to some

adalajara was Gu Zuno. the governor, from a commission on va Cue

major of to continue its patronage to the muralists , and was the site

e Palacio de Gobierno th ersity, Univ eth -in zco Oro by works later

In- the of including the great panel - as spicio C aban Ho eth and

[Pl. 1.29]. go Hidal hero , ce dependen

Education of the Ministry of ever, in the middlehow Rivera,

y had ll Minister, and for a while virtua ew e n th over won murals ,

ico City. In 1926-7 he painted the chapelex in M self eld to him. fi the

Agricultural National the administration building at the of part and

- 1 e1 Lib (The creative earth of egory ll ge a hu e Th School in Chapingo.

of altar wall the on Man) by Controlled Forces Natural ith w Earth ated

in- scenes relating to the Revolution, with ed nka fl e chapel isth

Zapata and of es the buried bodi of g image untin cluding the ha

a e Earth, th gin Fertiliz lutionary Martyrs evo e R th of Blood ano: Mont

durin vow e reactionaryth of contradiction triumphant though in

no will it e Zapatista seed so thatth the Revolution to 'exterminate

co the on als mur 7 Rivera compl eted the 192 In 21 germin ate again'.

- osM from ed turn Education; recentl y re of Ministry e th of floor

icon- aryion lut ian revoss d Ru ce introdu [Pls 7.18, 19,20], he cow

ageim age after im and in e, and sickl ammer e red star, h th ography:

nd, a nt er, soldier and peasa ork w of y unit e revolutionaryth stressed

e w hole Th ]. 21 7. (Pl. poor classic oppositions between ri ch and

words gh , was linked by a long red banner carrying the thou cycle,

Guerrero kind the of e agrarian revolution,th of song or o, id corr a of

in 1924 [Pl. Machete El of e cover th dcut for woo had used in his

it.' work who longs to thosebe Earth 'The 7.22]:

ch hi M exico, w of ages im is perhaps not surprising that these lt

sly ou e imultan a faith in progress , s ith e social criticism wombinc

favour w ith found have should xico, Me oflndian ation br a cele with

It could be argued that these murals keep s. nte rnm gove succeeding

e th in anently rm pe nd avoid ably a un ses o f the Revolutionpromi the

tion m ay ac eth ever slow and difficulthow people's consciousness,

with them. O ctavio Paz analysed the situation mente impl be to

that call themselves revolutionary, and works ese Th ' y: al clari t brut

e and impla s ound Rivera and Siqueiros exp of that in the cases

paid for nd , were commissioned, sponsored a ism Manichean M arx

revo- xist and ceased beingMar that was never government by a

revo- gressive and pro this painting helped to give it a .. lutionary.

22 lutionary face. '

less easily assimilable. Forced to is , however work, s o'zc Oro

y School in 1924, he re- rator e National Prepa th on king wor stop

Th e floor : round the g on frescos of set new a dd ed in 1926 to a turn

Trinity , y onar luti evo Quarrel, Th e R Workers e th t While anque Rich B

fir st two depict a The er. Th e Old Ord and h renc Th e Strike, The T

e unit e to bl a un poor the society, strife-torn nda ess tionl ecdir

s 7.23,25], (Pl lutionary Trinity evo Th e R eir oppressors. Inth against

kneeling victim s two suggested: the is e causes for this th of e on

"Th Guerrero, avier X 7.'2'

dcuc.woo , 2-4 19 ·,·H 1 1 c/ ,\ la E l

L A I\ C E N U I Q I O C I D 0 _ I R E P

..,_..., j j m. ""-- '" o-- o•~ ic.... 11 ••-w.-u,voQlf.AWO 1 l •• "

-= - ..,._^ ____^ _ ..,.,.^ _ ...:?~;~^ :~ **H. .... :!,~·=•:,,..:::t~...._tl"llc:flllrtMlcmia**

-==---=.::=.~ -_ :::::; ·.::•:::a_ .. rbl.... ......... ....... J

· Oemence Orozco, Th e · 1923-4, first version of th e

7.29 Jo se C lemente Orozco , Prom etheu s, 1930, tempera on maso n.i re, 6 1. 2x81cm., Museo de Arte M oderno, lexico City (I NBA). A version of the mural painted the sa me year for Pomona College, California.

THE MEXICAN MURAL MOVEMENT

devout Catholics. Th e Z apatistas, for instance, rode to battle under th e banner of th e Virgin of Guadalupe [Pl. 7.27]. Orozco was opposed to wha t he saw as the confusion bet wee n painting and folk art in the nationalism of his fellow paint ers. 'Painting in its higher form and painting as a minor fo lk art differ essentia ll y in thi s: the former has invariable universal traditions from which no one can separate himself ... th e latter has purely lo ca l traditions. H e abjured the painting of Indian sandals and dirty cotton pant and naturally I wish with a ll my h ea rt th at those w ho use chem will discard them and bec om e civilized'. 24 H e re- jected the idea of painting as propaganda: 'A painting should not be

• bu t the thing itself; not a re fl ec tion but light itse lf; retati on but a thing to be interpr eted .' Later, in an open , iqueiros wa rn ed him that his 'ideol0gical ex pr ession i clarity'. 25 But Orozco refused to comm it himself to