of 18
8/12/2019 Craven David
1/18
Review: Recent Literature on Diego Rivera and Mexican MuralismAuthor(s): David CravenSource: Latin American Research Review, Vol. 36, No. 3 (2001), pp. 221-237Published by: The Latin American Studies AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2692128
Accessed: 19/11/2010 15:22
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lamer.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
The Latin American Studies Associationis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Latin American Research Review.
http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lamerhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2692128?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lamerhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lamerhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2692128?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lamer8/12/2019 Craven David
2/18
RECENT
LITERATURE ON
DIEGO
RIVERA
AND MEXICAN
MURALISM
David Craven
University f
New
Mexico
DIEGO
RIVERA:
THE DETROIT INDUSTRY
MURALS.
By Linda
Bank Downs.
(New
York:W. W.
Norton,
1999.
Pp.
202.
$49.95
cloth.)
MURAL
PAINTING
AND SOCIAL REVOLUTION INMEXICO,
1920-1940.By
Leo-
nard
Folgarait. Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversity
ress,
1998.Pp. 256.
$79.95
cloth.)
DIEGO
RIVERA.
By Pete Hamill.
New York:
HarryN.Abrams,
999.Pp. 207.
$49.50
cloth.)
PAINTINGON THE
LEFT:DIEGO
RIVERA,RADICAL
POLITICS, AND
SANFRAN-
CISCO'S PUBLIC MURALS.
By AnthonyW.Lee. (Berkeley nd Los Ange-
les: University
f CaliforniaPress,
1999.
Pp.
264. $24.95 cloth.)
DREAMING
WITHHIS EYES OPEN:
A LIFE OF
DIEGO
RIVERA.
By PatrickMarn-
ham. (New York:
Alfred
A.
Knopf,1998. Pp. 350.
$35.00 cloth.)
DIEGO
RIVERA:
ART
AND REVOLUTION.
Catalogue
or n exhibition
urated
by
Luis-Martin
ozano,Augustin
Arteaga, nd William
Robinson. Mex-
ico City
and Cleveland: Consejo
Nacional para la Cultura
y las Artes,
Instituto
Nacional de Bellas
Artes, nd the Cleveland
Museum
of Art,
1999. Pp.
421.
$70.00
paper.)
In
an expansive era
during
the first alf
of the twentieth
entury,
Mexico Citywas
a celebrated
iteforvanguard arton
a par withbohemian
Paris or Weimar
Berlin-and often
n
advance
of both due
to this art cen-
ter's impact
on the rest of
the world.
For almost
twentyyears,
from he
early
1920s
until
bout
1940,
Diego
Rivera
was
rightlyegarded
s the eader
of the Mexican
Mural Renaissance
and one of
the three most famous
painters
n
theWesternWorld.
n
1931-1932,
e became the econd
artist
o
be
given
a
one-person
how at the Museum
of Modern
Art n New
York
City. he first as Matisse and thethird, icasso,and yetthe attendance t
Rivera's exhibition
et a record.
His
subsequent
celebrity
hroughout
he
Americas nd his consequent
anonization
n Mexico as part
of henational
patrimony-along
with
Jose
Clemente
Orozco,
David
Alfaro
iqueiros,
nd
Frida
Kahlo-have created
nonetheless frustrating
ituation
for critics
and arthistorians
eeking
o
analyze
Rivera's
mages.
LatinAmerican
esearch eview
olume 6 number
?
2001
221
8/12/2019 Craven David
3/18
Latin
American esearch
eview
As
a household
name
and a
national con,
Rivera achieved
a stand-
ing
thathas
frequently
erailed constructive
riticism
n
severaldirections.
On theone hand,Rivera's "transcendenttatus" n Mexico as an artist-hero
has triggered
n awestruck
dmiration
or he prodigious
abor
that
made
possible
his accomplishment-over
ix thousand
quare
meters n key
pub-
lic
places of
virtuosopainting
n fresco.
he magnitude
of thisfeat
has so
far
made difficultny
analytical ccount
ofhis overall
career.Novelist
John
Dos
Passos
commented
n New
Masses n the
ate 1920s,
regretting
he sad
state
ofmodern rt
n
theUnited States
n
contrast
o that
n
contemporary
Mexico: "Going
to see
the
paintings
by Diego
Rivera n the courts
of the
Secretaria
f
public
education straightens
ou
outa little
it.... If t
sn't
a
revolutionnMexico, 'd liketo know what t s."'
On the other
hand,
the sheer
visual wealth
of
Rivera's daunting
achievement
has oftenproduced
an
array
of
iconoclastic
reactions o the
muralist'swork,
predictably
hecase
withU.S. conservative
opulists
uch
as
journalist
ete
Hamill and writer
atrickMarnham.
With heir
ecycled
cold
war
way
of
sizing
up
Rivera's
murals,
bothtend
to view these
sweep-
ing
public
paintings
s littlemore
than amentable
and muddled propa-
ganda
for heworld
"communistmovement,"
whether
talinist r
Trotsky-
ist
n
orientation. erhaps
ess predictably,
he conoclastic
devaluation
of
Rivera'sfrescoes an also be found n thewritings f cautiouspolitical en-
trists
ike Octavio
Paz or
Enrique
Krause.
Finally,
related
response
has
emerged
ven
n
the ssessments
f "more-leffist-than-thou"
roup
f chol-
ars
from he
Americas
whose
interpretative
oots re
often mbedded
n
the
orthodox
Marxism
of the 1930s.
For the ast
two camps,
Rivera's
public art
s frequently
educible
o
mere
outsized
ideological
legitimacy
n behalfof
a
supposedly
leviathan
Mexican
state led
by
the
appropriately
named
Partido Revolucionario
Institucional.
his
monolithic iew
of the role of
state patronage
and all
partisan olitical irectives)nrelationomurals, articularlyhose fRivera,
has
been laid out
in rather arsh
terms
y
Paz:
"The
government
llowed
artists
o
paint
on thewalls
of
government
uildings pseudo-Marxist
er-
sion
of the
history
f
Mexico,
in black and
white,
because such
painting
helped
to
give
tthe
ook ofbeingprogressive-minded
nd revolutionary."2
As
fragments
f an inadequate
overview,
these
prevalent
read-
ings
of Rivera's artwork
an never
really
dd
up
to an
explanatory
whole.
Each
of these opposing
clusters
f
positions-one
positive
and
the
other
negative-rests
on deeply
flawedtheoretical resuppositions.
t
s
thusnot
surprisinghatmanyof hebest studies o date ofRivera'sworkshavebeen
micro-histories
f
specific
paintings
r
narrowly
ocused
examinations
f
1.
John
Dos
Passos,
"Paint
the
Revolution,"
New
Masses,
Mar.
1927,pp.
13-14.
2. Octavio
Paz,
"Re/Visions:
Mural
Painting,"
n
Essays
on
Mexican
Art
1987),
translated
by
Helen Lane
(New
York:
Harcourt
Brace,1993),
132.
222
8/12/2019 Craven David
4/18
REVIEW ESSAYS
particularhematic oncerns,
eaving heoverall heoretical roblems osed
by
his ntensely isual
workunaddressed
n
any probing r sustained
way.
Yetsome notable studies ofRivera have appeared recently,nclud-
ing several
of thebooks under review
here.This
situation ed arthistorian
Edward Sullivan
to observe
that he past few years
have seen publications
about
Riverathat offernteresting
ew
insights
ntohis art"
while
"being
scholarly
yet provocative tudies."3
Two of the best new books on Rivera,
those by
AnthonyLee and Linda
Bank Downs,
are examples of first-rate
micro-history.
othworks focus
on a
highly
ircumscribed ieldof nquiry
to elicitnew insights
nto
particular
et ofartworks
withinRivera'soverall
corpus.
A
Macro-History
fMuralism:
Revisionismersus ost-Revisionism
In
one of the few
books to attempt comprehensive
ssessment
of
Rivera and Mexican muralism
n the
1920s and 1930s, he dismissive
and
constraininghesis
fPaz is
given
remarkably inehearing.
n
the hought-
ful
Mural
Painting nd Social
Revolutionn Mexico, 920-1940,
Leonard Fol-
garaitgives
a highly roblematic erspective
hebestpossible presentation.
No future
tudy
of
Diego
Rivera s "an
official rtist"whose
views are said
to articulaten paintthe dominant deologyof the Mexican statewill be
able
to
advance
this
particular
osition
urtherhan
Folgarait
as
in his mas-
terful 998 examination.
he strengths
fhis book come precisely
rom he
manifestweaknesses of a stance
that s
argued
well by Folgarait.
But
he
sometimes oncentrates
is fire o
closely
on
only
one
set
of structural on-
cerns
thathe often
ays
nothing
bout such
issues as individual agency
n
opposition
o state
patronage
r any conception
fthe tate s a
fractious r
contradictoryntity.
he
post-revolutionary
exican state
s
presented
y
Folgarait
as having
had a seamlessly
unified and
smoothly
harmonized
intent rom 920 onward.4
In
fact, key ssue
in the iterature n Riverarevolves
round an
in-
adequate conception
f
the statethatunderlies
most
problems
with com-
prehensive verviews
of Rivera's oeuvre.
And
yet a book as
impressive s
Folgarait's
requires
concession.Nothing
clears the nterpretative
ield s
effectively
s a
strong resentation
f a
position
with
evident
weaknesses.
What remains
trong
bout
a weak thesis
becomes a sine
qua
non for
ny
future dvances
in
historicalunderstanding
of the
important
ssue
ad-
dressed.Thus
it
must
be
said
of
Folgarait
hathe has dramatically
levated
3. Edward
Sullivan,
"FromMexico
to
Montparnasse-and Back,"
Art
n
America
7,
no.
11
(Nov. 1999):102-9,
53,
citation n 104.
4.
For a more
extensive ook at the
problem
of
the
state,
ee David
Craven,
"Marx,
Marx-
ism,
nd
Art
History,"
n
Companion
o
Art
Theory,
dited
by
P.
Smith
Oxford:
Basil
Blackwell,
forthcoming).
223
8/12/2019 Craven David
5/18
Latin merican
esearcheview
the discourse
about the heyday
of the mural
movement o a pointwhere
old and seemingly
nsoluble
theoretical ticking oints
will now be more
easily addressed byfuture cholars.Moreover, heywillbe able to propel
our assessments ven
furtherhead by analyzing
omprehensively
he
over-
all achievement
fRivera along
lines moreworthy f his
work.
Folgarait's ural ainting
ndSocial
Revolutionn
Mexicos
a highly
significant
tudy.
he authorhas long been
known
n
thefield
for
his deftly
criticalmicro-study
f David Alfaro iqueiros's
ate mural-relief oused
in
the Polyforum
ulturalSiqueiros
of Mexico
City, a marcha e a humanidad
(1964-1971).
n
hisnew book,
Folgarait nhanceshis reputation
y publish-
ing a probingmacrostudy
f
Mexican muralism s well.5
InMural aintingnd ocial evolutionnMexico,olgaraits concerned
withhow
prominent atrons more
conservative
hantheartists hey om-
missionedto paint
the murals)
had
a
decisive say
in
shaping the
ultimate
ideological
valuesofthepublic paintings
merging
rom
his
ntire
rocess
of
artistic
roduction. ess
interested n charting
he broader popular
re-
ception
f hese
murals, olgarait ocuses
moreon how the magesproduced
were invested
with certainformal
values and thus seem
to
require
con-
comitant
erms f
pectatorship.
he perceptual ues that
oach themurals'
viewers
were supposedly
dictated more
by the unified
nstitutional e-
mands ofthepatrons hanbythe diverse ntentions fthe artistswho ac-
tually xecuted
the artworks.
Yetto aunch such an argument
bout
a revolutionn whichno
gov-
ernment irectives
rom
bove
mandated "a monolithic,
fficial
tyle,"
ol-
garait
needed to
posit
a
"structural elationship"
orhis cohesive approach
to the Mexican mural
movement:
Crucial o such
a
project
s an
assumption
hat here
s a
politically
onstituted
body
f
people
outthere
ho canbe called itizens
. , full f wareness
f heir
structural
elationship
othe overnment.
his
tructure
ituates
itizens ta place
where heywillreceive hewords nd actions fthegovernment-receive,on-
sume,
nd process othe xtent
hat hey,s subjects f
he
tate,
re lso
produced
by
he tate.... Should
his ssumptionf he xistence
f uch population
rove
unfounded
. .
,
it
would
be necessaryo construct
he llusion
f desired ocial
coherence,
o create
program
f
trong opulist remises
hat
might
nvent ut
of heer
need,
s it
were,
he
ymbolic,
equired
uman
ubjects
fofficial
deol-
ogy,
critical
asswhose
ontrolledehaviorwould
be a
prime
oal
for hegov-
ernment.
P.6)
To a considerable xtent,
he
acknowledged
strengths
f
Folgarait's
fine
tudy
re inked o
the
tringency
f
his neo-Althusserian
tructuralism.
Although
olgarait
ever ctually
mentions
he
French hinker,
t
s
difficult
to
read the
passage
just
cited
without
recalling
Louis
Althusser's
famous
discussion
in
"Ideology
and
Ideological
State Apparatuses"
on how "all
5.
Leonard Folgarait,
o Far
from
eaven:
David
Alfaroiqueiros'
he March
ofHumanity
nd
Mexican
Revolutionary
olitics
Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversity
ress, 1987).
224
8/12/2019 Craven David
6/18
REVIEW
ESSAYS
ideology
hails
or nterpellates
oncrete
ndividuals
as concrete ubjects,
y
the
functioningf
the
category
f the
subject."6
olgarait
nstead
cites
two
ofAlthusser's est-knowntudents, icosPoulantzasandMichelFoucault.
Although
Althusser
eldom succeeded
in documenting
hematerial
basis for
his rarified
bstract
laims,
Folgarait
s adept
at primary
rchival
research
s
well as concrete
isual analysis.
Thus he
infrequently
akes
the-
oretical
teps
that utstrip
is
empirical
esearch.Mural Painting
nd
Social
Revolutionn
Mexico
rovides
rich apestry
ffacts
woven
into
strikingly
coherent arrative
f theoretical
ophistication.
Consequently,
olgarait's
ook represents
ringing
iposte y
a first-
rate
rt
historiano
thecurrently
ashionable
histories"
fmany
elf-styled
"theorists" ho implausibly eem tosay, That s allwell and good in prac-
tice,
but
how
does
it work
n
theory?"
et
the successes
of Mural
Painting
and Social
Revolution
n
Mexico
ome
from he
nimbleness
nd
qualifications
withwhichhe deploys
a battery f
theoretical
raditions
o organize
his
m-
pressive
research
nd analysis.
He plays
off
differentheoretical
rends
against
each
other,
ather han assuming
that
any
intellectual radition
s
adequate
to
all
historical roblems
r that
very
heoretical
ramework
ar-
bors empirical
lind
spots
that
make them ll
useless.
In
doing
so,
Folgarait xtracts
ncisivepoints
from
numerous
theo-
ristswithoutbeingwhollybound to anyofthem-fromAntonioGramsci,
Nicos
Poulantzas,
Stuart
Hall,
Alex
Callinicos,
nd
Terry agleton
on
the
one hand
to Theda Skocpol,
Michel
Foucault, John
Frew,
and
Norman
Bryson
n theother.
olgarait
wisely
follows
Hall's
dictum hat
the great-
est value
of
theory"
s
how
it
calls
forrethinkingbut
not
discarding)
old
paradigms
yet
lso allows
scholars
o
glean
all
that s still erviceable
n
the
old
theories
y
an
agile
"repositioning"
f
heir
ignal
nsights
within
new
conceptual
frameworkp. 9).
Thus Folgarait
an often est
ach theory
n
a
critically
ound
and historically
tringent ay
that "theorists"
n cultural
studiesgenerally ail oundertake ecause oftheir ncriticalpplicationof
theory
o historical
ssues.
Folgarait
s interestedess
n
a
new "theory"
fMexican
society
rom
1920
o1940 han
n
a more
historically
stute
disclosure
f
whatwas distinc-
tive
about t.He says
ofhis book,
"A
social
history
fart s at
work
here
,
one
that
ultimately
eeks
to unravel and
analyze
the
deological
nature
of
art"
pp.
9-10).
Just
s
ideology
s used
here
n thebroadest
ense
to show
how
"a
body
of values" endows
humanity
with an
overriding
mission
n
society,
o
ideology
s used
by Folgarait
n a more
urgical
manner
o
reveal
thedivergent articulationsf nterest" hatdivide thebody politic long
6. Louis
Althusser,
Ideology
and
Ideological
State
Apparatuses"
1969),
reprinted
n Lenin
and
Philosophy,
ranslated
y
Ben Brewster
New
York:
Monthly
Review
Press,
1978), p.
173.
More
recently,
ee
Slavoj Zizek,
"The
Supposed
Subjects
of
deology,"
Critical
Quarterly9,
no.
2
(Summer
1997):39-59.
225
8/12/2019 Craven David
7/18
LatinAmerican esearch eview
class
lines,
even as mainstream
deologues speak of the Mexican nation s
a
seamless anatomicalwhole. Thus ideological
critique
n
Folgarait's tudy
means at easttwodifferenthings imultaneously: n explication ftheof-
ficialposition oncerning ationalharmony nd a dissection f this "inno-
cent" deological claim
n
the face of class-based
nequities
hat
ancel out
any nonhierarchical orldviewsofthe state
regarding
he 1920s and 1930s
in Mexico (pp. 10-11).
Significantly
oran
author so indebted to structuralism,olgarait
avoids the main
pitfall
ow linkedto it-the
momentous death of the au-
thor"
hesis nce championedfamously y
Roland Barthes nd Michel Fou-
cault during he mostmilitant ays of the ate
1960s. Folgarait s not nter-
estedinwriting etanother ext o "buryartists-as-authors"-as fartists
like
theMexican muralists ossessed no individual kills o nflect heir rt-
works or
distinctive echniques
o accent their
pecialized
forms f
abor.
Consequently, olgarait treatsthe main
murals
in
Mexico as "historical
agents"
in
and
of themselves
n
two
different ays. First,
he
views them
impersonally s "sign vehicles articulating deas" within the "semiotic
social system
f
the day," and thus as symptomatic
f
the
"paternalizing
generosity f
the
state]patron" p. 12).
This
structuralist
r revisionist
p-
proachdominates wo-thirdsfMuralPaintingndSocialRevolutionnMexico.
Second,hecontendsmore pecificallyhatnot lltheseMexicanmu-
ralsby Rivera t al. "lineup on the xis ofconsent
o official olicy"because
"the murals at timespresent nstances
of
nternal upture, f the presence
of everal
onflictingoices" p. 12).
This
post-structuralist
r
post-revisionist
perspective urfaces ntermittently
n
the
monograph.
n
preserving pos-
sible "resistant
pace"
for ndividual
gency
by
the
ngaged artist
n
relation
to
allied popular groups, his tanceunderscores he
methodological ophis-
tication
f
Folgarait's
book
by pointing eyond
ts
findings
o areas for ur-
ther
tudy.
Now I willexamine specific ase study nMuralPaintingndSocial
Revolutionn
Mexico
o
determine he ncisiveness nd range
of
Folgarait's
analysis
in
historical erms.How much did the
public
murals of Rivera
really mbody
the
paternalistic
nd
populist values of patronJoseVascon-
celos,
theSecretario e
Educacion
from 921 to 1924?
Folgarait's ritique
f
Vasconcelos s duly probing.
His
discussion
will
be a valuable
point
of de-
parture
or
nyone wishing
to
grapple
with the
generally
nderacknowl-
edged ideologicalproject
fthe
primary overnment atron
who
helped
to
jump-start
he
whole Mexican
muralmovement
uring
he administration
ofAlvaroObregon pp. 16-24).Not contentwith he harplynationalist nd
vaguely populistpraise
of
Vasconcelos's notably
iberal
patronage, olgar-
ait
delineates nstead
the
unsettling
nderside,
the
constraining ogic
of
Vasconcelos's program.Folgarait shows
how much this state
project,
t
least under
Vasconcelos,
was
self-serving
n
fairly
onventional
lass terms
and
along
stablishedthnic
ines,
otwithstanding
ts
revolutionary
hetoric."
226
8/12/2019 Craven David
8/18
REVIEW
ESSAYS
Seen
in
this ight,
he radiant
"gift" f
the minister n
behalf
of artistic e-
newal
and national
iteracy akes
on a
more somber
hue.
Despite,or even
because of,Vasconcelos'srecourseto thedidactic pedagogical projectof
Anatole Lunarcharsky,
he
contemporaneous
oviet
Commissar,what
was
most desired
by
the Mexican
ministry
n its cautious
haste to educate
the
popular
classes was
not
particularly
mpowering
for hemor structurally
transformative
or society
ike a revolutionary
iteracy rusade,
but
some-
thing
more
homogenizing
nd reformistn
character.
To
pointout
the populist
thrust fVasconcelos's
program, olgarait
quotes
from
his public statements
n
1920,
when he was still
rector
f the
Universidad
Nacional Autonoma
de Mexico: "Only intimate
ontact
be-
tweenworkers nd intellectualsanproducea spiritual ebirth.... Flor he
middle class to
. .. enrich tself,
t should ally
itself
with the
proletariat
f
the arth" p. 17).
Folgarait otes
nstructively
ow
the enor
fVasconcelos's
literacy
ampaign
can be recognized
by remembering
hat the
Mexican
philosopher
nvokedtheSpanish
Conquest
ofthe
Americas s "a
model for
social
and cultural ransformation,
aluing especially
the work
of the
mis-
sionaries
s a
civilizing
orce"
p. 18).
Accordingly,
asconcelos
called
the
teachers
n
his iteracy
rusade "maestros
misioneros"
nd claimed
that to
educate
is to redeem."
Understandably, hen,Folgarait
oncludes
that
he
socialreenfranchisementfthepopularclasses npost-revolutionaryex-
ico
was to be achieved
through
moderation f
their uneducated"
politi-
cal
and economic riticisms
f heclass-based
nature
f he
ystem:
Vascon-
celos' motives
n
directing
he nationalculture
hrough
ducation
were to
assist
the
government
n
creating system
f
political
ontrol" hat
was
dri-
ven by
vague concepts
ike "the
Mexican
people"
and "the national
cul-
ture."Paradoxically,
Vasconcelos
wished to end povertyyet
maintain
he
class
hierarchy,
o
revalue the
ndigenous
traditions
et
assimilate
ndige-
nous people
intoa mestizaje
itha
predominantly
ispanic
inflection.
Folgarait oes a first-rateob of analyzing hepedagogical project f
the
educationministry,
ut several
prickly
uestions
mmediately op up.
Can
itbe
assumed
thatVasconcelos's
tance utomatically
epresented
bre-
gon's
in
the
presidency
r the
iteracy
eachers'
n thetrenches? an
an ide-
ological
congruence,
ven on the
unconscious
evel,
be assumed
between
the deological project
f Vasconcelos
and thatof eftist ainters
ike
Diego
Rivera-or even
thatof artist-dandies
ike Adolfo
Best
Maugard,
head of
the
Departmento
e
Dibujo
and the
chool art
programs
nderVasconcelos?
Can
itbe assumed
thatVasconcelos's
educational
project
merely
utlined
predeterminedtatepolicyon art nd educationthatwould be relentlessly
pursued
by
the
subsequent
administrations
ed
by
Plutarco Elias
Calles
from
924to 1934
during
he o-called
Maximato?
t should be recalled
hat
Vasconcelos
resigned
over the
more eftist
rogram
riginally
epresented
by
Calles
when he
was selected s
Obregon's
successor
n 1924.
Finally,
an
it be assumed that
the
post-revolutionary
tate
had a unified
top-down
227
8/12/2019 Craven David
9/18
LatinAmerican
esearch
eview
purpose from
eginning
o end?Readers
might ecall
Poulantzas's
concept
of
he tate s a siteof
contestation
mongcompeting
ower blocs
and class
factions ather hanbeing a mere nstitutionalnforcerfruling-classdeo-
logical and economic
nterests t the expense
of a supposedly
resignedor
passive
majority.
To Folgarait's
redit, e
forces eaders
o answer
anew these
crucial
queries about
the state ven
when he generally esponds
to them
n a con-
ventional
way.
Mural Painting
nd Social Revolution
n
Mexicoadvances
to
the threshold
f a much-needed
ransition
n
art
history
rom revisionist
critique,
ith ts ffiliationso "dependency
heory,"owhathistorians
Mary
Kay
Vaughanand
Alan Knighthave
labeled since
the ate 1980s
as a post-
revisionist tancemore n inewith "dialogical conception" funeven his-
torical
development.7
The post-revisionist
osition for
aunching
a critiqueof
historical
events,
with tsmeasuredrestoration
f
gency
o
dominated opular
classes
and dissident
ndividuals, s
much more attuned
to locating
he
existence
of
"resistant
ultures"
hatwere frequently
t odds
with the official tate-
sanctioned
ultural
alues
in
art nd education.
As
recent esearch as
made
clear,
heseresistant
ultures ooted
n
popular
organizations
ave
wielded
great
nfluence t times,
ven
though
they
have rarely
scended
to
a
na-
tional evel. These resistant ubaltern ultureswere often llied with the
ideological
views and
political gendas
of the
main Mexican
muralists ike
Rivera, even
while he
workedforthe
national government
t
tense mo-
ments
when the
state
oughtto suppress
or at least
mute these same
resis-
tant ultures.8
Alan Knight
has consolidated
signal work
along
these ines by
an
earlier
roup
ofprogressive
cholars including
inda
Hall, Michael Meyer,
and
manyothers).
Knight
as
advanced the
"post-revisionist
osition"
ince
1990
with
a
broad-ranging et
penetrating ummation
f state-sponsored
developmentsnMexico after 920.9Knight's ncapsulation feventsfrom
the
1920s
through
he 1940s has opened
a
way
to
fine-tune nd extend
he
7.
Mary KayVaughan,
Cultural olitics
n Revolution:
eachers,
easants,
nd
Schools n
Mexico,
1930-1940
Tucson:
University
f Arizona Press, 1997);
and
Alan
Knight,
The
Rise and
Fall
of
Cardenismo,
.
1930-c.
1946,"
n
Mexico
ince
ndependence,
dited
by
Leslie
Bethel
Cam-
bridge:
CambridgeUniversity ress,
1991),
241-321.
8. The
post-revisionist
r
dialogical
concernwas central
o
my
book
on
Rivera,
which
ap-
peared
only
a short
imebefore
Folgarait's
tudy
of
muralism
n
general.
See
David
Craven,
DiegoRivera s EpicModernistBoston,Mass.: G. K. Hall, 1997).
9. For a well-known
ook at the
political
culture
passed
on
by
Obreg6n,
ee
Linda B.
Hall,
Alvaro
Obreg6n:
ower nd Revolution
n
Mexico,
911-1920
College
Station:
Texas
A
& M Uni-
versity ress,
1981).
For an
equally enduring
xamination
f the
richness f the revolution-
ary ineage
in
Mexico
long
after
920,
ee the now classic
textbook
y
Michael
C.
Meyer
and
William
L.
Sherman,
with Susan M.
Deeds,
The
Course
of
Mexican
History,
th ed.
(Oxford:
Oxford
University ress,
1999).
The first dition
ppeared
in 1979.
228
8/12/2019 Craven David
10/18
REVIEW
ESSAYS
discussionof
muralism
nd
the iteracy
rusade
by Folgarait.
Knight
um-
marized
the situation
cutely:
It s true
hat
Mexico's
conomy adnot eenrevolutionizedy heRevolution....
In contrast,
exico's
ocial
ndpolitical
ifewasdramatically
hanged y
heRevo-
lution,
lbeit n an
often
nplanned
nd
unforeseen
anner. he rmed
mobiliza-
tionof 1910-20
gave
way to new
forms f
nstitutional
obilization:
easant
leagues,
rade nions
nd a mass
f
political arties,
eft
ndright,
reat nd
small.
Theresult as
not
decorous
olitics,uch
s
Francisco adero
had advocated
n
1910;
utneither
as it
a closed, ersonalist,
utocratic
ystem
fthe
kindDiaz
had maintained
o the nd....
[A]
form fmass
politics
..
was gestating.
uch
politics
efies eat eneralization....
lthough
tate ontrol
ver ivil
ociety hus
increased,
he tate
uilt
y
the eaders
rom onora
1920-34)
was not n authori-
tarianeviathan.herumbustiousivil ocietyf he 920s efied uch ontrol....
Organized
workers
nd peasants
ften
lected
o
ally
with he
tate,
ut
hey
su-
ally
did so conditionally
nd
tactically,nd
there
eremany xamples
fpopular
dissidence....
What s more,
y the
1920s, he
demands
nd
rhetoricfpopular
movements.. displayed
newradicalism,
new
elf-confidence....
he
CROM,
the ominant
fficialabour
onfederation
before
934]
was not imply
cipher
f
theCallista
tate:
t forced mployers
o
reckon
with abour s
never efore....
Equally,
he easantry,
hich till
onstituted
he
ulk
f
he opulation,
isplayed
a different
emper ompared
with
pre-revolutionary
ays.... [Moreover]
he
political
nstitutionalization
f hemaximato
as
accompanied
ygrowing
ocial
and ideological olarization.
erein
ay
the
genesis
f
Cardenismo,
hepolitical
movementssociatedwith resident azaroCardenas 1934-40).... The radical-
ization f
he
egime
as
closely
ound
up
with he truggle
or
ower.'0
Viewed
n
ight
f
hisnew historiographic
ontext fpost-revisionism,
Mural
Painting
nd Social
Revolution
n
Mexico merges
s both
ngenious
and a touch ngenuous,
s
revisionist
et
occasionally
post-revisionist.
he
model for post-revisionist
nalysis
that
would
permit
onsolidating
ol-
garait's
nsights
nd also
advancing beyond
themhas
been provided
n
a
significant
tudy
by Mary
Kay
Vaughan
ofthe
tate-sponsored
ducational
program
n
post-revolutionary
exico. Her
nnovative
hesis bout
the
role
of the Secretaria e Educacion spells outwhat is missingfrom olgarait's
predominantly
tructuralist
ethodology
nd
its
application
o
themurals
by
Rivera
n the Secretaria
n
Mexico City:
"the real cultural
evolution
ay
not
n the state'sproject,
ut n the dialogue
between
state
nd society
hat
took
place
around
this
project....
The
school
became the arena
for
ntense,
often
violent
negotiations
ver
power,
culture,
knowledge,
and
fights.
n
the
process,
rural
ommunities
arved
out
space
for
preserving
ocal
iden-
tities
nd cultures....
If
the school
functioned
o
inculcate tate deology
for
purposes
of
rule,
t also served
communities
when
they
needed
to con-
test
tate
policies."11
10. Alan
Knight,
Rise
and Fall of
Cardenismo,"
241-42,
245.
11.
MaryKay
Vaughan,
Cultural
olitics
n
Revolution,
.
229
8/12/2019 Craven David
11/18
LatinAmerican esearch eview
Books orMass Circulationnd Conservative
opulism
No such innovative ngagementwith historical ssues, ideological
nuances,or historiographicversights
isturbs wo new commerciallyuc-
cessfulbooks on
Rivera
by nonscholars
n
the field. Pete Hamill's Diego
Riveras a glossy offee-table onograph
ublished yAbrams,whilePatrick
Marnham's Dreaming
ith
His EyesOpen:
A
Life fDiegoRivera s a straight-
forward
iography
f
Rivera
published
by Knopf.
Hamill is a
prominent
journalist
who has
been
editor-in-chief
or wo
conservativenewspapers,
the
New York
ailyNews nd the
New York ost.Marnhamhas written
etec-
tive mysteries nd travelbooks.
Certainly, orays y nonspecialists nto n academic domainsuch as
arthistory re to be welcomed when they roaden
the
debate about
historic
artworks nd look
with
fresh yes
or
unorthodox erspectives t
what es-
tablished cholars ometimes
reat oo routinely. onetheless, ommercial
ventures nto a cultural andscape
with a rich art historical iterature re
worth
ittle o
readers
when the
nonspecialists imply ecycle opulistplati-
tudes and demonstrate dilettantishndifference
o the
technical
ssues or
formal dvances
that are
always at
stake
in
the
probing analysis
of
art-
works
of
nternational
mportance.
Both of thesebooks represent ommercial ndertakingswithrather
conservative
olitical gendas,
lthoughMarnham's iography ontains
ome
original nterpretations
f
notable
political
vents
n
the ifeof Rivera and
the Mexican Left.
f these
two
books
were not
widely circulated
inancial
successes,theywould
be harmlessrather han ntermittentlyarmful nd
frequently isleading bout
Rivera's politics.The favorable ommentaries
that
he two
books
have received
n
the mass media forreinstalling asse
ideological
briefs
gainstRivera
n relation o
geopolitics,
oncomitant
ith
a seriesof nattentive
interpretations"
f
Rivera's
career s an
artist,
make
these wo books deeply disappointing dditions othe iteraturen thefield.
In
several nstances, hese two nonacademic authorshave done a
sad dis-
service to
Rivera,
to serious
scholarship,
nd to
the
general public
as the
main audience for
Rivera's
murals.
Hamill's book
actually
ontains
ittle
material
hat s new to
scholars,
aside
from
shrill
one on all
political
ssues
involving
Riverathat
has not
been
heard
since
the
1930s,
when David Alfaro
iqueiros engaged
in
simi-
lar
polemics.
An
insightful
eview
appeared
in
USA
Today.
his
hip
sum-
mary
f hebook
ays
out
n
a
probably
nintentional
annerHamill's
over-
arching deological agenda:
When colorful ewsman rom
rooklynPeteHamill)profiles larger-than-life
artist
rom
Mexico
Diego Rivera),
les
for
riginality
re
n
order....
Hamill
s
a
hotshot
n
ournalism,
or 0
years
chronicler
f
culture
n
this
ountry....
oli-
tics
recentral o
Hamill's
ook,
which
s
part iography
nd
part ppreciation
f
Rivera's rt.... On occasions he uthor eems ersonallyffrontedhat ivera
id
230
8/12/2019 Craven David
12/18
REVIEW
ESSAYS
not
recognizehe
dark ide
of ocialism....
Hamill's
primaryocus
s social
on-
text
rather han personality
r art
tself.
And what art tis .
.
.
Reproductions
f
Rivera's aintingsunctuatehe ober extikeburstsf ush olor.12
To corroborate
his humbnail
ketch f
Hamill's
mission
n
writing
this ext,
wo of he
nnumerable
xamples
of tsbrusquely
udgmental
one
will be cited.The
first nvolves Hamill's
"analysis"
of Rivera's trip
o the
USSR
in
1927-28,
when Rivera
ed a labor delegation
on the
tenth nniver-
sary
of
the
October
Revolution.
During
his
eight-month
isit,
Rivera
criti-
cized
certain
hings
n the Soviet
Union that signaled
his
anti-Stalinism
from he moment
t
emerged.
Within
shortperiod,
Rivera's
constructive
criticism
ed to his expulsion
from
he
Mexican
CommunistParty
nd
his
alliancewithLeonTrotsky nd sectors fthe "ultraLeft"from 929to1940.
He
was readmitted
o the
party
oldonly
during he de-Stalinization
fthe
1950s.
Yet Hamill
describes
Rivera's
trip
o the USSR
thus:
Rivera
was oneof he
most
amous ommunists
n
Mexico....
[H]ewas
a celebrity,
and
the ommunists
eededhis
presence....
His
hosts
were enerallyracious....
He
metStalin t some
function,
ketched
is face, ttracted
is attention,
nd
accepted
talin's utograph
n the ketch.
e metwith oung
rtists
ndpreached
thegospel
fmuralism,
nd even igned
contract ithAnatoly
unacharsky....
Did he completely
isswhatwas
happening
ll around
im n
the
oviet
Union?
Washe blind? fool? bitterruth asslowly eing evealed: ommunism,s en-
visioned y
he heologians
ho omposed
ts
dogmas,
as simply
otworking....
How
could Diego Rivera,
whose
public
rt
rgued
passionately
gainst ppres-
sion,
ave
failed
o
see
oppression
n the
ovietUnion
If
he saw
t,
how
could
he
accept
t? .. One
explanation
s obvious:
isbrain ad
grown
ocked nto
he
old
warrigidities
fMarxist-Leninist
heory.
ommunismupplied
One Big
Answer.
Itwas
an actof aith isguised
s
a process f
eason....
But o ccept uch
creed,
Diego
Rivera ad to
harden isheart.
Pp.
130-32)
This presentation
f Rivera's
politics
s a defining
heme
of the
en-
tire
book. Is Hamill
less severely udgmental
n
assessing
Rivera's
murals?
Hamill takes on Rivera's firstmuralin Mexico,La Creacion1922) in the
Escuela
Nacional
Preparatoria,
hich
serious cholars
onsider
he naugu-
ration of
the Mexican
Mural Renaissance
(despite
some aesthetic
hort-
comings
hatwere solved
in themurals
n
theSecretarfa
e Educacion
Pub-
lica).
Hamill observes,
Rivera's draftsmanship
s competent,
hecolors
re
chromatically
alanced
and
designed,
hefaceshave
variety,
nd
he makes
good
use of the architecture.
ut the work tself
s
utter
ubbish;
nsincere,
irrelevant, pastiche
createdfor
new audience
of
one: Vasconcelos....
Diego
Riverawas
painting
or he
man
who
signed
the checks"
p.
86).
Hamill's view of Rivera'smasterfulet ofmurals n thestairway f
the
Palacio Nacional
is even
more
beside the
point:
It stands
oday
s
exemplary
fhard
work
nd
personal
ndustry,
ut s one
of he
least atisfying
urals
s art. he
unpleasantly
eticulousendering
f t
s domi-
12.
Ann
Prichard,
Rivera,
with a
Splash
of
Red,"
USA
Today,
1
Oct.
1999,p.
8D.
231
8/12/2019 Craven David
13/18
Latin
American esearch
eview
nant,
he omposition
s as crowded
s
a subway rain
n
rushhour; he
portraits
are
xercisesnhagiography;he
cenes
fvanished ztec
lories redishonest
no
pre-Conquest ilitarismr human acrificeere). venKarlMarxmakes guest
appearance
n
this
Mexican
anorama,
s if
ffering
wordfrom
he ponsor....
Marx,
f ourse, ad
as much
odo withMexican
istory
s BabeRuth....
Diego's
hands
re painting
uthis heart
sn't....
There s plenty
fviolence,
much p-
pression,
nd almost
o
nsight.
his
s a paintinghat
emands he ervices
f
tour uide. Pp.
149-52)
Of the numerous
mistakes
n thisone passage,
I will mention nly
one
here.13 ontrary
o Hamill's impatient
laim,
wo ofthe
murals
nclude
prominent
eferenceso pre-conquest
militarism nd
human sacrifice.
ny-
one
who has missed
themhas never
ooked at these
frescoes
n
a
sustained
and thoughtful anner.
PatrickMarnham's
Dreaming
ith is EyesOpen:
A
Life fDiego
Rivera
does
notfall nto
he
category
fart ournalism.
his writer fdetective
to-
ries
s
at
his best
when unraveling
he nstances
of byzantine
political
n-
trigue
nd
even murder hat irculated
round
Rivera nd theMexican
Left
from
he
ate 1920s
through he early
1940s. Marnham
does not allow
his
conservative olitics
o
obtrude
s
often s Hamill
does. Marnham s
more
smoothly
ismissive
but
not lways
more cholarly).
ivera's
ifelong om-
mitment o socialism
remains nscrutable
or
him,
ven when
solidly
docu-
mented.
An
example
of thisworld-wearywriter's mannerisms ppears
when he
attempts
arly
n
the
biography
o overturn
compelling
reason
for
he Rivera
family's brupt
move
to
Mexico City
when
Diego
was six.
Contrary
o the standard
view
presented
y
Rivera and
the
major
scholars
in the
field,
Marnham
eems to make ight
f
Diego's
father's ntegrity
s
a
political
activist:
The authorized
version s
that
Don
Diego
had
become
politically
npopular
forhis liberal
views....
However,
none of
these
rea-
sons
explains
the
abruptness
f Maria
del Pilar's
departure....
[S]he
left
like a woman avoiding
a bailiff....
Don
Diego's
exithad no
political
ig-
nificance;
e was
just
another ailed
mine-owner"
p. 32).
Lack of
generosity
nd an abundance
of
cynicism
n
biographies
often
ead to
llogical
laims.To
say
that heRivera
family's
asty
departure
fromGuanajuato
necessarily
ndicated financial
disgrace
rather
han vic-
timization hrough
oliticalrepression
s a non
sequitur.
Marnham
himself
concedes
the
implausibility
f his
own
breezy
claim
in the next
chapter:
"Maria
del Pilar's
panic may
not
have been so
ill
udged
after ll.
In
Gua-
najuato
the new
governor
losed
El
Democrata
with
which
Diego's
father
was associated]
and
arrested
he
staff,
nd
in
years
to come liberal
news-
papers
in
San
Luis
Potosi and
Guanajuato
were
regularly
uppressed
and
their
ournalists
eaten
up
or
murdered"
pp.
33-34).
A
relatedproblem
s the tone
of condescension
thatmars
much of
13.
I
have
analyzed
these threefrescoes
t
length
elsewhere.
See
Craven,
Diego
Rivera
s
Epic
Modernist,
19-29.
232
8/12/2019 Craven David
14/18
REVIEW ESSAYS
DreamingwithHis Eyes Open, eading
to remarks ike this: "All his
life
Rivera showed
a naivety
n
formal
rgument hatvergedon childishness"
(p. 41). The ethnocentricndercurrentsfthis loppycontention urface n
realizing that such patronizing
remarks re also
aimed at Mexico as a
whole.
For example,Marnhamopines
thatRivera's scholarship o study
n
Europe (primarily
n Spain and France) was fortunate:
For the following
fifteen
earshe
was to nhabit land ofreason" p.
49). Similarly, arnham
writes
ondescendingly
ftheMexicanRevolution, ommentinghat
Rivera
"came
back to a country hat had
been in
an almost
continuous state
of
revolution.... GeneralCarranza attempted
n
1917
to ntroduce he
rule of
law....
The resultwas thathis most
ble
general,
Alvaro
Obregon,
ed a re-
volt againstCarranza, nd within fewweeks thefirst ost-revolutionary
Mexican
president
had been
assassinated. Fiesta
. . .
one
year
after
he
deathofCarranza, heRevolution
ad alreadybeen betrayed nd defeated"
(pp. 155-56).
Marnham's characterization
f the
Mexican
Revolution s
not
only
ethnocentric
ut dead
wrong.
How
did he
arrive
at this ll-formednter-
pretation?
he
question
s not easily
answered
because Dreaming
withHis
Eyes Open has
no
notes and
only
a
slim
bibliography.Marnham's
view of
the Mexican Revolution s contradicted
y almost every
book listed
n
the
bibliography, hichincludes alarmingly ew on Mexicanhistory y key
analysts
ike Michael Meyer,Mary Kay Vaughan,
and Alan Knight.
imi-
larly,
Marnham cites Linda Hall's excellent ook on
Obregon but then g-
nores verything
he showed about
this
great evolutionaryeader.14
Marn-
ham
offers either easonsnor documentation or
his
dismissalof
Obregon
as
responsible
for
"betraying"
he revolution
by
1920.
Marnham
further
claims
that he
post-revolutionaryovernment
merged
in
ts
pure,
deal-
istic
form,
s
personified
y
Vasconcelos, nd
in its
corrupt, pportunistic
form,
mbodied n
Obregon" p. 165).
Marnham'sanalysisof Rivera'swork is equallymisinformed. or
example,
Marnham
asserts
thatLa
maestra ural n
the
Secretarfa
e
Edu-
cacion
"showed
the future ifeof
the
hacienda."
In
reality,
ivera's mural
depicted
ife fter he
hacienda,
at
the momentwhen the hacienda
system
was
being
broken
up
and
progressively estroyed
o redistribute
and to
communally
held
ejidos.
This
process
proceeded
cautiously
t first nder
Obregon
and
then
with
radical force
under President
Lazaro Cardenas.
It
accelerated
from
three
million cresexpropriated
nder
Obregonby
1924to almost
fifty
il-
lionacres n ustfouryearsunder Cardenasbeginningn1934,with third
of the Mexican
population
ultimately eceiving
and
through
his
post-
revolutionary
rogram.15
uch statisticsmake clear
just
how mistaken
14.
Hall,
Alvaro
Obreg6n.
15.
Meyer
and
Sherman,
TheCourse
f
Mexican
History,
th
ed.,
577-78.
233
8/12/2019 Craven David
15/18
LatinAmerican esearch
eview
Marnham
s when he equates thesituation
nder Porfirio iaz
with
condi-
tions after
1920. No wonder Marnham
misses the markwhen he
takes
interpretativetabsat themeaningof Rivera's murals.16
What can scholars
n the field
glean
from
his
problematic
book?
Actually,more than
one mightfirst xpect.Four
chapters
ut of fourteen
provide
n intriguingnd convincing
econstructionfthe rail
f abotage
and
slayings
eft
by
vicious
Stalinist ssassin Vittorio
Vidali. By the
time
Marnham
abulates
he
body
count
n
Mexico and beyond,
t s evident hat
Vidali helped torture nd murder
cores of
eft-wing olitical dissidents
either
within he CommunistParty
or
outside it,
ncludingJulio
Antonio
Mella,
Tina
Modotti,
RobertHarte,
and Leon
Trotsky.
t now
appears
that
Vidaliwas also responsible orRivera's xpulsion rom heCommunist arty
in 1929
pp.
208-15).
Thisoutstanding
art fDreaming
ith
is
EyesOpen eveals
Marnham
resourcefully talking
Vidali
with a relentless ense
of
purpose
through
stacks
f
period documents some
made available
only ince theSoviet col-
lapse
in 1989). In the end, Marnham
gets his
man, now in from he cold.
Vidali, alias
"Enea Sormenti" and "Carlos
Contreras,"was a terrifying
henchmanwho embodied
everything
hathas made Stalinism
synonym
for
ll
that ny egitimate
ocialist
movementmust bhor.
Marnham
pays
a
marvelous ributeoRivera'sutter ack of ympathywith he inister idali
and
the
Stalinoid huggery
e
represented.
Marnham
recalls
hat
n 1954-
following
he
death
of
Stalin,
heouster f
Soviet eader Lavrenti
Beria,
nd
the painter's
readmission
nto the Communist
Party-Rivera
toasted "the
return f
the
Trotskyists
o power
in
the Soviet
Union" (p.
311).
TwoMonographs
s Micro-Histories
The
excellentnew
monographs
by
Linda Downs and Anthony
ee
bothconcentraten circumscribed ayson artworks yRiveraofthe 1930s
in
Detroit
nd San Francisco.
n
each study,
he seemingly
narrowfieldof
inquiryyields
a broad-ranging et
of
nsights
nto
the artistic
rocess
used
by
the
painter
during
his
period
or the overall
political mport
f his
mu-
rals
in
the public
life of two cities. Downs's
bountifulDiego
Rivera:The
Detroit
ndustry urals
offers
rare nd gratifyingxperience:
hechanceto
view scores
of little-known
r
even
unknown sketches
nd
cartoonsby
Rivera in preparationfor
his
fresco
cycle of
twenty-seven anels
in the
Detroit nstitute f
Arts.This
remarkable
ache of
new
drawings
has
been
augmentedby numerous rarephotographsfrom heperiod thatfreshly
chronicle
ivera's and Frida
Kahlo's visit o
Detroit. he Detroit
murals
re
16.
Marnham's
misguided
references
o art and art
history
ave
already
been
singled
out
in several other nstances
by
Dawn
Ades
in her
review
of
Dreaming
with
His
EyesOpen.
See
"The
Many
Revolutions
f
Rivera,"
The
London imes
iteraryupplement,
Nov.
1998,p.
17.
234
8/12/2019 Craven David
16/18
REVIEW ESSAYS
the finest aintings
hatRivera ever executed n
the United
States, f not
worldwide.
One of Downs's contentionsn this workis that enough attention
has alreadybeen lavished
on thereception
f Rivera's mages,
particularly
along
ideological fault ines.
n
her
view,those
nterested
n
Rivera's
work
need
to regain their
ooting y studyingmore specific
rt historical rob-
lems concerningRivera's
creativeprocess,
bothtechnical nd
manual, as
well
as the
conographic
rogram
he used
and
the role of his workshopof
assistants.
Such
redirection
would hardly
be
advisable
without
the new
material nd a rethinking
f
things
o go
with t. Here at least,the reintro-
ductionofthe "classic"arthistorical
reoccupation
with he
rt
object s an
intendedmaterial rtifacts entirelyustified, wingto thewaythatDowns
locates and handles
this material
n
her monograph.
All
these
topics are
made
even more
intriguing y
the fact that Downs was one of
the
key
scholars who cleverly
followed
a
series of hunches
and
leads
to "redis-
cover"
long-lost
artoonsthat
Rivera drew
in
preparation
orhis Detroit
fresco ycle.
All are expertly eproduced
n
thisbook published
by Norton
in
conjunction
with he Detroit nstitute f
Arts.Downs has contributed n
essential
new study
of
Rivera,
using
conventionalmethodologicalproce-
dures to
great ffect.
With
hisbook,
she emerges s
the
heir pparent
o the
late StantonCatlinas the dean of Rivera studies n the UnitedStates.
In
addition to providing
he sheer visual
pleasure of
following he
conception
nd execution
fthe
Detroit
murals
n a moremeasured
and in-
timatemanner,
owns's
Diego
Rivera
lso imparts
good deal
of ess spec-
tacular
nformationbout Rivera's
ongoing nterrelationships
ith
his team
of assistants. everal
of them
emerge
as
distinct ersonalities
or
he first
time
n
art
history.
ess expectedly,
owns
further
efines he lready
honed
iconographic nalysis
of the Detroitmurals that
was
put together
or he
momentous
1986 exhibition f
Rivera's work
n Detroit.The
catalogue
for
this show remainsone of the mostimportant ublications about Rivera
ever to
appear.
Downs wrote the introduction nd organized
the exhibit
along
with
Ellen
Sharp.17
One of the
few
catalogues
thathas followedup
the 1986
publication
successfully
s the one that
originated
t the Cleveland
Museum
of
Art
n
1998
with
an
important
how
of
Rivera's oil
paintings,
urated
by
William
Robinson,Augustin
Arteaga, nd
Luis-Martin ozano.
Both the catalogue
and
the exhibition
re entitled
iego
Rivera:
Art
nd
Revolution. he exhibi-
tion
raveled o Los Angeles
and Mexico City s
well as Houston. Both
make
significantontributions y innovatively xploringRivera's remarkable
17.
Diego
Rivera:A
Retrospective,
etroit
nstitute f
Arts,
0
Feb.-27
Apr.
1986.
n addition
to Downs's fine ntroduction
nd
Catlin's
nvaluable "Mural
Census,"
the
catalogue
contains
important
ontributionsy
Ellen
Sharp co-curator
fthe
show),
Laurance P.
Hurlburt,
licia
Azuela,
Ida
Rodriguez-Prampolini,
ita
Eder,
nd several other
eading
scholars.
235
8/12/2019 Craven David
17/18
LatinAmerican esearch
eview
range
s a painter
who forged novel
anguage from he
most disparate
of
visual
traditions nd cultural
dioms.
Noteworthy ssays along these
ines
were contributed othecataloguebyLuis-Martin ozano on Rivera'sclas-
sical lineage,
rene Herneron the
Rockefeller
enter
candal,
and Alberto
Hijar
on theTrotsky onnection,
o name only a few
n this
fine
ollection.
Just
s
Downs focuseson
onlyone
muralcycle, o Anthony
ee con-
centrates
n the three mpressive
mural complexes
thatRivera executed
n
San
Francisco efore
nd after he one
in the
ndustrial eartland.
n Paint-
ing
n the eft: iegoRivera,
adical
olitics,nd San Francisco's
ublic
Murals,
Lee
has written "social
history fart," ne
that ommands
attention ith
its vivacity
nd rigor. ee's
style nd concision
s a thinker
re evident n
his summary fthebook:
San
Francisco'smost elebrated
ublicmurals, ainted
uring
heGreat epres-
sionby artists f
theLeft,
werepolitically
adicalworks f art.Although
oday
their olitics
auseno
misunderstandingroutrage,
n
the
930smost f he ity's
major
atrons
nd critics ound hem olitically
npalatable,
nd
often ictorially
incomprehensible....
hat
ndeed id these
aintershink hey
were oing
when
they
elated heir
work ndpictorial xperiments
o leftist
olitics?
hat s the
general uestion
pursue
n
thisbook.
San Francisco
xperienced
historical
moment
..
when rt-public rt,
o less-could
pursue ocially
nd politically
revolutionary
mbitions....Throughout
his arly
istory,public"was
(as itre-
mained) n ideological erm,eferringo an imaginaryocialbody hat ouldbe
invoked
s needed.Often atrons
alledupon
t
to stand
ictive itness o
their
own mbitions.
ut
once public
was said to
exist ormurals, ther
ctors ould
make
laims
pon
t.
Diego
Rivera's
murals
ermitted
pecific
eftist
ainters
odo
just hat....
His firstwo an
Francisco urals rovided
tunning
isual vidence
of a
symbolic anguage
of
radicalpoliticaldissent.
The
new art-criticalerm
"Riveresque"was coined,
dmirers
nd detractorslike
using
t as a familiar
descriptiveategory....
The
Riveresquen particular
ad a
radical fterlife
n
the
famous oit
Tower
panels,
n which
rtistic
nd
political ractices
ereclosely
aligned
.
,
themoment
hen heir ork
nteredntomeaningful
ialoguewith
widespread
orking-class
issent....
ButwhenRivera eturned
o
San
Francisco
in1940 o painthis third nd finalmuraln thecity, hetriumphantoodhad
clearly
assed. Pp.
xvii-xix)
Painting
n
the eft,
hich lso covers
obscureAnglo
artists ike
May-
nardDixon and
the
misnamed "Bohemian
Club,"
is
at once
visuallyastute
and
politically
droit.
Lee acknowledges
the
unavoidably asymmetrical
relationship
etween
Rivera's
murals nd
their
atrons.
he
result s a
post-
revisionist eading
of the shifting
meanings
of
the frescoes
n
relation
o
a
complex
et
of
political
actics n
the Left.Lee's
discussion
of the
compet-
ingtendencieswithin heCommunistPartyrevealsthe cruciblefor rriv-
ing at an alternate
eception
f Rivera's
murals even
in
the seemingly
ir-
tight
acificStock Exchange.Just
s
he skillfully nalyzes
how
the fresco
Allegory
fCalifornia
exceeded the
critical
ategories
vailable
to the
writ-
ers"
and "signaled
that
the mural contained
ubjects
nherently
ritical
f
corporate
ndustry,"
o Lee
metaphorically ounds
the
period
turf f San
236
8/12/2019 Craven David
18/18
REVIEW ESSAYS
Francisco o map out themain
constituencies orBernard akheim'sJewish
Community
enter
mural, uch
as the
eftist
adre
of
real
bohemians cen-
tered n Montgomery treet ndTelegraphHill and led by the ikesofKen-
nethRexroth nd FrankTriest, r
the members
f District
5 of the Public
Works f
Art
Project PWAP). Lee shows
how
the ocial
mport
f
public
art
at
ts
mostprogressive
n
San
Franciscoduring
he
1930swas not simply
n
institutional gift" f the WorksProgressAdministrationWPA) at the na-
tional evel but rather consequence of rregular opular mobilization n
the ocal level.
Given themanifest trengths
fPainting
n
the
eft, hat
f
nyweak-
nesses are evident?First, he section
on Rivera
n
Mexico prior o arriving
in San Francisco s staleand superficial, otreally breastof the atestre-
search
on issues
like
the
painter's relationship
with the
CommunistParty
or his workfor he
post-revolutionaryovernment.
uch
issues
as Rivera's
"epic modernism"
n
Mexico
will
need to be addressed
n
thefuture.More
seriously,
n
implicit yclical
notionof
history
n
the
study constrains
he
political mport
f the murals within
n evolutionist
evelopment,
rom
promising eginning
n the
early 1930s
to
"the finalfailure" f
the
murals
in
the ate 1930s.The glib
concluding
one
of
thebook lands readerson
the
familiar errain
f
eft-wing ostalgia tinged
with
melancholy
bout what
occurred ubsequently.
Yetwhat
f
he social
promise
of the Riveramuralswere viewed not
as defeated
but
as deferred
ntil
moments
ike that
of
the
Chicano mural
movement
n
the 1960s nd
1970s,
r
othermovements
et
o
emerge?
fwe
look
at Rivera's murals
with
a more
profound
nd multilateral istorical
sense of this
kind,
we
could switchfrom
eing nostalgic
bout the
past
to
being "nostalgic about
the
future,"
s Ernesto Cardenal
once
said-and
Diego Riverawould stillbe partof
thatfuture.
237
