WITNESSING REVOLUTION,FORGING A NATION

ROBIN ADELE GREELEY

Carlos Fuentes once wrote that the Mexican Revolution was ac-rually three competing revolutions whose chaotic events wereonly resolved into coherent narratives well after the fact. 1 Thisnarrative chaos is evident not only from a political or militaryperspective, but also from an artistic perspective. How, for ex-ample, are we to make sense of such varied figures as FranciscoGoiria (1882-1960), whose paintings condensed the turmoil ofthe revolution into Goya-like dramas of horror, versus DiegoRivera (1886-1957), who celebrared rhe revolurion by conjoiningpolitical and aesthetic revolutions in his cubist-inspired ZaparisraLcndsccpe(1915; see fig. 2.3)? Or Roberto Montenegro (1885-1968),who clung to a Symbolisr sryle born of his rejection ofthescientific positivism that prevailed under the dictatorship ofPorfirio Diaz (1876-191'), versus David Alfaro Siqueiros (1896-1974). who caned for a revolutionary "art of the fiirure"?' Perhaps

most perplexing of all, what do we make of Dr. At! (GerardoMurillo (1875-1964]), whose radical nationalist ideologies un-derwrote both the birth of Mexican muralism andan unam-biguous allegiance to fascism? And how might we view thesevaried artists in light of institutional efforts aimed at fortifYinga cultural project of nationhood, whether through strugglesover the pedagogical practices of the Academy of San Carlos in

the capital, or through the efforts of anthropologist ManuelGamio to institutionalize indismismo as the official face ofMexico' 5

cultural identiry?This essay investigates the intersection offour vectors-

witnessing the revolution, defining the nation and modernity,constructing "lndianness," and exploring the role of art insti-tutions in the process of narion-formarion-as they relate to

Jose Clemente Orozco (Mexican, 1883-1949).Combat, 1925-28 (detail of plate 72)

artistic production, circulation, and institutionalization duringthe fraught decade of 1910-20, when Mexico was engaged in thecivil war that came to be known as the Mexican Revolution. Thiswas a period of great flux, when tensions around such terms as"Mexico," "modernity," and what Gamio would call "forging anation" were on display.

WITNESSING THE REVOLUTIONHow did Mexican artists image the revolution itself? Was itpossible to create narratives-especially narratives of nation-building and aesthetic innovation-from within a direct experi-ence of the violence? Or was this only possible from afar? Whateffects did temporal and physical proximiry to the fighting haveon the types of pictorial narratives constructed? I begin by con-trasting works produced by three artists: Coiria, who foughtunder Pancho Villa and pictured the revolution from that eye-witness vantage point; Jose Clemente Orozco (1883-1949), whoyears later would translate his noncombatant perceptions of theconflict's savagery into a universal denunciation of war; andRivera, whose iconic Zapurista Landscape was produced not inMexico but in Paris, without direct experience of the fighting-a visual representation of the revolution mediated by the artist'sengagement with the European avant-garde and his at-best in-direct knowledge of events in Mexico, among other factors.

These divergent experiences of proximity and distanceled to competing visual narrarives of the tevolurion that had long-term effects on the development of Mexican art. Unlike Rivera'simages, the pictorial wimessing of both Goiria and Orozco cap-tured the fratricidal nature of the civil war, especially as it affected

263

the disenfranchised rural and indigenous populations, particu-larly women, who were most vuLnerable to the violence. Yet theconditions under which these artists did so differed considerably.In 'fheWitch(1912-16), Goiria's brural, expressionistic painterly en-crustations powerfully blend horror with the uncanny to createa Goya-like monstrosity-a quasi-hwnan face that seems at oncealive and dead, dissolving into a skull before our eyes in a porrentof our own future (fig. a.i]. Coiria's landscapes would continuethis imbrication of painterly expressionism and the horrific,marching the harshness of an arid, unforgiving environment withthe cruelty of equally unforgiving humans, such that barbarismbecomes an everyday occurrence.

Orozco, by contrast, constructed a different model of"witnessing" the Mexican Revolution, based less on eyewimessaccounts than on capturing a collective imaginary of the violence.His series of drawings titled The Horrors of the Revolution,producedbetween 1926 and 1928 at the behest of journaList and culturalpromoter Anita Brenner for publication in the Unired States, re-formulated his monumental murals at the National PreparatorySchool to create dramacic "testimonies" of the savagery inflictedupon the humble, unnamed masses ofMexicans-those for whomthe revolution was simply one more episode in a centuries-longhistory of suffering the cruel whims of those more powerful (fig.2.2).3 Although produced well after rhe revolution's ferocity hadsubsided, OtoZCO'sdeftly srark lines, jabbed our wirh pen and ink,deliberarely evoke rhe utgent austerity of skerches done directlyin the field. "Death is the first thing one sees," remarks RenatoGonzalez Mello on Orozco's images of this period, "then the rev-olution, but as war not as a just [social] change."4

264 ROBIN ADt:LE GREELEY

Fig. 2.1. Francisco Goitia (Mexican,1882-1960). The Witch, 1912-16.Oil on canvas, 15% x 13 inches(39 x 33 em). Museo Francisco Goitia,INBA, Zacatecas, Mexico

Fig. 2.2. Jose Clemente Orozco. TheHanged Man, 1926-28, from The Horrorsof/he Revolution. Ink on paper,11Mx 12 inches (42 x 30.4 cm). Museode Ane Carrillo Gil, INBA, Mexico City

Fig. 2.3. Diego Rivera (Mexican. 1886-1957). Zsoetiste Landscape, 1915.Oil on canvas. 57 x 4914 inches(144,7 x 125 em). Museo Nacional deArte.INBA, Mexico City

Fig. 2.4. Roberto Montenegro (Mexican,1885-1968). The TreeofLife,1922.Fresco and encaustic. Museo delas Constituciones. UNAM, Mexico City

Both Goitia and Orozco sought to evoke an intimateconnection between visual representation and the catastrophicimpact of Mexico' s civil wat. What matters here is not only thesubject matter, but also the way painting and drawing them-selves are treated. The power of the atrocities depicted comesfrom our ability to imagine them, which in rurn comes fromthe artists' deep aesthetic engagement with the very violencethey abhorred. With Goitia's Witch,for example, painting's ca-pacity to conjure a resemblance is contaminated by the way inwhich it participates in that conjuring. Here, that means an evo-cation of the gruesome violence done to a human body. Theforce of this image comes precisely from the anxiety-riddenquestioning that painting undergoes concerning just how farit should engage in the process of illusion-making. How closecan it-should it-come to the intolerable barbarity of the expe-rience? How far should painting go if what it is creating ishuman pain? Should it revel in its ability to efface the distancebetween the sign for the rhing and rhe thing itself, the paintingof torture and rorrure itself?

Yet whereas Goitia produced a powerful discourse ofsuffering and marginality based on his eyewitness experiences(one char can be read alongside the photographic restimonyof Agustin Casasola [1874-1928]), Orozco's harrowing imagesrely for their persuasiveness on the sense of immediacy em-bedded in their very form. In front of the Horrors, it becomesimpossible to turn a blind eye to the atrocities depicted. Inthis sense, the impact of pictures such as The Han8ed Man (seefig. 2.2) depends less on whether Orozco actually saw theevents depicted than on the conviction that the image itself

could act as an "eyewitness" -rhar it could reveal fundamentaltruths about the historical consequences of human actions."

In contrast to both Goitia and Orozco, Rivera's distancefrom rhe fighring allowed him ro marry an engagement wirhthe European avant-garde to an image of revolutionary politicsin zaparisra Landsrape(fig. 2.3). From his vantage point in Paris,Rivera produced a narrative of Revolution-with a capital "R"-that equated pictorial radicalism with Mexico's tumultuousleap into modernity. His brilliant engagement with Cubismmobilizes fragmented planes and textures to dynarnize the pic-torial surface as a metaphor for a modernizing social revolution:"[Cubism] was a revolutionary movement," he declared, "ques-rioning everyrhing rhar had previously been said and done inart. Ir held norhing sacred. As the old world would soon blowitself apart, never to be the same again, so Cubism broke downforms as they had been seen for centuries, and was creating outof the fragments new forms, new objects, new patterns, and-ultimately-new worlds." Against the pessimism ofGoiria andOrozco, ZaparisraLandscapepresents a visionary revolt against thestatus quo that rises above internecine conflict; nowhere in ev-idence are the factionalism, the destruction, the violently con-flicting ideologies that pitted the agrarian proto-communismof Emilia no zapata against the bourgeois suffragism of FranciscoMadero, the dictatorial caudiUismo of Victoria no Huerta, and thediri8isre statism of Venustiano Carranza. Although he soonturned away from Cubism, Rivera maintained this populistview of Mexico' s promise, even as that vision was appropriatedas official discourse by an increasingly authoritarian, diri8istenationalist state.

DEFINING THE MODERN, DEFINING THE NATIONIn 1922, under the massive cultural renovation program of min-ister of public education JoseVasconcelos, Montenegro producedThe Tree of Life in the former Jesuir College of Sainc Perer and SainrPaul (fig. 2-4). Newly returned from a long sojourn in Europe, rhearristused the commission to consolidate his Symbolist-inspiredstyle in a mural that critics lauded as quintessentially "nation-alist," helping to define whar Lynda Klich has called "decorativenationalism."? AsJulieta Ortiz Gaidn argues, Montenegro haddeveloped his "elegantand lavish" fantasies as illustrations forfin-de-siecle Modemisra publications in which artists and writ-ers deployed a culrural polirics of escapism and decadenceagainst Porfirian positivism." Upon returning to Mexico in 1919,Montenegro reformulated the Aubrey Beardsley-influencedexoticism he had developed in Europe to address the conceptof the Mexican "nation," transposing the morbid sensuality ofworks like salome-ParlS 1910 (1914; private collection) to the ideaof the nation itself> The Treeof Life underscores Vasconcelos'smodel of national spiritual renovation through culture, widelypromoted as a means of "civilizing" the barbarism of the civilwar, through a stylized parade of allegories representing the artsand sciences, depicted as languid female figures congregatingbenearh a tree bearing rhe fruits of knowledge. "The mural ag-grandizes the ornate floral patternings of the tree, incorporatingdecorative schemes derived from urte popularin an early attemptto define a narionalist aesthetic."

This "decorative nationalism" came to prominence dur-ing the period of relarive polirical stability inaugurared by rheConstitution of 1917 and consolidated under the presidency of

WITNESSING REVOLUTION, FORGING A NATION 265

!?J"(!II'I'f!I"<!kl~ _ ....... __#

EJ Arte Nacionalisla de Best Maugard~ ..........

AlvaroObregon (1920-24). Arrisrs from Fernando Leal(185)6-1964)and Sarurnino Herrin (1887-1918) toAdolfo BesrMaugard (1891-1965), Montenegro, and others adopted similar combinations ofSymbolism, the picturesque, and Mexican subject matter in theirsearch for a modern nationalist aesthetic, deploying a variety ofthemes-pte-conquest, colonial, indigenous, folkloric-to distin-guish their vision from the outmoded academicism of San Carlos.Along with Montenegro, BesrMaugard perhaps best exemplifiesthis stylized invocation ofartisanal folk and indigenous arts in thepursuir of a modern national identiry (fig. 2.5). Officially institu-tionalized in his reaching manual, published by the Ministry ofPublic Education in 1923, BestMaugard's ornamenralgeometriza-non of natural motifs reformulated patterns derived from nativecultures into an "authentic" national aesthetic legible to urbanelites. At the same rime, the sophisticated cosmopolitanism ofhisworks, a product inpartofhis travels in Europe, aimed to positionMexico asan equal in the international field of artistic production.

Scholars have argued that this fin-de-steele ornamen-talism tended to trap artists, especially Montenegro, "betweentwo worlds": between Modernismo's increasingly outmodeddecorative srylisrics and the innovations of the avant-garde. nYet Montenegro in particular remained a central point of refer-ence, and the artist continued to adapt his style indialogue withother aesthetic discourses. Thus, the "impressionist nationalism"ofAlfredo Ramos Martinez (1871-1946) and Rivera's post-Cubisrclassicizing modernism mounted powerful counterproposalsagainst Modemista ornamenralism, I}The former, rejecting bothacademic and Symbolist srylistics in a search for pictorial aurhen-riciry, depicred naturalized rural and indigenous Mexicans in local

266 ROBIN ADELE GREELEY

contexts. In Ramos Martinez's Indian Couple with Watermelon (fig.2.6), for example, rhe figures squat low to the ground, painred indark earthy tones and loose brushstrokes that make them almosrindistinguishable from the nature surrounding them.

Rivera, trading his earlier Cubism for a Picasso-inspiredrappel a l'crdre(rerum to order) classicism, would soon producehis mural creation, 1922-23 (fig. 2.7), a mix of allegory, universalhumanism, and incipienr mestizaj, rhar boldly repudiated borbRamos Martfnea's "impressionist nationalism" and what Riverasaw as the anachronisms of decorative nationalism." EchoingTheTree of life in irs allegorical appeal to the arts as the basis fornational renovation, Creation nevertheless refuted Montenegro'ssuperficial ornamentalism in favor of purportedly more au-thentic Mexican aesthetic values of monumental constructionand ordered puriry of form. Writing under a pseudonym, fel-low muralisrs Siqueiros and jean Charlot (1898-1979) linkedRivera to the "healthiest and strongest European pictorial the-ories" against the "pseudo-modem" aesthetics of Best Maugard,Montenegro, and Ramos Martinez. 15

Despite their differences, however, all these artists dis-played a commirment to modernist formal innovation alliedwith an incipient nationalism that would fonn the basis of aes-rhetic developments for decades to come.

"FORGING A NATION": INDIANIZING MEXICOCarnic's famous call for a dynamic cultural polirics-Pcrjendcpctrio(Forging a Nationj-wtitren in 1916 in the midst of rhe armedconflicr, set a powerful stage for constructions ofIndianness evenbefore rbe violence had slowed. Arguing the necessiry of defining

Fig. 2.5. Adolfo Best Maugard (Mexican,1891-1964). Drawings published inLuis Lara Pardo. "EI arte necionenstade Best Maugard.~ Rel/isra de revistas,vol. 11, no. 553 (December 12, 1920),p. 16. Documents of zcth-cerncrv LatinAmerican and Latino Art, InternationalCenter for the Arts of the Americas atthe Museum of Fine Arts, Houston

Fig. 2.6. Alfredo Ramos Martinez(Mexican, 1871-1946)./ndian Couplewith Watermelon, 1914. Oil on canvas,39%x 39% inches (100.5x 100 em).Private collection. Photograph courtesyArchivo Fotografico Manuel Toussaint,lnstltuto de Investigaciones Esteticas,UNAM, Mexico City

Fig. 2.7. Diego Rivera.Creation, 1922-23.Fresco. encaustic, and gold leaf. SimonBolivar Amphitheater. Antiguo Colegiode San lldefonso, Mexico City

a distinct Mexican cultural identity as the foundation for a renewednational project, Gamic provided urban elites with a platformfor exploring the country's rural populations in a contradictoryattempt to equate indigenous culture with "Mexicanness" while"redeeming" the indio through incorporation into the modernnanon-stare.

This projecr, taken up by artists and intellectuals as var-ied as Goitia, Best Maugard, Dr. Ad, and Henan, underwrorewhar historian Rick L6pez has called "the dual process of 'ere-aring' the Mexican Indian and of'ethnicizing' the nation.":" Loilld{8f1lawas the leitmotif that would unite Mexico's disparatepopulations inro a "culturally cohesive, politically stable postrev-olutionary nation."> Under this elitist ideology, argues Lopez,Mexico's peasants were "recast as Indians" and positioned as"passive" emblems of a "national essence.':" Yet this was a messy,contested project, only slowly adopted by the state. Many artistsand intellectuals rejected the equation of Mexicanness with con-temporary indigenous cultures, instead promoting the nation'sSpanish or pre-conquest heritages; others-including Vasconcelosand Orozco-advocated a me.srizajethat minimized any validationofIndianness. Indeed, in his foundational concept ofmestizaje, firstproposed in the same year as Gamic's FOIjando pcmc,Vasconcelosargued that the purported "primitive inexpression" oftllndian"cultures, though necessary to any definition of Mexican culture,needed to be "redeemed" through mixing with the superior uni-versalizing rationalism of Mexico' s European heritage." Despitetheir differences, however, these discourses reformulated contem-porary Indians from a national disgrace to the ptincipal symbolof what Dr. Ad would call "a true national culture," and thereby

effectively marginalized Mexico's popular classes as the depoliri-cized embodimenr of the Mexican nation and as grateful recip-ients of a postrevolutionary social transformation managed byurban elites. This project, eventually championed by the state,would continue to influence government policy and rhe na-tional imaginary into the present century."

These tensions emerge in the work of Herran, whosesubject matter wavered between the sensual androgyny of hisDecadentista renderings ofAztec religious rituals, such as ourGods,1914-18, his unfinished mural project for the National Theaterin MexicoCity (now the Palace of Fine Arts; see fig. 1.3),and paint-ings, inspired by Spanish Modemistas such as Ignacio Zuloaga(1870-1945), of Mexico's rural indios.Herran's The O./TeriIl8,'9'3(see plate 3) ptesents a melancholic Syrnbolisr-Coscumbrisrascene of'<rimeless" indigenous religiosity that immobilizes itshumble participants outside modernity and apart from the vio-lence and social turmoil of the revolution." Devoid of any refer-ence to agrarian revolutionaries such as Zapata's rebelliousfollowers, Herran's modest indioscarty Day of the Dead marigoldsin a traditional canoe, introspectively intent upon their archaicdevotional practices. Such nonthreatening images of changelessturallife were ideologically palatable to urban intellectual andpolitical elites.

INSTITUTIONS AND NATION-FORMATIONIn the '91OS, the Academy of San Carlos became a principal bar-tleground for competing cultural conceptions of the modernMexican nation. Two pivotal episodes mark the crisis of theacademy's outmoded ideologies: the 1910 exhibition organized

WITNESSING REVOLUnON, FORGING A NAnON 267

by Dr. Ad protesting the "surrealist illogic" of the government'sdecision co display Spanish art CO celebrate the centenary ofMexico's independence; and the 1911 student strike that led to aprofound pedagogical renovation wirh rhe founding, in '9'], ofrhe Open-Air Painting Schools (Escuelas de Pinrura alAire Libre]under Ramos Martinez, who was appointed director of San Carlosthat year." Dr. Ad's poster for the 1910 exhibition, depicting anude man and woman rising godlike aboveMexico's Popocarepeclvolcano (fig. 2.8), reflects his enthusiasm for rhe philosophies ofFriedrich Nietzsche and Georges Sorel, which he imbibed duringhis firsrexrendedsojoum in Europe (1896-1903) and which wouldform the basis for his call to revolutionize art. Ramos Martinez,in the wake of the 1911 student strike, would also call for the ren-ovation of the academy's obsolete docrrines, not through Dr. Ad'smilitant Nietzschean rejection of bourgeois mediocrity, butthrough a depoliticized model of "direct contact with nature"that would "initiate the formation of a genuinely national art.'?'

After Huerta was ousted by Carranza in 1914, RamosMartfnez was replaced asdirector of the Academy of 5an Carlos byDr. ArL,who championed a nationalism rhar glorified radicalism,promoted the avant-garde, and contradictorily exalted a nation-alist heroics in the name of the people while also declaring thatauthority should bewielded by a small, enlighrened culrural elire.'"Drawing selectivelyon the writings ofNierzsche, Sorel, and HenriBergson, Dr. Ad appealed to Mexico's artists to produce worksaimed at the "moral, political, and material regeneration of the na-tion.":" But this was no artistic presage of the MexicanRevolution; although Dr. Ad's call for artistic renovation pavedthe way for later nationalist intellectuals such as Gamic and

268 ROBIN AD~LE GREELEY

Fig. 2.8. Dr. Atl (Gerardo Murillo;Mexican, 1875-1964). PosterfortheExposici6n de artistas mexicanos,Eecuela Naconer de Bellas Anes, 1910.Lithograph on paper on canvas.37 x 25 inches (95 x 63.5 cm). Fence LuisGonzaga Serrano, Museo Nacronalde Arte,lNBA, Mexico City

Vasconcelos,what he "envisioned was a [socio-cultural] revolutionfrom above, nota popular uprising," the creation of "a new world-virile, heroic, ... and puritanical-based on the sense of duty andsacrifice: a world ... dominared by a powerful avanr-garde.'?" Dr.Ad's provocative tenure at San Carlos was short-lived, beginningand ending in 1914. Yet his advocacyof a vanguard, socially com-mitted art continued to in£I.uencefuture aesthetic endeavors.

BEYOND THE REVOLUTIONThe year 1921, argues Francisco Reyes Palma, was one of"rup-ture that mark[edJ a definitive move toward a distinct phase"in the search for an aesthetics adequate to the postrevolution-ary period of national consolidanon.? The revolution hadbreached the entrenched power of the oligarchies, settingMexico on the path to becoming a modern nation founded oninclusion of the masses, even as the form of this inclusion re-mained the subject of fierce debate. The 1920S saw the com-mencement of a crucial eta of national renovation, in whichintellectuals and statesmen alike understood the importancenot simply of economic and political reconstruction, but alsoof forging new symbols of Mexican identity. Mexico's popularclasses had forced their way into the national consciousness,and artists sought to envision this new national polity, therebyproposing new models for the social and political life of the na-tion. "Art and knowledge must serve to improve the conditionof the people," Vasconcelos exhorted." Yet in the decades tofollow, this utopian view was progressively coopted by an ever-more authoritarian state as part of a nationalist mythologyaimed at underwriting its own grasp on political culture.

1. Carlos Fuentes, 'History out o! Chaos: in Fuentes 1997, p. 35.2. David Alfaro stcuerros. "Three Appeals for a Modem Direction to the New Generationof American Painters and Sculptors" (1921), in Ades et al. 1989, pp. 322-23.

3. See lndych-Lopez 2009. pp. 12-74.4. Gonzalez Mello 1995, p. 6e.5. As Gonzalez Mello has pointed out. Orozco's eyewitness experience of the MexicanRevolution's violence remains unclear, and there is no evidence that any of his imagesof the revolution predate 1924. Ibid .. p. 28.

6. Diego Rivera. cited in Craven 1997, p. 1'.7. Klich 2008, pp. 90. 94. She cites Ramirez 1990, pp. 115-17, who in turn cites CarlosMerida, "La veroeoere significaci6n de la obra de Saturnino Herren. Los tarsos crfti-cos: Ef universal ilusrrado. vot 4, no. 169 (July 29, 1920), pp. 14. 26. See also OrtizGaitan 1994, pp. 65-66.

8. Ortiz Gaitan 1994, p. 29: Klich 2008, p. 90.9. Lago 1919, p. 9: Klich 2008, p. 90.10. Montenegro painted out the original semi-nude androgynous figure centered against

the tree in favor of the current more masculine figure, perhaps at the insistence ofVasconcelos. See Ortiz Gaitan 1994, p. 93.

11. The term srte popular came into widespread use among Mexican intellectuals be-ginning in 1921, when the first popular arts exhibition was organized as part of theeffort to incorporate indigenous cultures into a concept of an ethnicized national iden-tity. See LOpez 2010a.

, 2. Luis-Martin Lozano, "Mexican Modem Art: Rendezvous with the Avant-garde," inLozano et at. 2000, p. 19.

13. Klich 2008, p. 88.14. Mestizaje, a theory of racial and cultural hybridization, was a political-aesthetic con-

struct that based Mexican national identity in the racial mixing of Europeans with in-digenous Americans. Aimed simultaneously at differentiating Mexico and LatinAmerica from the region's former Spanish colonizers and at incorporating indigenouspeoples into a modernizing national project, mestizaje was most prominently advo-cated by Vasconcelos in his 1925 book, The Cosmic Race.

15. Ing.Juan Hernandez Araujo [JeanCharlot and David Alfaro Siqueiros], "Aspectos com-parativoa de la orlentecion al clasicismo de la moderna pintura europea y mexicana,"Eldem6cfara, July 29.1923, p. 3, cited in Klich 2008, p. 392 (translation mine).

16. L6pez 2002, p. 293.17. Ibid .. p. 295.18. Ibid .. p. 326.19. JoseVasconcelos, "Arte creador" (1916), cited in Fell 1989, p.382. Vasconcelos's con-

cept of mestizaje responded to a long history, stemming back to the late eighteenthcentury. of Mexican resistance to Spanish colonialism and efforts to define an inde-pendent national identity based on revaluing the cultural heritage of the Aztecs. Yetthese attempts were fraught with ambivalence. A continued belief in European supe-riority inflected these nation-building projects. engendering policies and cultural prac-tices that recurrently incorporated indigenous peoples into the Mexican nation assecono-crees citizens. See Alonso 2004.

20 AtI1921-22,voI.1,p.15.21. Costumbrisrno was a literary and artistic genre that depicted common street scenes

and social types (such as the pulque vendor or the china poblana), rural customs,andcollective rituals and spectacles in both rural and urban settings. See Segre 2007.

22. Charlot 1967. p. 153.23. Alfredo Ramos Martinez, cited in Useda Miranda et al. 2014. p. 18.24. Lopez 201Ob.25. Ibid26. lbid., citing Zeev Sternhell. Neither Right nor Left: Fascist Ideologyin France (Princeton:

Princeton University Press, 1986), pp. 7-17.27. Francisco Reyes Palma, "Vanguardia: Ano cero," in Museo Nacional de Arte 1991a,

pp. 43-51; translation from Klich 2008, p. 86.28. Vasconcelos, "Dlscurso en la Unlversidad," in Vasconcelos 1950, pp. 7-12

WITNESSING REVOLUTION, FORGING A NAnON 269