Research paper
I choose the artist-Diego Rivera. Write about the his work, his influence and how the events in her life influenced her work. Analysis of his work, his influence, etc. are okay.
Research Paper
Explore the work of one artist or group of artists to describe how their work made an impact in Latin America. What did they contribute? How were they influenced by the historical moment? How did their work reflect the society they lived in? How were their aesthetic choices influenced by their surroundings?
You can write about any topic you can relate to the material in this class. You can write about artists in the visual arts, music, film, theater, dance, performance art, or any other art movement that you can relate to the topics in this class. Previous topics have ranged to Chicano muralism, the analysis of feminist themes in Frida Kahlo’s work, to Banksy, Guayasamin, to Bad Bunny.
Five-page minimum MLA format, double spaced with additional bibliography. Please use at least two text sources. NO WIKIPEDIA, no cutting, and pasting from the internet.
More about Diego Rivera: http://art-for-a-change.com/blog/2011/12/diego-rivera-the-making-of-a-fresco.html
May 23, 2005
City College of San Francisco
Latin American & Latino Studies (LALS 14: Diego Rivera: Art & Social Change)
Spring 2005
Diego Rivera Oral Interview
Transcribed and translated by Ileana Gadea Rivas, a student in Dr. Greg Landaus class.
Daughter: Father, some architects, colleagues of mine, and some young artists are
interested in your opinion about the social role of the artist.
Diego Rivera: Well, in order to assert what, in my opinion, is the social role of the artist,
first it is necessary for you and me to reach an understanding, and if we cannot do so, at
least for me to tell you clearly, what is my definition of art, and also my definition of
artist.
Art has been defined from philosophical, literary, poetic, and political points of
view; however, none of the definitions given so far would provide a thorough
definition. We first need to establish what is art, fundamentally as a biologic, as well as a
physiologic phenomenon, and therefore, social, and political. There is absolutely nothing
to help us learn about the ancient past of humanity, and human society, other than the
traces left behind in the manner of works of art. There is no other element for this study,
except for some work tools, initially quite rudimentary.
On the other hand, the more we go back in time, the more we find admirable
traces of humankind. There is nothing stronger, more perfect, more realistic, more
poetic, and better observed -and there is no more efficient utilization of materials in the
production of works of art- than cave paintings, which some authors date back to the ice
ages. In those paintings men reached in fact, I mean to say, human beings -given that
there are indications that those who painted them were either women or a being who
participated of both qualities- then humanity reached the highest expression of its
genius. Since then, the means have varied, but the expressive quality, such formidable
quality, has not changed.
There is nothing comparable, not even better, but simply comparable, in terms of
aesthetic quality, as well as realistic quality, to the paintings of the cave painting
period. Not even the best artists, such as my master Picasso, my master Posada, my
master Velasco can be compared in terms of expression, particularly in terms of dynamic
expression of life in movement, to cave painting. Perhaps the only comparable artist
might be Picasso, but, obviously, he does not reach the vitality and the spontaneity of
cave paintings, although he is the most brilliant of all living artists. Thus we may, given
that you are asking me what the social role of the artist is, throw out something that can
be called hypothesis, based, though, on actual facts.
There is no doubt that during the early times of humanity, society was much less
stratified in classes, as compared to current society. The human being of those periods
had to be skilled to survive, otherwise he would have perished, it would not have been
feasible; consequently, he had to have the eye sufficiently trained to perceive forms,
movements, as well as the lifestyle of animals, because without the sacrifice of those
animals, survival would have been impossible, given that human beings obtained
nourishment from their meat, obtained clothing from their skins, and fabricated their
work tools and their ornaments from their bones, in addition to employing stone and
wood. Thus, such society of migrant hunters, who walked from the South Pole almost to
the North Pole, had to have tremendous vitality, and their society could not have been
stratified in such a complex manner, as it evolved later on in time. We may almost assert,
without much doubt, that the peoples who created those paintings belonged to a society
which was not divided in classes. Therefore, we may reach such conclusion, because as
soon as society divided itself in classes, those who exerted power have always tried to
control the production of art to make it serve their interest and consolidate their
power. The perfection of the paintings, prior to the division of society in classes, is due
precisely to the fact that they were produced within a society which was not divided in
classes. Consequently, if sometime in the future -and I am sure it will actually happen-
perhaps soon, the world is able to live in a society not divided in classes, the perfection of
the works of art will first equal cave painting, and eventually it will surpass it because
we possess more complete means of expression.
Now, what is art? Why is it that since the early steps of humankind on earth, we
find works of art as testimony of those steps? It has been said that works of art are a
manifestation of superstructure. Some philosopher has indicated that art is the banquet of
civilization; another philosopher has said that it is the splendor of truth, another
philosopher, that it is the splendor of goodness. In fact, it can be all that, there is no
problem -it all depends on individual opinion- but what art is in fact, it is an agent. The
work of art is an agent capable of producing some specific physiologic phenomena,
notably of the renal glands, which provide the human body with the necessary elements
for human life, such as the elements which the digestive system extracts from what is
ingested through the process of ingestion, mastication, digestion, etc. Thus, the reality is
that art is a vital necessity for human beings. This quality can be compounded by other
characteristics, but the work of art is essentially a necessity. That is the reason why the
work of art is useful to human life, just like hunting, as it provides human beings with the
meat to eat, the skin to cloth themselves, the plants that provide corn or wheat to make
bread, the vegetables, fruit, everything else. It is an essential element.
On the other hand, Professor Marx, from the first lines of his book, Capital, A
Critique of Political Economy, establishes that commodity is anything that is useful to
human life, no matter if that usefulness concerns the digestive system or the
imagination. Now, the truth of the matter is that the work of art equally concerns the
phenomena of nutrition, digestion, than that of the imagination; therefore, the work of art
is a commodity of exceptional importance. That is the reason why an English
philosopher, commenting on the work of Marx, indicates: it is precisely for those
commodities which concern the imagination, for which we pay the most and that is
obvious. If you purchase a book of poetry, what do you pay for? Do you pay for the
paper in which it is printed, the cost of the edition, the weight of the paper, the utilization
of that paper in something other than reading? Obviously not, because there are better
quality papers available, which are even more suitable for other functions. Thus, if what
you are buying at the bookstore is not the paper, and it is not the material which makes up
the book, what is it that you bought and paid for? You have bought poetry and have paid
for poetry. If you pay admission for a concert of a great symphonic orchestra more
money that what you would for breakfast or dinner, what is it that you are
purchasing? Are you purchasing a seat to rest, are you purchasing the right to show off a
night gown, or the right to get together with friends, or are you paying for the
music? You are paying for the work of art. You are purchasing a commodity which has
an existence only in the succession of sounds produced by a group of individuals
handling instruments, who earn a salary, as a compensation for such handling, a salary
generally low, considering the effort put forth. In other words, the act of producing
music, any kind of music, be it profane or religious, constitutes an industrial organization,
a commercial organization to provide you and the rest of the public with a commodity
which is necessary to human life. The same occurs with a statue, the same occurs with a
painting, what you pay for is not the price of the stone or the price of the bronze. You do
pay for it indeed, but, in addition to that, you pay for something which is neither the
weight nor the value of the metal or the stone. Thus, you pay for the amount of
sensibility, the amount of imagination, the amount of genius, eventually, the labor
accumulated by the artist to execute the work of art. In other words, you are purchasing
art because you, and the rest of the society, need it for your life; if that was not the case,
you would not purchase it. The work of an architect entails all that! However, if a house
is just for living, if a factory is just for producing, it would not be completely functional
because the workers that labor at the factory, those same workers and those who are not –
it does not matter whether they are workers or capitalists- when inhabiting a house, they
have the same needs for their nervous system inside or outside the house they live
in. Therefore, if what surrounds them is not capable of eliciting what we call aesthetic
emotion, the only agent that will prompt the glands to function, to provide the secretions
necessary for human life, so necessary for human life, I reiterate, as the digestive
phenomena, your architecture would not be complete, and it would not be functional, to
say the least. That is the reason why nowadays, as it frequently happens, one can build a
huacal, (huacal is a structure which our peasants carry over their shoulders) a steel
huacal or a concrete huacal; one can cover its surface with glass or bricks, without
making architecture for that matter. In a human dwelling architecture begins when the
capacity of that construction to produce an emotion of beauty also begins, it is only then,
when one can talk about functional architecture.
Industrial architecture, these days, has greater conditions, in this sense, than the
architecture that it is not called industrial -which is nothing more than commercial
architecture- because its purpose is the exploitation of those who inhabit it by both the
builder, as well as the landlord, in the event that it is for rental. Industrial architecture
requires very precise conditions for its proper functioning, it has to have the right air
quota, the proper amount of light, natural or artificial, the necessary space for the engines,
and also one of the conditions for an engine to function properly, which is the utilization
of the exact material, the right proportion, the precise functioning, to produce a certain
object, predetermined precisely; those are the conditions of a Mayan sculpture, a
primitive Greek sculpture, or an Hindustani sculpture. In other words, the laws, those
universal laws that govern an engine, and consequently, industrial architecture, are the
same laws that govern the production of works of art. That is why nowadays, those of us
who have a certain amount of sensibility prefer a thousand times, as architects, the
contemplation of a wheat storehouse, of vertical cylinders of a good plant for the
extraction of oil from cotton seed, a good foundry, than 99 % of the constructions with
aesthetic pretensions, made by individuals, who call themselves architects, although do
not have the basics to practice such profession, which is sensibility and plastic
talent. That is what we are currently experiencing in Mexico City to a large and
deplorable extent! A magnificent city could have been built in Mexico. It has been built
so fast, and it has grown with such an unprecedented speed into the most horrible city in
the world, due to the lack of organization, and the lack of aesthetic sensibility of the
builders.
Naturally, there are some exceptions. We begin to see numerous exceptions, and
now that I have had the opportunity to see in the provinces some of the productions of
your colleagues, precisely people of your age I have found that they are a hundred
times or a thousand times better that those made in Mexico by individuals of ill
reputation, heirs, physically the sons of terrible academic architects, who continue being
as academic as they were in the past, without doing anything other than replacing the old
pattern, (the same pattern which in the past derived from the worst French academic),
with another pattern derived from the worst French academic of these days, Mr. Le
Corbusier.
Thus, we conclude that the work of art is not an ornament. The work of art is a
product of superstructure in society, but at the same time it is also a product of base. In
other words, the work of art plays a similar role in social organization to the role played
by the blood, which is activated by the heart, the myocardium, but it travels the human
body from the feet to the brain. It is in the brain, in the cortex, the superstructure, the
cerebellum, and then you also have the base; however, nothing is possible without the
blood circulation. The same applies to art; art is undoubtedly a sort of circulation. Is it
fair to compare art with blood circulation? Such comparison is not quite satisfactory
because, in addition to the role of the blood circulation, art plays in society the role of the
neural circulation, of the circulation that nourishes and makes it possible for the proper
functioning of the nervous system, which concerns the speed of neuro-transmission, as
well as other phenomena.
Thus, art is an essential activity for human life, just as essential as nutrition; a
commodity as important as wheat, meat, cereals, vegetables, fruit; it is essential to human
life.
Now, if art is an essential activity for human life, what is the role of the
artist? The question that you are asking is perfectly clear. The role of the artist in
society, biologically speaking, is that of provider of nourishment. Just like the peasant
provides nourishment for the digestive system, and the cattle rancher provides it, the
farmer, the artist provides nourishment to the nervous system. Consequently, the artist is
a humble worker, and his humility bestows upon him the same greatness, that essential
greatness, of the peasant, the flower grower, the farmer, the chemist, the physician; he is
an essential worker, he is not an ornamental worker. The decorative quality, the
character of dessert in the banquet of civilization which has been assigned to art, derives
from the interest of class, individuals, or groups who exploit the masses of workers, to
make art appear as something intangible, as something which depends exclusively upon
the rich, (the owner of wealth, the only person capable of understanding it, the only
person able to afford it) to elicit in the masses an attitude of admiration towards
something beyond their reach. The reality is that art, since it is an essential activity for
human life, cannot be, and it is not, privilege of a few. Just like not all men are good
speakers, but all have the ability to use words to communicate with one another -they
know how to speak- also all men, all human beings are capable of expressing themselves
through shapes, through color, through mass, and through sound. Whoever has any
doubts about this, only needs to pay attention to childrens drawings. In the schools of
the entire world, whenever a child has not yet suffered the deformation imposed by the
teacher, (because school is not in the entire world, with the exception of the socialist
world, more that an institution to deform human life in a direction that will facilitate its
exploitation), before the teacher manages to deform them, all children of the world have
the talent to paint, all the children of the world have the talent to create shapes of
sculpture, all the children of the world have musical talent, and they all have poetic
talent. Therefore, we may, and we must state that art is a human language, a means of
expression, and it is, in general, ownership of all beings which belong to human
society. The specialization of labor imposed by capitalism prevents the general
development of such potential. For that reason, we can conclude again, as we indicated
at the beginning, that in a better organized society, with greater justice, in a classless
society, art will reach unforeseen heights. Only that way, society will be able to surpass
the art that humanity produced when it was not yet divided in classes.
And the role of the artist? Well, given that it is a provider of nourishment to the
nervous system, it has the ability to do the same as the dairy farmer, the winemaker; he
can either provide, or sell a product beneficial to nutrition and public health, or he may
provide a toxic product to the public. The role of the artist can be positive or
negative. The people in power, individual, group, or social class invariably try to co-opt
the artist, just as it co-opts the baker, the cattle rancher, the dairy farmer, so that their
products will serve their class interest and the exploitation of workers by the rulers;
consequently, they try to bestow upon art a quality conducive to serve their interests.
As we take a look at history, we find that as soon as art leaves behind the cave
painting period, immediately it acquires a religious character, it refers to the gods, it
refers to all the mythological figures which have played a role in keeping the masses
deceived within the falsehood which makes exploitation possible; or it refers to the rulers,
the kings, the chiefs, the generals, and all those individuals who have dominated the
masses. There are no exceptions. Exceptions begin only when the masses rebel. Then
people produce artists who become allies, whom we call revolutionary artists.
A typical example of those artists is, in the Middle Ages, in the late Middle Ages,
the formidable Giotto; later on, closer to the modern era, the wonderful painter
Bruegel. On the other hand, when society is united, whenever there is a well established
consensus, a phenomenon which occurs particularly in the military theocracies, such as in
ancient America, art reaches greater unity, it has the quality such quality which your
colleagues are searching for- of the integration of plastic arts, because if there is a
general opinion, a general sentiment, then all the people create works of art, and it is
impossible to determine, like in the wonderful Pre-Hispanic art of America, it is
impossible to determine, where astronomy ends to give way to engineering, where
engineering concludes to give way to architecture, and where are the limits of
architecture, as it relates to sculpture and painting. It is a whole, because society itself
was a whole. Undoubtedly, also whenever we are able to have a classless society, art will
have precisely those characteristics because education will no longer be a factory of
citizens obedient to the police officer, taxpayers of unfair taxes for war and other
calamities, but rather, it will be a society of human beings aware of their rights and
responsibilities, which will allow us to live in perfect harmony, the harmony of mankind
with the earth, and of men with one another.
In a classless society, we will be able to regain all the potential for genius, all the
expressive potential, to produce the greatest beauty in art. Whenever the artist allows the
ruling classes to dominate him, the work of art acquires the character of the ruling
classes. Sometimes the ruling classes manage to get the artist to serve them, they get the
genius of Velsquez to dedicate itself to paint princesses, to paint horse-riding kings, and
walking jesters; they manage to turn the genius of Rubens into an ambassador to a queen,
and her lover at the same time, to the advantage of her kingdom; they manage to turn the
artist into a servant. Nowadays, the bourgeoisie in power is not able to accomplish that,
they no longer manage to do that! In the entire world, there is not one single artist these
days, so despicable, so subservient, and vile that would paint in his works of art praises to
capitalism. We would search in vain for one; we would not be able to find one, not even
around Wall Street!
When the Rockefeller, unhappy as it is known, with the fresco that I had painted,
tried to find a North American artist to replace my work, not one single North American
artist, old, or young, either conservative, or liberal, revolutionary or academic, abstract,
or concrete was found, willing to betray their ancestry, the ancestry of Jefferson, the
ancestry of Lincoln, the ancestry of John Brown, and Walt Whitman, and Frank Lloyd
Wright, to deny what was obvious. Not even for all the gold from Wall Street, was there
anybody that would agree to replace with falsehood the truth that I had depicted at the
building of the Rockefeller. One could not have expected any less, given the essential
character of the North American people, its historic character.
And, given that the artist is always an expression of the people among which he
works, what has capitalism accomplished? Capitalism has accomplished, given that it
was not able to buy our word, capitalism has managed to purchase the silence of some of
us. The art, which does not represent anything, the poetry that does not say anything, the
intrascendent comedies, as they are elegantly called, what are they? They are
commodities that neither cause indigestion in the bourgeoisie that pays for them, nor
elicit any excitement in the poorly compensated worker to rebel against low wages.
In other words, it is a commodity perfectly equivalent to morphine, to cocaine, to
opium, whenever it is administered in such a way as to produce first the alleviation of the
pain, and eventually addiction. This way the artist, who contributes with his creative
potential, with his potential to create beauty in such circumstances, what is it, what is his
role in society? He is precisely a drug trafficker, it is a despicable criminal; it is a public
toxic. The role of the artist, as an ally of people, who tries to express the honest truth of
the society in which he lives, all the beauty of the wonderful world which surrounds him,
and who is in direct communication with the masses of the society in which he works,
who sides with justice and progress, such an artist performs a positive role, just as a
negative role is played by the latter. Such is currently the role of the artist, it is either the
role of producer of anesthetics, of drugs, or that of producer of food for the progress of
mankind, there is no in between. Does this mean that all works of art ought to be a call to
insurrection? Does it mean that, invariably, all works of art ought to be created for
agitation purposes? No.
In one occasion, in the largest of the socialist countries, my friends and I asked
directly this question to a group of workers, and they responded We want in our
factories (this is stated in a historic written resolution, addressed to the October group, to
which I had the honor of being part of, in the city of Moscow), the resolution states: We
want in our factories, in the walls of our factories, of our clubs, of our schools, of our
public buildings, in the interior and exterior walls, paintings that will remind us of our
struggle in pursuit of our rights, and the fruits of the ownership of our rights, the struggle
as well as the difficulties, prosperity as well as the great results accomplished. However,
in the interior of our houses, inside our homes, where we return after a long day of labor,
tired with the desire to rest, there we want to have paintings which will provide to us the
relaxation we need, paintings like those which you call landscapes and still lives, (they
were addressing a group of artist, me among them), like those paintings which you call
landscapes or still lives, which will remind us of the fruit and food which we enjoy, but
not always have access to since we do not always have the same seasons-, paintings
which will remind us during winter about what spring promises, what autumn will bring,
and which also will present, for us to see, the places around the world which we do not
have access to, except during holidays, given that we must work in an industry which is
located according to the products of the soil, that is the reason why we want landscapes
and still lives. That demonstrates that the role of the artist in society is an important
one, an essential one, which may be either in allegiance with the general interest of
society, a positive role; or in allegiance with the interest of the ruling classes which
exploit the basis of society, a negative role. Is it possible to have an in-between
position? What would it be like? Would it limit itself to produce landscapes and still
lives? You will tell me, Well, in that case, it will be useful to both sides. If painters
would only paint landscapes and still lives, and would not paint political paintings, the
bourgeoisie would not get upset. Nobody is afraid of a bunch of apples, a plate full of
pastries, or a well painted lamb chop; they please the rich and the poor, the exploited as
well as the ruler!
Now, what is the position of the individual who will only paint landscapes and
still lives? Well, he will not be able to remove himself from their particular character.
Someone who is willing to serve the ruling classes will not see the landscapes of the earth
in the same way as someone who is willing to help, and to become an ally of the
exploited, so that they will no longer be exploited. Thus, even a landscape or a still life
will have specific characteristics, they could be progressive or not, that is why there is not
an in-between position. Shall work of arts be propaganda or not? All works of art are
propaganda, absolutely all of them; the same with a Venetian channel that attracts tourists
and lovers so that the hoteliers and merchants profit from them, or a religious painting, or
a political painting, the only difference is the purpose of the propaganda. Abstract
painting is propaganda as well, in that it is propaganda to remove oneself from reality, to
recreate oneself with pure color or shape, as to not concern oneself with external issues,
in other words, to escape from reality. Thus, there is no possible third position; whoever
wants to take a third position is nothing more than an opportunistic. That is the role of
the artist in society.
Having an idea of the social role of the artist, we may test out; we may prove what
we have stated. In order to prove it, we need observation; in other words, we need to take
a look at the current artistic production being created around the world, what has been
produced in different historic periods in society. That is the only thing that will allow us
to demonstrate that what we have asserted is true, or to determine that is not true, that we
have lied. Lets us look, let us examine historic periods that we are familiar with, with
the purpose of dispelling any doubts. For instance, lets take the period in which the
Spanish and their allies in the empire of Charles V fought against the Flemish to
dominate them, against the Netherlander, and we will look at the art produced in that
period. It is precisely in that period, when we find the great artist Bruegel. What are
Bruegels paintings like? Bruegels paintings are wonderful landscapes. What he
painted is the stage of life. Nobody painted the flatlands and the valleys as he did. He
painted the mountains in wintertime, in the spring, in the summer, and in the autumn, the
entire life of the earth, and he populated it with images that accurately represented -given
that he also included cities in his landscapes- the life of his fellowmen. He took
landscape further beyond the reality which surrounded him; he went with his landscapes
up to the mountains which separated his country from the invaders country. He went
even further; he entered history and painted a landscape representing the Tower of Babel,
in other words, the root cause of linguistic and racial differences which resulted in wars –
which he witnessed- based on what in those days he was in a position to be aware of, the
bible, the Holly Scriptures. Therefore, he depicted the circumstances surrounding him,
based on the Holly Scriptures, the mythological period of humanity. What was
surrounding him? The arson of towns, looting of cities, murder of men, women, and
children, as well as the execution of those who defended their country. He was
surrounded by injustice, but also by the heroism of his fellow compatriots defending
themselves against the Spanish invader. Was he able to represent directly those
facts? He would have suffered repression. Hence, in order to evade such repression, and
nonetheless, represent the truth, he assimilated what surrounded him to scenes from the
Holly Scripture, from The Old and The New testament. Thus, the invader, who called
himself a Catholic, was unable to deny the truth of the gospel; consequently, Bruegel was
not constrained to paint what was happening, due to the fact that there had been, in fact, a
massacre of innocent children ordered by Herod. He painted the massacre of the
innocent, with a small image of Herod. It was perfectly easy for the oppressed people to
replace Herod with Charles V, the Duke of Alba, or any of the other Herods who
oppressed them.
Therefore, Bruegel realistically rendered the massacres that he had witnessed, the
fires, as well as the violations. He assimilated the hero, who defended his nation, with
the crucifixion, the execution of Christ. It was perfectly easy for the people to make the
connection with the execution of those who defended them, the men who fought for the
people. He painted the storm, the naval combat; he painted the emperor heading his army
across mountains to invade the Netherlands. He painted the battles between armies,
based on the story of Saul in the Holly Scriptures. Before Bruegel, Giotto had done
that. Giotto, in Italy, had painted the life of Francis of Assisi, the brother of the water,
the brother of the sun, the wonderful Francis, brother to all, who loved all, and who
naturally would reproach those who did not love one another, but would exploit them
instead. Giottos frescoes are an accurate translation of the life that surrounded him,
taking the great example of Saint Francis to criticize not only the emperor, but also the
Italian lords, and the Pope, the Pope, who sometimes would forget his mission of pastor
to adopt a position of wealthy farmer, wealthy owner, and great lord of temporary
powers.
Just like Dante would place some Popes in hell, Giotto also knew how to show
them the way to hell when they did not comply with their mission. Later on, during the
democratic bourgeoisie revolution, what do we find in terms of art? We find a plethora
of poets who led people to their liberation, to the creation of the progressive class, which
Marx called the most powerful in history, the bourgeoisie, which took place a hundred
years ago. And, what was produced back then? All kinds of things! A whole series of
poets, Schiller,
