Showing posts with label Mexican art. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mexican art. Show all posts

15 April 2015

Rivera, Kahlo, and Detroit: The Murals


[The is the concluding half of my article on Diego Rivera, the renowned Mexican muralist, and his wife, the artist Frida Kahlo, inspired by the opening last month of Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo in Detroit at the Detroit Institute of Arts.  Part one covered the lives and careers of the two famous artists; in part two, I will describe the murals Rivera was commissioned to create on the walls of DIA in 1932 and ’33.  (I recommend going back first and reading part one if you haven’t already as it sets the scene for the presentation of the murals.)]

Not strictly part of the DIA exhibit, Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo in Detroit—because they are an integral part of the building itself and, thus, a site-specific aspect of the institute—but just down the hall from it are the 27 Detroit Industry murals in the building’s interior Garden Court, a fulfillment of the DIA architect’s original plan for the space, which was renamed the Rivera Court.  Rivera was commissioned by William R. Valentiner, the director of the Detroit Institute of Arts, to depict the manufacturing might of a city particularly devastated by the Great Depression.  The original commission was for two murals, but the Mexican muralist was so drawn to the machinery of industrial America which he featured prominently in many of his murals as a promise of a wondrous future, that he pressed his sponsors to let him paint all four walls of the Garden Court.  (At the same time, Kahlo hated Detroit, its food, and its weather.  As much as she had disliked New York, she traveled back there as often as she could during her yearlong sojourn just to escape Detroit!)  Valentiner and Ford agreed and soon Rivera was at work on an expanded plan stressing the relationship between man and machine and the continuous development of life.  Together and individually, through symbols, figures both Detroiters and visitors would readily recognize, and activities almost anyone who lived in or near the Motor City would immediately understand, the murals tell a narrative—Rivera’s art was one of story-telling (while Kahlo’s was one of emotional impact)—of Detroit’s (and, by extension, the United States’) manufacturing might and prowess.  The final work covers more than 43,000 square feet.

The frescoes illustrate not just the automobile industry, but also the medical and chemical industries in the city, as well as the pharmaceutical manufacturing, represented by Parke-Davis and Company (now called Pfizer, Inc.).  Nevertheless, a major sponsor of the project was Ford Motor Company president Edsel B. Ford, the 38-year-old son of founder Henry Ford.  (Ford paid Rivera’s entire fee of $21,000, the equivalent in 2015 of $338,000.)  Rivera’s murals celebrated America’s industrial strength and the riches of its land, but did not hesitate to criticize what he saw as social and political injustices (which is what got him in such trouble in New York with the Rockefellers).  Industrial technology is portrayed as both constructive and destructive, and the relationships between North and South America, management and labor, and the cosmic and technological are also explored for both good and ill. 

Rivera researched, designed, and painted the murals from April 1932 though March 1933, the depth of the Depression, starting with sketches of the panels and then painting the frescoes which are considered the most outstanding examples of Mexican mural art in the U.S. and which the artist believed were the pinnacle of his life’s work.  From April to July, Rivera prepared charcoal drawings, called “cartoons,” based on sketches, photographs, and even film footage he and Kahlo shot at Ford’s River Rouge Plant in Dearborn and the Parke-Davis factory in Detroit, then the largest in the world.  Rivera and Kahlo spent months sketching and photographing in one factory after another all across the Detroit area, visiting scores of locations for his research.  Rivera completed dozens of drawings as preliminary studies so he could narrow down the pictures he wanted to show. 

Rivera’s Detroit Industry depicts manufacturing and technology as the city’s native culture and, good Marxist that he was, glorifies its labor force.  Believing that art should not be hidden away in private homes and elite galleries but installed in public buildings open to everyone, Rivera found his perfect medium in the mural.  (Rivera even devised “portable murals”—freestanding murals on cement with steel backing—to make the frescoes accessible to all.)  After he executed commissions at the California School of Fine Arts (now the San Francisco Art Institute) and the Pacific Stock Exchange in 1931, the muralist’s monumental Detroit Industry project influenced Pres. Franklin Roosevelt to use murals to promote his New Deal, which gave birth to the Federal Art Project of the Works Progress Administration, a program of hiring out-of-work artists to create works in public buildings across the U.S. 

The murals, which Rivera began painting in July 1932, completing the whole cycle in a remarkable eight months, were painted in the Italian Renaissance fresco technique, applying water-based tempera to damp plaster.  This process takes dozens of steps for each section, working only on a portion of a panel that can be completed in a single day, to maintain the stability of the mural.  The artist worked daily in 18-hour shifts, employing assistants (for whom Rivera had to pay out of his fee; the museum bought the supplies).  The assistants prepared the walls for the frescoes, but Rivera did all the painting himself.  The work was so arduous that Rivera, who usually weighed about 300 pounds (on a 6′1″ frame), lost 100 pounds during the eight months of painting.  Part of the laborious process is the transfer of the cartoons to the walls by tracing them into the wet plaster before the pigment is applied.  (Eight of Rivera’s original cartoons are on display in the Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo in Detroit, lost in DIA storage since the 1980s and not seen by the public in 30 years.)

Rivera Court

A large, arched opening leads from the Great Hall into the Rivera Court (formerly known as the Garden Court).  On the opposite (north) end, a loggia leads to the auditorium.  The court’s walls are segmented by renaissance molding and columns within which Rivera painted the twenty-seven panels that make up the Detroit Industry mural series.  The court’s expansive skylight, marble floors, and the murals themselves all combine to create an elaborate and opulent setting.  Many, both viewers and critics, local and visitor, have characterized Detroit Industry, designated a National Historic Landmark in 2014, as the American Sistine Chapel.  In any case, there is nothing like the Detroit Industry murals anywhere else in the U.S.; they are unique.  (For images of the murals go to the Detroit Institute of Art website: www.dia.org/art/rivera-court.aspx.)   

EAST WALL

Thematically, Diego Rivera’s Detroit Industry fresco cycle begins on the east wall, the direction of the rising sun which symbolizes beginning and renewal, where the origins of human life, raw materials, and technology are represented.  In the center panel, an infant is cradled in the womb-like bulb of a plant whose vein-like roots extend into the soil, where, in the lower corners, two steel plowshares appear.  (Some reports assert that Rivera had originally planned to use a plant bulb in this image but changed his design after his wife lost a baby.)  The fetus represents the beginnings of life, but also indicates humanity’s dependence on the bounty of the earth.  

Plowshares are used to plow under weeds and debris from the previous crop to replenish the soil with nutrients.  They symbolize the first form of technology—agriculture—and relate in substance and form to the automotive technology represented on the north and south walls.  Bracketing the main panel are two seated female nudes representing fertility and the European and indigenous populations of North (the figure with blond hair) and South America (black hair).  The nudes hold wheat and apples—produce grown in Michigan and the U.S.  Below these figures are two still-life panels representing the fruits and vegetables indigenous to Michigan.

WEST WALL

The east wall theme of the development of technology continues on the west wall, the direction of sunsets and endings, where the technologies of air (the aviation industry), water (shipping and speedboats), and energy (the interior of Power House #1) are represented.  The symbolic significance of the west wall is made explicit in the depiction of dualities in technology, nature, and humanity and in the relationship between labor and management.  Rivera specifically shows the constructive and destructive uses of aviation; the existence in nature of species who eat down the food chain as well as those who prey on their own kind, the coexistence of life and death; the interdependence of North and South America; and the interdependence of management and labor.  This wall combines the religious symbolism of Christian theology (the Last Judgment) with the ancient Indian belief in the coexistence and interdependence of life and death.  The judgment here is related to humanity’s uses of technology.

Upper Tier: Aviation

The airplanes on the left of the fresco are passenger planes, while airplanes on the right are fighter planes adapted from the original designs for passenger planes.  (Ford made both war planes and civilian aircraft; the passenger plane is a Ford Tri-Motor, manufactured between 1925 and 1933.)  Figures in gas masks stand next to the fighter planes, and welders stand next to the passenger planes.  Rivera adjusted the perspective of the airplanes and a hangar in the fresco to the vantage point of the viewer standing on the floor of the court.  Not only are the architectural divisions of the upper tier disregarded to extend the airplanes into the side panels, but the perspective creates the illusion of a window opening out on the hangar and airfield.  Below the passenger planes is a peaceful dove feeding on a lower species.  Below the war planes is a rapacious hawk feeding on its own species.

Middle Tier: Interdependence of North and South

While the Aviation panels give the illusion of windows looking out of the court onto the scene, Rivera created the opposite illusion, that of a sculpted niche, below the central window.  Here he painted a compass rose in monochrome gray to suggest that it is carved in stone (directly above the middle tier).  The compass points to the northeast and southwest simultaneously.  Most likely the compass introduces the theme of the interdependence of North and South America.  On the right side of the panel is a rubber tree plantation where four men are shown collecting sap to make latex.  In 1927, Ford had established Fordlandia, a rubber plantation in Brazil, to produce latex for automobile tire production at the Rouge.  Rivera hoped for stronger relations between South and North America through investments and trade, and he spoke of this panel as a representation of the interconnectedness of the industrial north and agrarian south.  

Two Great Lakes freighters (based on Ford Motor Company ships that carried raw materials from the northern Great Lakes to the Rouge) pass, while speed boats and fish glide in front of them.  With the industrial port on the left and the rubber tree plantation on the right, the water represents the symbolic confluence of the Detroit and Amazon rivers and represents the interdependence of the Americas.  The industrial port is based on the actual boat slip at the Rouge.  A pipe-fitter and man working a chain pulley appear in front of a bridge crane on railroad tracks used to unload freighters.  The skyline of the city of Detroit is represented in the left background.  

The coexistence of life and death is graphically presented above the center of the shipping panel, where a half-face and half-skull are painted on either side of a five-pointed star.  This dualism is a spiritual concept that goes back to the most ancient beliefs in Mexico.  The half-face is a portrait of George Washington, whom Rivera referred to as America’s first revolutionary.

Lower Tier: Steam and Electricity

This is the section that plays out Rivera’s theme of “man and machine.”  Vertical panels on each side of the west entrance to the court introduce the theme of the automobile industry through representation of Power House #1.  The Power House was the principal power generation and distribution facility at the Rouge.  The manager/engineer in the electricity panel is a composite portrait of Henry Ford and Thomas Edison, who were close friends throughout their adult lives.  The worker/mechanic is associated with the raw energy of steam.  Rivera, in a small joke, put a red star on the worker’s glove, which would indicate that he’s a communist except for the fact that one of Detroit’s businesses was a leather-goods company called the Red Star Glove Company.  The manager engineer is associated with the transformed power of electricity.  Here, Rivera graphically demonstrates the dichotomy of workers and capitalists in the steam and electricity panels of the west wall.  He associates each with different kinds of power but also shows how these forms of power are inextricably linked.  (Note that the turbine in this panel resembles an ear, maybe emphasizing the managers’ oversight of the workers.)

NORTH AND SOUTH WALLS

The north and south walls are devoted to representations of the four races (two on each wall, at the top tier), the automobile industry (in the large mid-sections), and the other Detroit industries—medicine, drugs, gas bomb manufacture, and commercial chemicals (in the side panels).  They continue the themes established on the east and west walls which combine ancient and Christian symbols.  The organization of each wall follows a pattern: monumental figures on top, the worker’s everyday world of the factories in the center, and small monochrome, so-called predella panels showing a day in the life of a worker on the lower edge.  (An actual predella is a painting or sculpture along the frame at the bottom of an altarpiece.)

North and South Walls: The Four Races Panels

On the upper level of the north and south walls, Rivera painted giant red (representing Native North and South Americans), black (Africans), yellow (Asians), and white (Europeans) female figures symbolic of the diverse workforce.  Each figure holds in her hand one of the raw materials necessary for making steel and cars—Rivera attributed the tensile strength of the raw materials with his conception of the character of each race: the red race he associated with iron ore (the first ingredient for making steel for the first race in the Americas), the black race with diamonds and coal (which provides the hardness of steel as the black laborer affords to the manufacturing process), the yellow race with quartz sand (silica, used in making glass), and the white race with the building material of limestone.

North and South Walls: Geological Strata Panels

Below the four races panels, Rivera painted geological cross-sections showing iron ore under the red race, coal and diamonds under the black race, limestone under the white race, and quartz crystals and fossils under the yellow race.

North and South Wall Corner Panels: Vaccination, Manufacture of Poisonous Gas Bombs, Pharmaceutics, and Commercial Chemical Operations

On both sides of the four races panels on the north and south walls, Rivera painted corner panels that serve as visual parentheses to the gigantic figures.  They continue the themes of the unity of organic and inorganic life and the constructive and destructive uses of technology.

North Wall: Vaccination Panel

The north wall right corner panel depicts a child being vaccinated by a doctor who is attended by a nurse.  The composition of this panel is directly taken from the Italian Renaissance form of the nativity, where the biblical figures of Mary (the nurse, a portrait of actress Jean Harlow) and Joseph (the doctor, a likeness of William Valentiner), and Jesus (the baby being inoculated; his face is modeled on the infant son of Charles and Anne Lindbergh, kidnapped and murdered in March 1932) are depicted in the foreground and the three wise men in the background.  The three wise men—which Rivera identified as a Catholic, a Protestant, and a Jew, the ecumenical wise men of the modern world—are scientists who dissect dogs for the benefit of human health.  In the foreground are a horse (not a donkey as is common in Christian iconography), a sheep, and a cow, the sources of the vaccines.  Vaccines are made in the background by three scientists in a dissection laboratory.  This is the panel that depicts the “good” science that benefits life.

North Wall: Healthy Human Embryo Panel

Below the vaccination panel, a healthy human embryo is shown gaining sustenance from the geological strata and at the same time being threatened by microscopic images of diseases.  The embryo sac is surrounded by an egg.  Sperm, multiplying chromosomes, red and white blood cells, and six forms of bacteria are associated with the work of the three scientists in the vaccination panel.

North Wall: Manufacture of Poisonous Gas Bombs

On the left corner is a frightening depiction of the production of gas bombs by insect-like (or perhaps alien?) figures in gas masks.  Gas canisters and a completed bomb hangs ominously over their heads.  This panel illustrates the “bad” science that harms life.

North Wall: Cells Suffocated by Poisonous Gas

The small panel below the production of gas bombs shows a microscopic view of cells being attacked and destroyed by poisonous gases.  

South Wall: Pharmaceutics Panel

Pharmaceutics is based on drawings of the Parke-Davis pharmaceutical firm in Detroit.  The figure in the foreground represents the chemist/manager, who is surrounded by devices such as a pill sorter, an adding machine on top of a Gothic-style radio, a microphone, and a telephone.  Women sorting pills surround the manager.  The background shows drying ovens and chemical operations.

South Wall: Surgery Panel

The small panel below the Pharmaceutics panel depicts brain surgery in the center, surrounded by human organs, and the same four geological elements found in the middle tiers—iron, coal, limestone, and sand.  Above the gloved hands is a view of an open skull. The right hand of the surgeon has just extracted a brain tumor.  Rivera divided the organs between those of reproduction on the right and digestion on the left.  On the upper right side of Surgery, male and female sexual glands are represented.  Digestive organs are presented on the left.  In the lower foreground Rivera painted three covered dissecting trays.

South Wall: Commercial Chemical Operations Panel

The right corner panel may depict a magnesium cell operation or perhaps an ammonia operation.  The panel is stylistically and compositionally the most sophisticated of the upper panels.  It is painted in a Futurist style to demonstrate the movement of the workers, showing them in two different positions.  Use of this style is rare in Rivera’s work.

The figure in the lower left holds a torch to heat substances in the drums.  In the left background a man in a lab coat works with standard chemical apparatus at a table.  Behind him a workman studies gauges probably related to the ovens.  In the upper right a man may be working on a brine well drilling process.

South Wall: Sulfur and Potash Panel

Below the Chemical panel, the natural state of sulfur and potash is shown.  The crystals on the left are halite, or table salt; the crystals on the right are sulfur.  In the center, spherical objects in the four groups are suspended in gaseous fumes emanating from the salt and sulfur.  This panel continues the theme of the development of life from inanimate material.

North Wall: Production and Manufacture of Engine and Transmission

On the largest panel of the north wall Rivera combined the interiors of five buildings at the Rouge: the blast furnace, open hearth furnace, production foundry, motor assembly plant, and steel rolling mills.  (Near the blast furnace is a figure in a bowler hat among the workers.  This is a self-portrait of Rivera intended to show his solidarity with the workers in whose midst he stands.)  The panel represents all the important operations in the production and manufacture of an automobile, specifically the engine and transmission housing of the 1932 Ford V-8, all tied together with the ribbon of the conveyor belt (the Rouge had 120 miles of it) and assembly lines (at its peak, the pant employed 100,000 workers), like some immense, symbolic circulatory system.  One of the first stages in the production of steel is carried out in the blast furnaces, glowing the red and orange of extreme heat, where iron ore, coke (made from coal), and limestone are reduced by heat to make iron.  Here, the blast furnace, the dominant background image, is the terminus of a processional way created by two rows of multiple spindles accompanied by conveyor lines.  The spindles, which focus the viewer’s attention to the furnace, resemble Toltec guardians, connecting the modern technology to an earlier, pre-industrial time.  The steel milling processes then continue in the predella panels below.

Rivera included a variety of faces and physiques in his figures, reflecting the multiracial work force at Ford as well as his own assistants on the mural project.  Though in the 1930s, the assembly-line workers at the Ford plant (as elsewhere in industry) were all white—the non-white workers being relegated to the menial and unpleasant jobs—Rivera painted his ideal workers as representing racially mixed laborers working harmoniously together.  His emphasis on the multiracial workforce in the automobile panels expressed a Marxist hope for the future power of the working class.

South Wall: Production of Automobile Exterior and Final Assembly

Rivera combined another five buildings at the Rouge in the major panel of the south wall: the Pressed Steel Building (now Dearborn Stamping Plant); B Building (now Dearborn Assembly Plant); the Spring and Upset Building: By-products Building; and the Glass Plant.  This automotive panel is devoted to the production of the exterior of the 1932 Ford V-8 and its final assembly.  Unlike the north wall, this panel is not organized in production sequence, although all the major operations are included.  The creation of the automobile body parts begins at the right, where the monumental stamping press produces fenders out of large sheets of steel.  A cluster of stamping presses appears in the upper left section.

The huge stamping press in this panel is of special note.  In all of Rivera’s Detroit Industry murals, he prided himself in the accuracy of the machines he represented, but this machine was an older version of the one in use at the plant, a sleeker and more modern-looking press.  Rivera saw in the older version a resemblance to Coatlicue, the Aztec goddess of creation.  Both a giver and destroyer of life, Coatlicue was fed human hearts as a sacrifice to keep her maintaining the order of the universe.  Rivera saw the assembly-line laborers as sacrificial victims of overwork, repetitive (machine-like) motion, and noxious fumes, to the worship of the mechanical gods of industry and capitalism.  The stamping press-Coatlicue presided over this sacrifice. 

After the auto body parts are stamped into forms, they are spot welded.  Spot welding is carried out to the lower left of the stamping press.  The surface is then smoothed out in the buffing process, which is in the lower left foreground.  Workmen are being observed by a foreman in hat and glasses.  This figure represents the constant hostile supervision at Ford by production managers who were more interested in quotas than in the conditions of the workers or their environment.

At the top of the panel in the center is the welding buck where the separate parts are welded into the body of the car.  To the right of the buck, women sew upholstery and to the left, painters spray the bodies before they are conveyed into the ovens.  Below the welding buck is the final assembly of the car.  Men use pulleys to secure the chassis to the line.  Along the line, the motors are lowered into the chassis, wheels attached, and the body secured.  At the very end of the assembly line Rivera painted a tiny red car speeding off into time and space.  The focus of the panel is on the work; the end result, the distant and nearly unnoticeable red Ford, is not the heart of the effort.  The tiny, four-inch-long car (in a panel that measures nearly 800 square feet), driving off the assembly line, all but disappears into the “process.”

There are two groups of people who are not workers in this panel.  The first is a tour group made up of dour-faced bourgeoisie who look blankly or disapprovingly at the workers.  (Tours of the plant, which were then quite common, to see the workers at their hard labor, was reminiscent of the 18th-century practice of encouraging ordinary people to visit asylums to gawk at the crazy folk.)  Some figures are reminiscent of comic strip characters such as Dick Tracy and the Katzenjammer Kids.  The second group is two observers standing at the lower right section.  Rivera painted these two figures in the traditional position of Italian Renaissance donors.  On the left is a portrait of Edsel B. Ford and on the right a portrait of William Valentiner.  Valentiner holds the contract for the mural project.

Predella Panels

Apart from their similarity to Italian medieval and Renaissance altar paintings, Rivera’s predella panels are also reminiscent, in their monochromaticism, of traditional grisaille, paintings executed entirely or mostly in shades of grey, where the intent was to create the illusion of a sculptural frieze.  He used the predella both to show a day in the life of a worker—punching in, performing their regular routines, returning home after the workday—and to illustrate some of the major production processes not easily included in the larger panels.  The predella panels appear as if fixed to steel gates, which separate the viewer from the workers in the automotive panel.  The center of each gate is open with handles and chains on each sliding door, inviting the viewer into the factory space.

When the murals were revealed to the public, several groups and individuals raised objections.  Some even lamented the loss of the Garden Court, with its palm trees, central fountain, and empty walls.  Bluenoses labeled the nudes symbolizing fertility pornographic.  The vaccination panel was called sacrilegious by clergy because it evoked the nativity scene for secular purposes.  The factory scenes showed the different races working together harmoniously, an affront to segregationists who were the prevailing population in Jim Crow America. 

A front-page Detroit News editorial, calling the murals “un-American,” “a slander,” “vulgar,” and “coarse,” demanded they be whitewashed.  It didn’t help that many questioned why a Mexican communist had been hired to paint the works over an American artist during a time of such widespread joblessness.  (This casual xenophobia wasn’t limited to the artist: the Detroit Free Press also noted that DIA director Valentiner was German-born.)  Some critics asserted that Rivera had presented the city with a graphic Communist Manifesto. 

The notorious Father Charles Coughlin, a vocal anti-Semite and supporter of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, denounced Rivera and the murals on his popular radio program and Rev. H. Ralph Higgins of Grand Rapids’ St. Mark’s Episcopal Cathedral held meetings of prominent Detroiters who opposed the paintings.  Both called for the murals’ destruction.

Edsel Ford, however, calmed the outcry with his statement: “I admire Riveras spirit.  I really believe he was trying to express his idea of the spirit of Detroit.”  (Some have long suspected that Ford engineered the protests and denunciations to build up curiosity and interest in the murals.  If he did, his tactic worked!)

Supporters of the murals also spoke out, especially the unions, which saw in Rivera’s portrayals of the workers a tribute to their dignity and hard work.  Rivera recorded later that he viewed this as proof that they felt the murals “had been created exclusively for the pleasure of the workers of this city.”  Prominent intellectuals and fellow artists, the same voices that had protested the destruction of Man at the Crossroads in New York, spoke in favor of the work as well.  100,000 visitors came to see the murals in the month after they were opened to the public, sometimes as many as 10,000 in a single day, and 1934 saw DIA’s patronage rise to its highest level in its seven-year history. 

In the 1950’s, at the height of the McCarthyist anti-communist era, the controversy of Rivera’s Marxism reemerged.  The DIA put up a large sign that averred that “Rivera's politics and his publicity seeking are detestable,” but went on to insist that the artist painted Detroit’s industry and technology as “wonderful and very exciting” and “as one of the great achievements of the twentieth century.”  The DIA administration ended with the statement: “If we are proud of this city's achievements, we should be proud of these paintings.” 

Today, the artistic value of Rivera’s Detroit Industry is no longer even in question.  They are universally recognized as masterpieces, even if you don’t agree with or even particularly like the social commentary the artist incorporated in his art.  If the murals provoke disagreement or debate on that level . . . well, then, they have accomplished what Rivera intended.

[A few weeks before Rivera arrived in Detroit, there was a hunger march on Ford’s River Rouge Plant in protest of layoffs.  The police, the army, and Pinkerton agents opened fire on the marchers, killing five people and wounding 20.  Though many Detroiters wondered why Henry Ford, Edsel’s father and the founder of the automobile firm, acquiesced in the mural project, there was a very strong feeling, not supported by Ford Company records, that Henry Ford did not block the murals because he felt it would be good publicity for the company to do something so grand.  This labor unrest (which was even echoed in Rivera’s professional relationship with his assistants), like the Depression itself, was not portrayed in the murals in any way, which presented the labor as harmonious and nearly utopian.

[The Detroit Institute of Arts is located at 5200 Woodward Avenue, Detroit, MI 48202; (313) 833-7900 (TDD: (313) 833-1454).  It’s open Tuesdays and Wednesdays, 9 a.m.-4 p.m.; Thursdays and Fridays, 9 a.m.-10 p.m.; Saturdays and Sundays, 10 a.m.-5 p.m.; closed Mondays.  (There are special extended hours for Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo in Detroit.)  Admission is $8 for adults, $6 for seniors, $5 for students (with student photo ID), and $4 for children 6-17; children under 6, residents of Wayne, Oakland and Macomb Counties, and DIA members (with driver’s license) are admitted free.  (Active military personnel and their families are admitted free from May 30 to September 5.)  For travel directions and further information, visit the DIA website, http://www.dia.org.]


12 April 2015

Rivera, Kahlo, and Detroit: The Artists



[The City of Detroit declared a financial emergency in March 2013 and in July filed the largest municipal bankruptcy case in U.S. history.  The Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan declared Detroit bankrupt in December citing $18.5 billion in debt and declaring that negotiations with its creditors were unfeasible.  In November 2014, the court approved a restructuring plan allowing the city to begin exiting bankruptcy.  Detroit successfully left municipal bankruptcy with all its finances returned to city control in December 2014.

[After Detroit declared bankruptcy in July 2013, creditors targeted the collection of the Detroit Institute of Arts as a potential source of revenue.  The state-appointed emergency manager hired Christie’s, the art auction house, to determine the market value of the art purchased with city funds.  To prevent the sale of the works, DIA supporters developed what was dubbed “the Grand Bargain,” under which the museum and the State of Michigan would raise sufficient funds to keep the museum afloat and guarantee municipal workers’ pensions.  In return, the City of Detroit would cede ownership of the collection and the building to the non-profit entity that already operated the museum.  Though this plan was challenged by some city creditors, last November, a judge approved the Grand Bargain which didn’t require DIA to sell any art.  Thousands of art-lovers in Detroit and elsewhere breathed a huge sigh of relief.]

[On 15 March, a new exhibit, Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo in Detroit, opened at DIA, and while the show was conceived nearly a decade ago, its opening came right on the heels of the happy outcome of the anxious 20-month bankruptcy scare.  (The show is scheduled to close on 12 July.)  In part one of “Rivera, Kahlo, and Detroit,” I’ll discuss the two fascinating artists and set the scene for the creation of the great murals Rivera painted on the walls of the Detroit Institute of Arts in 1932-33.]

In 1932 and ’33, revolutionary Mexican muralist Diego Rivera and his wife, painter Frida Kahlo, were living and working in what was then the home of the world’s largest manufacturing industry, Detroit.  He was creating the now-beloved and -esteemed murals known as Detroit Industry on the walls of the Detroit Institute of Arts.  Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo in Detroit, the new exhibit at that very DIA, throws a spotlight on the murals and 70 other works by both painters showing the evolutions of their careers as well as the tensions between their separate styles and approaches—which the New York Times characterizes as “a kind of contest between a hefty hare and a tiny tortoise”—a tension that was also manifest in their personal relationship as well. 

Diego Maria de la Concepción Juan Nepomuceno Estanislao de la Rivera y Barrientos Acosta y Rodríguez (1886-1957) was born in Guanajuato, Mexico, to a prosperous family.  (He was a twin, but his brother, Carlos, died when they were 14 months old.)  Raised a Catholic, Rivera acknowledged his heritage as a Converso, Mexicans whose Jewish ancestors had been forced to convert during the Inquisition in 15th- and 16th-century Spain and Portugal, passed down through his mother’s line.  (I posted an article on ROT on Chicano Americans in New Mexico who discovered their Converso roots in the 20th century, “Crypto-Jews: Legacy of Secrecy,” on 15 September 2009.)  Though he never practiced Judaism or affiliated with the Jewish community in Mexico, in 1935, the then-famous painter wrote, “My Jewishness is the dominant element in my life.  From this has come my sympathy with the downtrodden masses which motivates all my work.”  As an avowed communist, of course, Rivera was an atheist. 

The future muralist began drawing the year after his brother died, using the walls of his family’s home as his platform.  His parents, rather than getting angry, merely lined the house’s walls with canvases and chalkboards and encouraged their son’s budding artistry.  At the age of 10, Rivera was sent to Mexico City to study at the Academy of San Carlos until 1905.  In 1907, the governor of the State of Veracruz sponsored his further art studies in Europe, first in Madrid and then in Paris, the modern-art capital of the western world at that time.  Like many young artists before him, Rivera settled in Montparnasse, the bohemian center of Paris’s art scene, where he became friends with such artists as Russian painter Chaim Soutine, Frenchman Henri Matisse, Italian artist Amedeo Modigliani (who painted his portrait in 1914), French painter Robert Delaunay, Spaniard Pablo Picasso, and French Cubist Georges Braque. 

Under the influence of Picasso and Braque, both working in the cubist style at the time Rivera arrived in Paris, the Mexican painter began working in the new form, too.  Between 1913 and 1917, the young artist painted cubist canvases until, inspired by Paul Cézanne, he switched to Post-Impressionism.  (In 2004, the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C., mounted The Cubist Paintings of Diego Rivera: Memory, Politics, Place, a small exhibit of Rivera’s cubist works.)  With this shift in style, Rivera’s art began to attract notice and he exhibited in several Paris shows. 

My impression of Rivera’s art of this period, however, is that he began trying out all the current styles, the Cubism of Picasso, Braque, and Marcel Duchamp; and the Post-Impressionism of Cézanne and Auguste Renoir, for brief periods, trying to find his own voice.  (Rivera also experimented with Surrealism in the early ’40s, but it was a short-lived exploration.)  None of these experiments lasted very long, and there weren't many cubist works in the NGA show—and most of them were interesting only as curiosities the way Picasso's realistic works as a young artist are.  They merely contrast with the more identifiable works of the maturer artists—in Rivera's case, the murals and Mexican history and folklore he worked with for most of his career.  In any case, the Mexican painter left Paris in 1920 and traveled through Italy to study the art there, particularly the Renaissance frescoes of Michelangelo, Piero della Francesca, and Masaccio. 

Rivera returned to Mexico in 1921 to take part in the government-sponsored mural project planned by the new Minister of Education.  Also involved in the effort were José Orozco, David Siqueiros, and Rufino Tamayo, all among Mexico’s most renowned artists today.  (Among my favorite pieces in my parents’ art collection is Personaje de Perfil, a 1980 Tamayo print.)  In January of the next year, Rivera painted his first important mural, La creación, in Mexico City’s National Preparatory School.  

Upon his return home, the young artist immediately joined the revolutionary movement, even claiming to have fought with Emiliano Zapata against the dictatorship of Porfirio Díaz to enhance his bona fides.  (Zapata was a leader of the Mexican Revolution, 1910-20, but Rivera never bore arms in the struggle.)  In 1922, the painter helped found the Revolutionary Union of Technical Workers, Painters and Sculptors and subsequently joined the Mexican Communist Party (PCM), eventually becoming a member of its Central Committee.  The painter’s first wife, Russian émigrée Angelina Bellof, had introduced him to communism in Paris and he remained loyal to the party all his life—even if the party wasn’t always loyal to Rivera. 

(Disenchanted with Rivera’s independence and individualism, after having invited the artist to Moscow for the 10th anniversary celebration of the October Revolution in 1927, Joseph Stalin expelled him from the Soviet Union for “anti-Soviet” activities.  When he returned to Mexico, Rivera was commissioned to paint a mural for the Secretariat of Public Education, but the Mexican party saw in its depiction of a Trotskyite leader who was assassinated in Mexico City evidence that Rivera knew about the crime beforehand.  The muralist was labeled a Trotskyite himself and ousted from the Mexican party for ideological “deviation.”  Leon Trotsky, who became an adversary to Stalin in Russia, was a friend of the Riveras and even spent 1937 as the houseguest of Rivera and Kahlo, who was also a PCM member.  Trotsky  is reported to have had an affair with Kahlo when he lived in her home.  The Russian revolutionary and his wife moved to their own house near Kahlo’s in 1940 and he was assassinated there by Stalin’s agents in 1940.  The artist, a somewhat fractious party member from the beginning, though expelled by the PCM, spent the rest of his life trying to get back in.) 

Rivera’s domestic life was also tumultuous.  He was famously married to Mexican artist Frida Kahlo, but she was his third (and fourth—he married her twice) wife.  Rivera’s first wife, Angelina Beloff, seven years his senior, was a Russian artist he met in Paris the year she arrived there, 1909, and they married almost right away.  The couple had a son, Diego, in 1916, but he died in 1918 (possibly a victim of the Spanish influenza pandemic).  When Rivera left Paris in 1921, he divorced Beloff and left her behind—though she moved to Mexico herself in 1932 and did most of her painting there.  She died in Mexico City in 1969, at the age of 90.  (While he was still married to Beloff, Rivera had a daughter, Marika, with Maria Vorobieff-Stebelska, a Russian-born Cubist painter.  Marika became a French film actress in the 1960s, ’70s, and ’80s and died in England in 2010 at 90.) 

In 1922, after he’d returned to Mexico, he met and married Guadalupe Marín, a model and novelist.  She figured in several of her husband’s paintings, and was even the subject of a portrait by Kahlo, whom Rivera met while he was married to Marín.  Rivera and Marín had two daughters, Guadalupe (born 1924) and Ruth (1927); Rivera divorced Marín in 1929, the year he married Kahlo; she died in 1983 at 87. 

When Rivera met Kahlo, she was an art student of 22 and he was 43.  They’d already been corresponding, as Kahlo reached out to Rivera for advice and guidance for her career as an artist.  They had a tempestuous marriage, and they both had numerous affairs and dalliances.  (Some of Kahlo’s relationships were with women, notably Josephine Baker.)  They divorced in 1939 but remarried a year later.  Kahlo pursued her own career, frequently living separately from her husband (though often near him), and a year after her death in 1954, Rivera married Emma Hurtado, his agent for eight years. 

Magdalena Carmen Frieda Kahlo y Calderón (1907-54) was born in Coyoacán, a small town on the outskirts of Mexico City that’s now part of the metropolis.  Her father, Guillermo Kahlo, was a German-born photographer (his birth name was Carl Wilhelm Kahl; when he arrived in Mexico, he hispanicized it) and her mother, Matilde Calderón y González, part Mexican Indian, worked in a jewelry store.  Frida Kahlo was the third of four sisters; there were two older half-sisters from her father’s first marriage (which had left him a widower). 

When Kahlo was but three years old, the Mexican Revolution broke out, lasting for the next ten years with sporadic gunfire erupting in the streets of Mexico City.  (She often gave the year of her birth as 1910 to indicate that both she and revolutionary Mexico had begun life in the same year.)  At six, Kahlo contracted polio which left her right leg thinner than her left.  She took to wearing long, brightly-colored peasant dresses, for which she became famous, to cover the deformity.  She nonetheless participated in several sports. 

In 1925, the teen schoolgirl was riding a bus which collided with a streetcar.  Kahlo was badly hurt, suffering a list of serious injuries almost too daunting to read.  Undergoing dozens of operations, she spent three months recovering in a hospital encased in a full-body cast.  Her injuries healed and she ultimately recovered her ability to walk, but Kahlo suffered bouts of extreme pain periodically throughout her life which forced her return to a hospital, and several of the injuries permanently destroyed her ability to bear children.  (As part of the DIA exhibit, on display is Accidente, a pencil sketch of the collision drawn in 1926 while the then-novice artist was still recuperating.)

Kahlo had been heading for a medical career before her accident but she abandoned that pursuit after her hospitalization.  She taught herself to paint to pass the time during her recuperation and she took to art professionally after her discharge.  She was isolated for so much of her convalescence, unable either to go anywhere or to see other people, that her principal subject was herself.  The predominance of self-portraiture in Kalho’s work was the result: “I paint myself because I am so often alone and because I am the subject I know best.”  Her mother devised a special easel on which Kahlo could paint in bed while she recovered and her father lent her some of his brushes and paints, and the young patient used painting both to occupy herself while she was sequestered and to convey her pain.  Her best-known works—over 50 of her 140 paintings—are her self-portraits, usually in the colorful peasant dresses she favored and frequently incorporating some kind of text in a banderole. 

The portraits often continued to depict her persistent suffering, including her inability to bear children, frequently in symbolic representation.  (Kahlo didn’t flatter herself in her paintings, either, usually portraying herself with a slight mustache and a bristling unibrow.)  One of Kahlo’s works in the DIA show, for example, is Henry Ford Hospital (The Flying Bed) (1932), painted while she was in Detroit, showing the artist bleeding in a hospital bed after the painful end of one of her pregnancies, either from a miscarriage or a termination.  Made soon after her hospitalization, Henry Ford Hospital depicts Kahlo as “glassy-eyed, with a frightened and drawn expression,” writes Philip Kennicott in the Washington Post.  Painted on metal to provide an industrial quality that reflected the Detroit she’d come to hate (while Rivera admired its industrial strength and productiveness), it depicts the looming skyline of Ford’s River Rouge Plant in the background.  Kennicott describes the painting as showing “a woman in a hospital bed, with the date and place inscribed on the bed rails.  She lies naked and supine, yet connected by cords to small anatomical, zoological and industrial images, including a fetus or baby, a snail and a rendering of the pelvis.”  (The exhibit also includes a pencil sketch of the same image, displayed next to the painting.) 

It was Kahlo who first approached Rivera, already a well-known artist in Mexico City.  While he was at work on a mural in 1927, Kahlo went to him and showed him some of her work, asking if he thought she was talented.  According to the common account, he recognized her gift immediately and encouraged her and advised her.  Though he was 18 years older than she, Rivera was a frequent and welcome visitor at La Casa Azul (The Blue House), the Kahlo home in Coyoacán.  The tyro painter had long admired the famous muralist, whom she first met when she would watch him working on La creación at the National Preparatory School the same year Kahlo became one of only 35 girls—among 2000 boys—enrolled there.  Rivera never imposed his style on her, rather encouraging Kahlo to find her own vision.  She never deferred to him nor tried to compete with him, either.  Like her mentor, however, Kahlo was very taken with indigenous Mexican folklore and culture and often incorporated its imagery in her paintings, most notably the monkey figure, a symbol of lust in Mexican mythology but seen as protective by Kahlo (Self-Portrait with Monkey, 1945; oil on masonite).

Having abandoned Cubism as too “elitist,” Rivera painted his murals and canvases in a Mexican-infused (he was heavily influenced by Mayan and Aztec imagery and well as Mexican folk art) form of Socialist Realism, the official art style of Stalin’s Soviet Union, Kahlo’s work was much more fanciful.  Often compared to Surrealism, an artistic movement that drew on dreams and the unconscious, Kahlo rejected the label, arguing that her work was less informed by her dreams than her reality.  (She’d seen a historic show in New York before going to Detroit, the Surrealist group show at the Julien Levy Gallery which displayed works by Picasso, Max Ernst, Duchamp, and Salvador Dalí.  Six years later, Kahlo had her only solo U.S. exhibit at Levy’s gallery, a well-received introduction of her work to this country and a number of prominent artists who viewed the show.  Surrealist icon André Breton wrote the introduction to the exhibit’s catalogue—and then invited Kahlo to Paris in 1939 where she exhibited her work again.)

The artist gained an international reputation in her lifetime—one of her self-portraits, The Frame (oil on aluminum and glass, 1938), was bought by the Louvre from the Paris show, the first artwork by a 20th-century Mexican artist purchased by the Paris museum—but mostly among cognoscenti and devotees of her husband’s art; after her death at 47 in 1954, however, her fame and popularity increased.  Mexican art became known to the public in the 1970s and ’80s, with exhibits in big museums around the world, featuring indigenous Mexican artists including Kahlo.  Interest in and knowledge of Latin American art increased in galleries, museums, and auction houses; Sotheby’s and Christie’s reported, for instance, increases in sales from an average of $2.25 million in 1981 to $20.65 million in 1989.  (The opera Frida by Robert Xavier Rodriguez premièred in Philadelphia in 1991 and the bio-film of the same name directed by Julie Taymor came out in 2002, with Salma Hayek portraying the artist and Alfred Molina as Rivera.  Other works about Kahlo have appeared in recent years, focusing attention on both her life and her art.) 

Kahlo also became a potent symbol of female independence and empowerment during the late 20th century in recognition of both her artistic output, which always followed her own vision, and the way she lived her life, from her style of dress to her intelligence and intellectual independence to her candor and honesty to the hardships she endured and triumphed over to her strength in adversity to her sexual unconventionality.  Her style of dress made her something of a fashion star as well, the subject of a Vogue pictorial in 1937.  (In 2012, a trove of Kahlo’s clothes, including 300 dresses plus bathing suits and accessories, was discovered at the Casa Azul museum, secreted from public view for 50 years by Rivera’s instructions.  They went on exhibit in November of that year.)

Kahlo’s art, which combined the folk-art styles of Mexico and South America with classical and modern European forms (her early paintings have been compared to Renaissance portraits), explored her private experiences while also making political and social points.  In addition, as Hayden Herrera, author of Frida: A Biography of Frida Kahlo (Harper & Row, 1983), wrote, “Although her paintings record specific moments in her life, all who look at them feel that Frida is speaking directly to them.”  In the words of the Times’s Roberta Smith, who also compared Rivera’s paintings to “a kind of cathedral,” while Kahlo’s are “portable altarpieces for private devotion,” “Her work is everything Rivera’s art is not: small in size and suffused with personal emotion and existential torment.”  Like Rivera, she used broad areas of vibrant color and a consciously naïve painting style.  She frequently incorporated elements of Mexican archaeology and pre-Columbian art in her self-portraits, juxtaposing them with fantastical and strange images.  She shocked many with the depictions of her fantastic images—Surrealism was still a new form—and her frank display of sexuality.  Her works are still seen as “graphic and groundbreaking,” in the words of the Detroit News’s Louis Aguilar on the occasion of the 80th anniversary of Rivera’s DAI frescoes.  (She was commissioned by Clare Booth Luce in 1938 to do a portrait of the publisher’s wife and her friend, actress Dorothy Hale, who’d just committed suicide.  It was to be a traditional portrait as a gift for Hale’s grieving mother but instead, Kahlo painted the story of Hale’s suicidal jump from a New York high rise.  The finished painting, The Suicide of Dorothy Hale, 1939, horrified Luce—though critics praised it.) 

(Another disturbing work, My Birth, 1932, is part of a series depicting significant events in Kahlo's life which Rivera had encouraged her to create.  Kahlo wrote in her journal that the painting shows her giving birth to herself.  It’s a gory scene in which the artist’s grossly oversized head is emerging from the mother’s womb as a puddle of blood forms between the mother’s spread legs.  Her chest and head are covered by a sheet and over the bed’s headboard, a portrait of Our Lady of Sorrows weeps.  The New York Times characterized the painting as “a bloody depiction of childbirth whose candor [is] astonishing even in today's unprudish world.”  Now owned by Madonna, one of Kahlo’s best-known fans, My Birth can be disquieting and the singer has said she uses it to determine who will be a friend and who won’t: anyone who doesn’t like the painting won’t be welcome.)

Despite the influences of movements such as Surrealism and other artists, including her husband, Kahlo’s style was uniquely her own, immediately distinctive and emotionally evocative.  She’s become recognized today as an artist of daring and originality.  According to the Post’s Kennicott, the couple’s yearlong sojourn in Detroit was a turning point for Kahlo.  When she arrived in the city, Kennicott observes, she was painting in her husband’s “shadow,” exhibiting simplicity and naïveté; while in Detroit, her art gained depth and complexity.  While her subject often remained herself (she also did portraits of others and still lifes), her paintings explored ideas beyond the personal to the world around her.  The inclusion of her vision of the cold, industrial Ford plant behind her naked, bleeding body in Henry Ford Hospital, Kennicott points out, demonstrates this expansion.  (The image of the plant doesn’t exist in the earlier pencil sketch of the scene.)  Many of the symbolic figures Kahlo put into her canvases also reveal a cognizance of wider social and political issues almost as emphatically as Rivera’s portrayals of workers, peasants, and radicals.  Using her own life as a vehicle, Kahlo’s art championed the struggle of women to overcome the traditional barriers of gender.  Upon her arrival in Detroit, in answer to a reporter’s question whether she, too, was a painter, Kahlo said unabashedly, “Yes, the greatest in the world.”  As if to confirm this, the Mexican government declared her art to be “cultural patrimony of the nation” in 1984 (an honor also bestowed on her husband).  In the late 20th century, Kahlo became an inspiration and model for a whole generation of artists from many different communities: Chicanos, Latinos, feminists, LGBT’s, and young Mexicans. 

Rivera’s communist leanings led him to sympathize with the struggles of the Mexican workers and peasants.  The revolutionary artist insisted, in fact:

To be an artist, one must first be a man, vitally concerned with all problems of social struggle, unflinching in portraying them without concealment or evasion, never shirking the truth as he understands it, never withdrawing from life.

For Rivera, all art was a form of propaganda—or education, depending on the viewer’s perspective—and his art made people take sides, regardless of their original point of view.  “Rivera thought that art could change the world,” says Lynn Zelevansky, curator of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art at the time it hosted a Rivera retrospective.  “So when he did this work, he did it to communicate real values.  They were teaching tools.”  Zelevansky adds that

one of his major thrusts is going to be this sort of diary of Mexican daily life told from the view of the lower classes, and he has a vision in his art of a kind of utopia that is a multiracial, multicultural utopia, and these figures are the embodiment of that vision.

(It was a sentiment that, when he put it into practice in the United States, got him into difficulties at times.  Notes Gregorio Luke, director of the Museum of Latin American Art: “Diego would always affirm that it didn’t matter who sponsored the mural as long as the mural itself was ideologically correct, or at least truthful to his convictions.”  The DIA murals caused not a little consternation among Detroit’s capitalist and religious leaders, and the artist’s view of truth and history so angered his sponsors at New York’s Rockefeller Center, the über-capitalist Rockefeller family, that John D. Rockefeller, Jr., ordered the mural Man at the Crossroads, which he’d commissioned from Rivera for the main lobby of the RCA Building at Rockefeller Center, destroyed in 1934 before it was completed.) 

The artist had quickly risen in the esteem of his countrymen and in Mexico he became “a legendary figure on the order of George Washington, Babe Ruth and Charles Lindbergh” here in the States.  For his people and even the government of Mexico. Rivera was seen as the “definer of Mexico’s national myth, a champion of its popular uprisings and its fertile mix of races and cultures.”  In the rest of the world, however, he was yet to be recognized as anything more than a minor Cubist from his days in Paris or a sidelight to contemporary art and “a master propagandist for the new Mexican state.”  Zelevansky asserts that Rivera became

one of the great innovators of 20th century art, because what he does is he takes everything that he’s learned in Europe from European modernism, and he melds it with the art of ancient Mexico, Mayan and Aztec art, to come up with a new form that will allow him to express social and political ideas on a broad scale.

After his death, however, the art world was beginning to catch up with Rivera’s native country in its estimation of his importance.  By the time of DIA’s 1986 Diego Rivera: A Retrospective in celebration of the centennial of his birth, his status had elevated to somewhere around the second rank of world artists.  For a time in the ’70s and ’80s, his reputation as an artist was eclipsed by that of Kahlo’s.  Following the Cleveland show (which subsequently traveled to Los Angeles, Houston, and Mexico City), some art critics changed their tunes.  Steven Litt of the Plain Dealer wrote that “Rivera’s art is still politically useful . . . .  It’s also very, very good, which amply justifies all the renewed attention.”  Co-organizer of Art and Revolution, Luis-Martín Lozano, a Mexico City-based independent curator, asserted, “[N]ow it’s time—however belatedly—to reconsider Mexican artists’ role in the international scheme of Modern Art, and Rivera is a good place to start.”  In the Austin Chronicle, Gerald E. McLeod affirmed that the Houston exhibit “takes the artist’s varied talent out of the shadow of his great murals and reveals the full range of his remarkable career.”

One reason for the slow development in critical esteem is that Rivera’s masterworks are universally considered his murals, few examples of which exist outside of Mexico and which, by their very nature, can’t travel to exhibits around the world so that viewers, critics or the general public, can see and appreciate them.  Rivera’s easel paintings have been given short shrift as representatives of his art—until, that is, such shows as A Retrospective, Cleveland’s Diego Rivera: Art and Revolution (1999), and now Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo in Detroit.  (I don’t count NGA’s The Cubist Paintings of Diego Rivera because it was a very small show and narrowly focused.  In addition, by 2004, any reevaluation of Rivera’s significance had already been effected.)  At the end of the 20th century, two important new biographies of the Mexican artist, Dreaming with His Eyes Open: A Life of Diego Rivera  by Patrick Marnham (Knopf, 1998) and Diego Rivera  by Pete Hamill (Harry N. Abrams, 1999), were issued in this country, helping to focus attention on his art.  Another explanation for the reexamination was that by the turn of the 21st century, Mexico had finally moved past its revolutionary past (the Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, lost the majority in the Mexican congress in 1997 for the first time since its founding and lost the presidency in 2000), communism was largely dead (except for a few notable pockets), and the dawn of the age of industrialism was a distant memory.  Rivera’s art could now be looked at for its aesthetics rather than its political and social commentary. 

[I have deliberately elided over some of the more complex and problematic elements of the life and work of both Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo here.  To have broached these topics, such as their embrace of Stalinism (notwithstanding a friendship with Trotsky), Rivera’s conflict with the Rockefellers over Man at the Crossroads, or Kahlo’s belief (despite later genealogical research to the contrary) that her father was a Jew, would have expanded this summary to twice its present length.  

[Please come back to ROT in a few days for part rwo of “Rivera, Kahlo, and Detroit,” in which I’ll describe the famous Detroit Industry murals and some of the impact they had on the people of the city and on the arts (and some of the politics) of the whole country in the ’30s and beyond.]