Can post­revolutionary Mexican muralism be considered a good example of popular culture?

Whilst mural painting may be ‘one of the oldest and most important forms of artistic, political, and social expression in history’(Henry, 2000) starting in Latin America during the pre­Columbian period, its revival came after the Mexican Revolution of 1910 as a way to reunite the country, which was left in several social and political sectors until the development of a new government lead by Obregón in 1920. El Partido Revolucionario Institucional brought the necessary stability and social change to revive Mexican nationalism through muralism, because ‘the claim to a national culture in the past does not only rehabilitate that nation and serve as a justification for the hope of a future national culture’(Kebede, 2004).

To unify a weak and confused nation following the Revolution, the new government needed a way to promote its fundamental ideals. To do this, José Vasconcelos, who was appointed head of the Secretaría de Educación Pública on the 12th October 1921, implemented substantial change in art and culture in order to influence political and social spheres. To this extent, Vasconcelos wanted a ‘publicly visible art program as a complement to his new centralized national education policy’(Thayer, 2014). From its mere conception, it can be said that this movement was a form of political culture, which Lucian Pye defined as ‘the set of attitudes, beliefs and sentiments that give order and meaning to a political process and which provide the underlying assumptions and rules that govern behavior in the political system’(Luton, 1997).

Thus, Vasconcelos spearheaded a government­backed mural programme to create representative Mexican art that would strengthen and reaffirm a common national identity. Similar to the pre­Hispanic period, the purpose of these murals was not simply aesthetic they served as a vehicle to promote, examine or educate the masses about Mexican culture and history. Thus, the post­revolutionary murals glorified the Mexican Revolution and the positive identity of Mexico as a mestizo nation of which, Vasconcelos described in La Raza Cósmica as ‘true essence of Mexican nationality’(Vasconcelos, 1925). Therefore, it can be noted that Mexican muralism was intended as a political tool to indoctrinate a broken nation into believing that the post­revolutionary ideals were beneficial to Mexico. Mexican muralism established itself within the peripheries of political culture and hence was a way of promoting and legitimising the Obregón government and its ideals, ensuring that it remained in power. Consequently, the government was highly influential in instructing artists about the content of the murals, which would largely envelope the socialist concept of the Mexican individual as part of the collective. Greeley expands on this when he wrote: ‘in their search for a project of national renewal, those mural artists deployed a leftist realism that stressed the fundamental importance of popular agency to the functioning of the nation’(Anreus, Folgarait and Greeley, 2012).

Whilst the murals were extremely political, they were also a form of popular culture one definition of popular culture refers to ‘the cultural production and practices of the popular classes, particularly forms of oral expression and religious rituals that are seen to constitute a means of political resistance’ (Stern, 1989). In this sense, Vasconcelos decided that the murals should be painted on the vast walls of Mexico’s governmental edifices, not only as a stylistic homage to the pre­Columbian races, but also to give access to everyone, regardless of race or social class. Interestingly, this method of consumption was also extremely effective in the promotion of the government’s ideology as most of the Mexican populace was illiterate at the time(around 65% in 1920)(UNESCO, 2006).

However, whilst muralism was easy to consume, it could not be easily produced only artists with technical skills could contribute to the movement most were formally trained, often first studying in Europe or in the Escuela Mexicana de Pintura y Escultura, Mexico City. Obviously, the necessary amount of skill limited the amount of people who could produce this cultural form to this effect, there were only three renowned figures of the muralist movement (Orozco, Rivera and Siqueiros or, collectively known as ‘Los Tres Grandes’) who were considered the artistic leaders of the mural movement in Mexico. Generally, Rivera’s works were utopian and idealist, Orozco’s were critical and pessimistic and the most radical was Siqueiros, who focused heavily on a scientific future. Despite this, ‘Los Tres Grandes’ painted in accordance with the government’s ideals; they believed art was a key force in social revolution, which masterfully defined the essence of the movement. Despite the unity of meaning, the Mexican population could identify with and interpret the murals subjectively for example, in Siqueiros’ Torment and Apotheosis of Cuauhtémoc, 1950­51, Spanish soldiers are depicted torturing a Mexican tribal leader whilst a blood­stained female figure (a symbol for the Mexican motherland), stretches her arms protectively over him. This symbolism is an obvious representation of the barbarity of the Spanish Conquistadors and the innocent despair of the Mexican indigenous populace. In effect, the indigenous peoples of Mexico could interpret this mural, amongst others, as glorification of their race and as support for their return into the heart of Mexican society after years of discrimination and brutal treatment.

Conclusively, during this period of muralism, the artists and murals can be seen as being mediators between the government and ‘the people’ the murals thus acting as a place for public dialogue on citizenship and organisation of their country. Greeley suggested that ‘Los Tres Grandes’ ‘positioned themselves as visionaries and moral leaders of the new post­Revolutionary Mexico, acting as political leaders at the national level during the tumultuous period of national consolidation and beyond’(Anreus, Folgarait and Greeley, 2012). Through this, it can be established that post­revolutionary muralism cannot be seen to benefit ‘the people’ as an unedited medium of popular culture, due to the its politically charged nature. In effect, the artists ‘assisted in perpetuating a state­sponsored social order that continually marginalised popular demands’(Anreus, Folgarait and Greeley, 2012).

From the 1950s, the principal objective of Mexican muralism emerged through socialist ideology, swaying from its original post­revolutionary political roots it was no longer associated with the doctrines of the power­hungry government but rather, reexamining the country’s history. To this extent, the drive for a distinction from the edited political sphere fuelled ‘Los Tres Grandes’ to rid their art of politics to promote art for the people, rather than for the government an element of popular culture. ‘The muralists point of departure and primary concern was for a public and accessible visual dialogue with the Mexican people’(Donahue, n.d). Moreover, although the paintings did not adhere to specific government ideals, ‘Los Tres Grandes’ remained focused on the unification of Mexico through a representation of social equality. As Siqueiros said, the murals were thence directed at ‘the native races humiliated for centuries; to the soldiers made into hangmen by their officers, to the peasants and workers scourged by the rich’(Rochford, 2006). Thus, the murals celebrated Mexico as a mestizo nation by glorifying the societal minorities such as the indigenous peoples. Ultimately, during this period, the principal motive was to produce art which would engage the people of Mexico on a more personal level; thus, demonstrating further adherence to the generic conventions of popular culture. As Rochfort wrote in his book Mexican Muralists: ‘The murals of Orozco, Rivera and Siqueiros reflect the development of an extraordinary and arguably unique relationship between an art movement and a modern twentieth­century society’(Rochfort, 1998). As Siqueiros added: ‘we have linked ourselves to the popular struggles and we have tried to heed the mandate of the people’(Rochfort, 1998).

To this effect, muralism was used as a benefit for the masses, highly visible to all citizenry and not merely available to a few wealthy collectors; a typical form of consumption in popular culture. In regards to this, Orozco commented that the mural was: ‘the highest, the most logical, the purest form of painting’(Lopez, 2013) because ‘it cannot be made a matter of private gain: it cannot be hidden away for the benefit of a certain privileged few. It is for the people. It is for all’(Lopez, 2013). However, the fact that the murals were painted on public buildings limited their influence because the population outside of the main cities potentially to whom they would be of most value, for example, the indigenous peoples could not learn about the cultural revolution, nor about the celebration of Mexico as a mestizo nation.

After the 1950s, separation from the government and relative artistic freedom invited other artists with less training to start producing this cultural form as a consequence, due to the increase in dissemination, the consumption of the murals also increased throughout Mexico. Furthermore, the relative abolition of the political undertones created a scope for wider interpretation of the murals which expanded to all parts of society. For example, many of the murals, such as Siqueiros’ The Revolutionaries, 1957, do not show detailed facial features in order for the Mexican population to relate to the murals subjectively. The less political nature of muralism can be established as a form of popular culture, because one did not have to be of a certain race, wealth or social status to be able to consume and interpret the art.

Whilst there was an expansion within Mexico, most muralists were reluctant to be part of the international art scene. Despite this, the murals’ influence as a tool of promoting social and political ideals spread around the Americas, for example Carlos Mérida of Guatemala, Oswaldo Guayasamín of Ecuador, and Cândido Portinari of Brazil. The reexamining of history from a different perspective was infectious and other countries attempted to portray specific issues that pertained to contemporary indigenous and African­descended populations within their respective societies. To this extent, the muralism movement also spread around the United States of America, for example in 1930, Orozco was the first artist to be commissioned by the U.S Government to produce a mural, Prometheus, in Pomona College, California. Moreover, prints and photographs of Rivera’s frescoes gained popularity and his work was disseminated through a book in English entitled The Frescoes of Diego Rivera. Through this, his artwork and thus, concepts of Mexican muralism, became accessible throughout the Western world; which interestingly, can be considered as a convention of mass culture not only was Rivera profiting as an artist, but also financially through the sale of his art available on a global scale. After all, Michael Denning states that ‘all culture is mass culture under capitalism’(Bueno, Caesar, 1998). Moreover, following the American Great Depression in 1929, the Works Progress Administration (WPA) which was created in May 1933, employed Mexican muralists to paint murals, spreading the message and cultural heritage of Mexico. However, when Siqueiros moved to Los Angeles he painted three murals which were eventually whitewashed due to their controversial content (symbolism about the U.S.A’s treatment of indigenous peoples) such as a brown­skinned man crucified under a massive eagle in América Tropical, 1932.

Consequently, the concept of using muralism to express political messages in the United States of America provoked a new socio­political movement against the social injustices of Mexican­Americans (Chicanos). By adopting muralism, the Chicano people were able to challenge the existing ethnic stereotypes about Mexican culture and heritage to an extent where a pro­Chicano association called Crusade for Justice produced El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán, which expressed the growing nationalistic consciousness of Chicano people. Muralism played such an important role in the acknowledgement of Chicano heritage that Chicano artists studied post­revolutionary Mexican muralism for inspiration. In this sense, it helped the Chicanos to create a sense of identity during a time of repression,. Cockcroft and Sanchez wrote that ‘through the use of specific symbols, Chicano muralists were able to use murals as an organizing tool and a means for the reclamation of their specific cultural heritage’(Loza, 2010). Furthermore, as stated by Goldman and Ybarra­Frausto, Chicano Muralism ‘began as a massive grassroots artistic explosion — the regional expression of a national phenomenon — that swept great numbers of trained and untrained people into artistic activity’(Tatum, 2001). This statement not only supports the notion of muralism as a form of popular culture, but also and as a form of political culture, because its accessibility not only allowed it to be produced for the people and consumed by the people, but it also held strong underlying political significance.

To conclude, the conception of post­revolutionary muralism was initially largely political. As previously stated, the post­revolutionary movement was created by Vasconcelos as part of a broader effort to promote government ideals for example, the murals were used as tool to reignite Mexican nationalism and glorify the Revolution, with the intention of uniting a broken Mexico and ultimately, trying to keep the Obregón government in power. Furthermore, murals were difficult to produce at this stage as artists had to be highly skilled and were often trained in European or Mexican art schools, which meant that the murals were not being produced by the people for the people, as popular culture would dictate. In reality, ‘Los Tres Grandes’ initially followed the government’s guidelines, acting as a mere vehicle between the government and ‘the people’ which thus, reinforces the aspects of post­revolutionary Mexican muralism being a form of political culture. With this in mind, due to it’s politically edited nature, it is necessary to conclude that through adhering to Pye’s definition of political culture, the initial stages of post­revolutionary muralism can be established as a form of political culture.

However after the 1950s, ‘Los Tres Grandes’ separated themselves from the government and became highly influential in creating murals to accurately reflect society and glorify Mexico as a mestizo nation, such as Siqueiros’ Torment and Apotheosis of Cuauhtémoc whilst the development of the artists’ individual styles allowed for subjective interpretation by the popular classes. Moreover, to consider how the murals were consumed and disseminated suggests elements of effective popular culture the murals were available to all classes, regardless of wealth or social status and were hugely widespread on public and government buildings. In this regard, the generic conventions of popular culture were highly adhered to and therefore, the consumption and dissemination of post­revolutionary Mexican muralism can be considered as forms of popular culture. Even some aspects of the initial stages of the movement, whilst largely political, can be considered as popular culture; after all, the main purpose of post­revolutionary Mexican muralism was to highlight and enhance Mexico’s history, especially its pre­Columbian past, and act in a cathartic manner to reunite Mexico after the Revolution. Moreover, the cultural medium eventually spread to many other countries outside of Mexico, particularly those in Latin America where artists were able to produce a form of popular culture through a representation of their respective societies which acted as a message for the people.

Whilst postrevolutionary Mexican muralism was at its strongest period from the 1920 1950s due to the government endorsement and the consequent dissemination through the murals on government and public buildings the way in which the muralists recovered and reoriented history, society and culture continued to inspire artists and ‘the people’ alike; for example, the Chicano movement that emerged in the United States of America. Even today, murals can still be seen publicly in Mexico and elsewhere and this is a testament to their relevance, popularity, and the power of their didactic cultural message. Conclusively, the roots of post­revolutionary muralism lie within the peripheries of political culture however, if this initial stage is temporarily overlooked, cultural forms of popular culture can be examined and one can see that after the separation from the government, the relative freedom of expression led to an opening in production consumption, and dissemination which consequently produced a truer, purer form of popular culture, by the people, for the people.