Art and revolution 9780853153290, 0853153299

Citation preview

ART

AND

REVOLUTION

DavidA. Siqueiros DAVID SIQUEIROS, revolutionary artist,

best known for his gigantic murals painted in public buildings in Mexico, died in 1974. He had begun his revolutionary career in artin 1911, at the age of fifteen, when a students' strike broke out at the San Carlos Academy where he was studying. “The whole of our modern painting movement started in the politically-inspired students’ rebellion”, he later wrote. He remained a consistent and active revolutionary all his life, fought in the anti-fascist war in Spain and was several times imprisoned. His political activism and his artistic work remained an inseparable unity throughout

his life. He was an artist articulate not only in forms and colours, but in words—clearly and passionately proclaiming and explaining the aims of his paintings and the techniques he used to execute them. This

book contains a selection of his most important pronouncements from the nineteen-twenties to the end of his life.

ISBN

O 85315

329

9

£4

|aly 20000000

Digitized by the Internet Archive In 2022 with funding from Kahle/Austin Foundation

https://archive.org/details/artrevolution0000siqu

ART

AND

REVOLUTION

ART AND Reray ue a he N

by DAVID

ALFARO

SIOQUERIROS

1975 LAWRENCE AND WISHART LONDON

This collection of articles, speeches and letters is published by arrangement with Editions Sociales, Paris, and is based on their collection “l’Art et la Révolution”, David A. Siqueiros, Paris

1973. The English translation has been made from the original

Spanish texts by Sylvia Calles

English translations copyright © Sylvia Calles, 1975 ISBN 0 85315 329 9

Printed in Great Britain by The Camelot Press Ltd, Southampton

Contents . Introduction: Mexico

Some

Questions about Mural Art in

Extracts from a message sent by Siqueiros from the Remand Prison of the Federal District to the delegates of the XIV General Assembly of the International Association of Art Critics, Mexico, July, 1952

. The Historical Process of Modern Mexican Painting

10

Outline of a lecture on December roth, 1947, at the Palace of Fine Arts, Mexico City

. A New Direction for the New Generation of American Painters and Sculptors

20

Drafted by Siqueiros and published in the first and only number of the magazine Vida Americana, edited by himself, in Barcelona, Spain, 1921

.

A Declaration Principles

of Social,

Political

and

Aesthetic

Drafted by Siqueiros in 1922 and signed by all the members of the Syndicate of Technical Workers, Painters

24

and Sculptors

. New Thoughts on the Plastic Arts in Mexico

26

Lecture delivered on the occasion of the closure of the

exhibition of his paintings in the Casino Español Gallery, Mexico City, February roth, 1952

. What “Plastic Exercise”” is and how it was done

38

From the explanatory leaflet published in connection with the unveiling ofthe mural “Plastic Exercise’’in December, 1933

. Towards a Transformation of the Plastic Arts Plans for a manifesto and study programme for studtoschools ofpainting and sculpture, written by Siquetros in New York, 1934 . Letter from the Front Line in Spain To Mari Teresa Leon de Alberti, April 27th, 1938

45

49

Art and Revolution

53

g. War time, War art

Manifesto first published in the magazine Forma,

in

Santiago, Chile, February, 1943 10. Jose Clemente Orozco, the formal precursor of our

55 ainting magazine the in 1944, December in Article first published Hoy in Mexico City 68 11. Atl, the Political and Theoretical Precursor From the book Ours is the Only Way, Mexico, 1945 73 12. Rivera, the First Practical Exponent of our Art From the book Ours is the Only Way, Mexico, 1945

- 13. The Function of the Photograph Article in the magazine Hoy, Mextco, 1945 14. National Cinema; True or False?

84

Article in the Magazine Asi, Mexico, 1945 15. The Creed of David Alfaro Siqueiros

92

National Fine Arts Institute, Mexico,

79

1947

16. Towards a New Integral Art

94

Article in the magazine Espacios, Mexico, 1948

17. Plastic integration in the University City Letter to the architect Carlos Lazo, Mexico, 1951 18. Chapters from the book How to Paint a Mural 19. Towards Realism in the Plastic Arts

99 102 138

Lecture delivered at the Palace of Fine Arts, Mexico City,

July, 1954

20. The Salutary Presence of Mexican Art in Paris Comments on an article by Philippe Soupault, in a lecture 21.

145

at the Palace of Fine Arts, August, 1954 Open Letter to Soviet Painters, Sculptors and

Engravers

176

Read at the reception given for him by the Soviet Academy of Art, October 17th, 1955

22. Plastic Arts and Revolution in Latin America Extracts from a lecture at the Caracas Central University, Venezuela, January 9th, 1960 23. Precepts of David Alfaro Siqueiros

183

191

1 Introduction: Some Questions about Mural Art in Mexico (Extracts from a message sent from the Remand Prison of the Federal District to the delegates of the XIV General Assembly of the International Association of Arts Critics, held in Mexico, July 1962)

‘Mural painting and the poster were revived in Mexico from

1922

onwards,

from

causes

going back

to the Mexican

revolution of 1910. The muralist movement almost coincided in

time with the first indications of a certain return to figurepainting in European art with Picasso’s '“monstrous”” period which came at the end of the period of pure cubism. Mexican art evolved, however, in a completely opposite direction.

There was no comparable phenomenon in any other country. There were isolated mural painters who showed a sporadic interest in the technique, but there was no collective movement, nor was there any attempt to create one.

Mexico was the only modern country in which a group of artists saw fit to reconstruct the practice of mural painting in all its essential theoretical and practical fundamentals, including composition, materials and tools. It should be noted that, on

the whole, European painters, including those who took part in movements which acquired greater formal importance, had no

inkling of these matters. Mexico has produced the only important mural experiment of our times. This has had international repercussions. And not only the plastic arts of today, but those of the future, will be

affected by its principles and theories.

8

Art and Revolution

In my opinion mural art cannot be judged on either a national or international scale by the canons of movable art, of

easel painting, of painting in its function of private pleasure, because our art is public, for the multitudes, and it speaks a

different social language, with its own particular style and form. It is in fact a different branch of art and requires a different mental structure. And we must have a scientific basis for

studying its expressions both individually and collectively. Now that you are actually here in the birthplace of this movement, you will be able to appreciate for yourselves its

geography,

history

and

its

humanity,

its socio-political

environment and you can thus judge for yourselves this unusual art form, this collective work of art in which individual characteristics have been respected, because it was impossible not to do so.

I would like to suggest the following questions to you: 1. Is Mexican contemporary painting, and in particular mural

painting, merely a greater or lesser branch

of the formal

tendencies of modern Western art? 2. Is it of any importance that contemporary Mexican mural painters have adopted mural painting in preference to other

types of painting, whereas painters from the rest of the world have gone in the opposite direction and opted for easel painting and movable art?

3. Should it be considered of importance that contemporary

Mexican painting has a definite ideological, and at times frankly

political

content,

in

direct

contrast

to

the

vehemently

maintained apoliticism of European painting and in general of contemporary Western culture?

4. Do different pictorial techniques give rise to differences and

contrasts both in theory and in practice?

5. Can any definite difference be ascribed to the fact that

contemporary art tendencies have evolved and developed in imperialist countries, while Mexico is a country whose economy and culture are semi-colonial ? 6. We Mexican muralists have done no more than repeat the principles and practice of the Renaissance masters. In view of

Questions about Mural Art

2)

our limitations as a new nation, should our effort be judged merely as a revival of the Renaissance? In my opinion, the most practical and objective way to answer

these

questions

would

be

to

follow

the

chronological

development of our movement with its ups and advances and retreats, its theory and its practice, from murals painted in the former convent ofSt. Peter and St. the National Preparatory School, to the most recently murals.

downs, the first Paul, in painted

In my opinion, gentlemen, your task in Mexico will not only be to make a further study of ancient Mexican art, which, beautiful as it is, has already been extensively studied. At this time it is far more important, more difficult and more urgent, that you should, in a collegiate body, and with the aid of Mexican art critics, study Mexican mural art in depth and make your own scientific and emotional appraisal ofit. Itis the art ofa country which is not yet truly independent either politically or economically, but which, nevertheless, has been able to show to the world its own very valuable experiments in the field of plastic arts.

There is no justification for not doing this and for taking refuge in a study of archaeology or commercial art. World

opinion is waiting to hear what you think of the living art of Mexico.

2 The Historical Process of Modern Mexican Painting (Outline of a lecture delivered on December 10th, 1947, at the Palace of

Fine Arts, Mexico City)

What political, formal and technical progress has there been in Mexican art?

:

Modern Mexican painting is the first manifestation of Latin American art to find an important place in the ranks of world culture.

During the last years of the Porfirio Diaz dictatorship, Mexican

mentality,

economy

and

politics

were

typically

colonial. They had eyes only for the art of Europe and particularly for the art of Paris. There was no sign of rebellion against the artistic capital, not even the faintest desire for the right to participate in the international cultural movement ona national basis. About 1904 or 1906 we began to see a few hopeful signs. On

his return from Europe, Dr. Atl begana

proselytising campaign,

as yet without concrete theoretical formulations,

in favour of

mural painting and a more Mexican approach to art. At that time, Atl was a Spanish-Italian type of socialist, i.e. an

anarcho-syndicalist. His interest in aesthetics began at about the time that the House of the International Worker was initiating its

political activities against the oligarchic dictatorship of Porfirio Diaz. The first pictures on national themes appeared some time later, in 1908-10. Francisco de la Torre and Saturnino Herran

were among the first artists to paint in this way. It would seem

Modern Mexican Painting

11

that a popular type of art, which is essentially a folk art, usually precedes a new ert movement.

In 1911, as a logical consequence of the new impressionist movement in Europe, the students of the School of Fine Arts, including myself, staged a strike. The objectives of the strike were the total suppression of academic methods and the

establishment of a school ofopen air freedom. The struggle was led by young revolutionaries who had played an active part in the political struggle against the Porfirian dictatorship (Jose de Jesus

Ibarra,

Raziel

Cabildo,

Miguel

Angel

Fernandez

and

others). They were helped by the younger students, myself among them. The strike was successful and the first such school was established in the village of Santa Anita and directed by the impressionist painter, Alfredo Ramos Martinez.

In 1913, the students of the new Santa Anita school were dividing their time between plotting against the regime of the usurper, Victoriano Huerta, and the problems ofimpressionist technique and form.

The plotting brought persecution and most of us decided to join the ranks of the revolutionaries

in the Constitutionalist

Army.

In this way we came into contact with the Mexican people, with the Mexican peasants, with the Mexican Indians, with the men of Mexico, at this intensely human time of civil war and social vindication. Here was the first antecedent of the humanistic concept of art which we were to develop later. We came into contact not only with the Mexican people but

with their idiosyncrasies, with the geography and archaeology of Mexico, with the whole history of our art, with our popular art, and the whole of Mexican culture. And because of this contact, we ceased to be Paris bohemians. We came to realise that at every important historical period art has performed a great social function, whether as official

state art or as subversive art to be used against the state. To the astonishment ofthe aesthetes and the incipient purists, we found it obvious that Christian art had most certainly been dedicated

to the service of propaganda.

Art and Revolution

iZ

It

therefore

became

our

prime

object

to

further

the

development of the Mexican revolution through the platform of our art. In 1919 I went to Europe with several other painters. In Paris

I met Diego Rivera. It was a meeting between the new fervour and ideals of the young Mexican painters (represented by me) who had joined the armed struggle of the Mexican revolution and the representative of an important period of the formal

revolution in the plastic arts of Europe, Diego Rivera. Paris was at that time in the post-cubist period. Cubism was perhaps one of the most important modern tendencies. 1 felt that the theories of Cézanne and his group (“Make

impressionism something solid and durable like the art of the museums; geometrical structures . . .”) were the beginning ofa positive reassessment of art. Now these theories seem so elementary that they serve to show me how low art had sunk after the Renaissance. In 1921, I combined my own ideas which I shared with my fellow art students who had fought with me in the revolutionary army, with those of the renovating group of Paris at that time,

which were the ideas of Diego Rivera, and I published in the Barcelona magazine, Vida Americana, my famous manifesto to American artists, which was the first call to build a monumental, heroic art form, both human and public, directly inspired by the extraordinary pre-Hispanic cultures of America. To this I added, ata later date, the following, which I now find to be very important: “The artistic revolution of Paris is limited to the painted surface of the picture; a truly profound revolution should be both on the surface and deep down; it must embrace the function of art and the forms inherent to this function, and not merely the style.” How could we achieve monumental, heroic, public art? We

decided that to be public art must be mural. And so began the Mexican mural art movement, which became the root and trunk

of the whole of modern Mexican painting, with its ramifications in engraving, sculpture, music, literature, cinema, etc. What technique should we use for our mural art? We decided

Modern Mexican Painting

13

it should be the fresco and the encaustic techniques of antiquity,

the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. And we set to work. The past is the springboard of the future. In 1923, we decided that the subject matter of our first work did not match the theoretical function we aspired to, and we

organised ourselves into a professional association which we named

the

Syndicate

of Revolutionary

Mexican

Painters,

Sculptors and Engravers. We thus became more politically militant, and the ideological level of our work improved. However,

we

were

still using

the

same

techniques

and

forms—the lost styles of the past which we had revived. In 1924, our political involvement led us intuitively to broaden the public nature of our work. We became interested in

the poster and in graphics and published the magazine El Machete, which became our party organ. It was our letter of introduction to the Mexican popular masses. Political differences with the government, our artistic patron, caused our syndicate to break up. Rivera and his assistants continued to paint murals. Xavier Guerrero, Amado de la Cueva, Reyes Perez and others, myself among them,

opted for graphics and El Machete. Orozco and some of the others went for a time to the U.S.A. or South America.

I then went through a period of intensive political and trade union

activity and

spent months,

and

sometimes

years,

in

prison. We were no longer simply revolutionary “amateurs” as we had been to start with, we were developing into really experienced militants. In 1931, I was under strict police surveillance and went to live in Tasco. I decided to devote myself entirely to art again, as I believed that new plastic forms would result from the political experience I had had. There was a big exhibition of my work at the Spanish Casino of Tasco. However, when I made a speech after the exhibition, I said

that one’s work does not always in practice correspond to one’s

theory. The habits retained from the past are stronger than one’s ideological convictions. I might have improved slightly in

14

Art and Revolution

my structure, volume and perhaps in my political expression; but that was not enough, I was still rather primitive and unskilled.

Meanwhile there was a new generation of Mexican painters

sympathetic

to

our

movement:

Rufino

Tamayo,

Julio

Castellano, etc. These painters, however, stood aside from the

political struggle in which we had been involved, and instead accentuated the Christian, archaeological, folk-art, essentially picturesque nature of our earlier period. Furthermore, they made the transition from murals to canvas much more directly than we had done, and became exclusively ““Mexicanist” rather than political. They were the embryo of the Pure Art movement, the most serious form of deviation within the art movement today, as I shall explain later. Their technique was similar to that of their immediate predecessors: ourselves. Because of continual police persecution, I exiled myself to

that highly industrialised country, the United States. This is where the real story of my “tricks” of technique begins. None of these tricks were the result of previously conceived theory, only of unforeseeable, casual events. The chronology of these tricks was as follows:

1. The use of cement and sand rather than lime and sand as in

traditional fresco painting. Lime is not too satisfactory when used on the concrete walls of modern buildings.

2. The use ofa spray gun to paint cement frescos, because the new material required a faster tool.

3. The use of active composition rather than traditional, academic composition. The spectator is neither a statue as implied by rectilinear perspective, nor an automaton ona fixed axis as implied by curvilinear perspective; he moves over the whole surface of a determined area. (Elsewhere I shall refer to the way in which “Pure Artists play” with this concept.)

4. The use of the photograph to capture the process of the

ues The painters of old did not possess this extraordinary aid.

5. The

use

of the electric projector

in tracing out

the

Modern Mexican Painting

15

distortions inherent in mural painting. Previously this had been very difficult and results were very poor. 6. The use of the camera to record the human document.

Integral reality had been deprived by the lack of this medium. 7. By using the spray gun I came to realise that both tools and materials are generic determinants of art. It is a serious mistake to believe that style is determined only by man’s creativity. 8. The use of the camera to analyse both volume and space,

and the movement of volumes in space. Photography can teach us much and help us find new and more scientific methods of composition and perspective, to replace the routines we inherited from the past. g. The use of silicone as a material has an enormous future in

wall painting,

in particular for murals

on external walls.

Silicone is a mineral with qualities immeasurably superior to those of the traditional fresco. 10. The use of materials made with pyroxiline, which I prefer to all others. In my opinion, the enormous plasticity of pyroxiline gives it the qualities of superlative oil. The possibility

of both

smooth

and

rough

textures,

shading and subtle

mixtures, make this modern chemical invention vastly superior to all past products.

11. The use, both in formal painting and in superimposed pictorial style, of polyangular forms—movie forms, if Imay use the term—in the search for truly modern ideological expression. The forms and styles which predominate in modern

Mexican painting are still hieratic and therefore archaic and do not respond to the expressional needs of modern times. Purists with their exclusively instinctual motivation can only achieve a type of decorativeness which they falsely represent as a new method of active construction. 12. The concept of the mural in architectonic space and not merely in terms of each individual wall, with independent panels linked by decorative loops or by a relationship of

proportion or colour. The spatial concept of mural painting will no doubt become the main principle of monumental painting.

The use of active surfaces—concave, convex and a combination

of both, and also in combination with flat surfaces, breaks, etc.,

Art and Revolution

16

will make feasible the dynamism which all artistic creators of the past have searched for. 13. Finally, I suggested that we should set up, in Mexico, an

Institute to investigate the chemistry ofthe plastic arts, a problem which had been seriously neglected both by academicians, pseudo-Purists

and

neo-realists

like ourselves,

all over

the

world. At the same time, I suggested that an Institute should be set up as soon as possible to study all the geometric, perspective and optical problems connected with the art of painting. In 1934 I returned to Mexico after having partially carried out many of the experiments previously mentioned and found the

following situation: Orozco and Rivera had improved their original, traditional technique, but their technique was still that

of the craftsman. The painters of the following generations were no longer “‘Mexicanists”’ in the abstract, but had been seriously contaminated by the Purists of the so-called Paris school. A cocktail of “Mexicanist” picturesqueness and Parisian picturesqueness predominated in their work. As far as they were

concerned, Mexican painting was academically only another branch of French painting. Their national technique and their intellectual sources were as primitive as ever. Others were becoming involved in a nationalistic neo-academism. It was evident that the drive towards monumental, heroic, truly neo-

realistic art was being abandoned in favour of commercially oriented art, mainly directed towards the American market and

the Yankee tourist.

The articles I wrote about this were the cause of my great controversy with Rivera, in which I said the following: that the art which was being produced was for tourist export; that mural painting had improved in technique but had been reduced in size; that we should improve on “Christianist” techniques and forms; that we should be more scientific in our methods of composition and perspective, which were still primitive and unsound; that while it was technically possible to play a

revolutionary

hymn

on

a church

organ,

it was

not

the

instrument one would prefer; that we should progress from colonial

to

modern

architecture,

in which

conceived as an integral part of the design.

the

mural

is

Modern Mexican Painting

bay,

Since 1939, I have painted murals in Mexico City, Chile, Cuba

and again in Mexico. When I spoke of my tricks I explained my technical objectives in painting, and I do not think this lecture is the place to discuss them in greater detail. But there is something I must emphasise: when I returned from Argentina in 1934 I found no material change in the panorama of Mexican art, unless perhaps for the worse. In addition to the confusion of the artists, which I mentioned

earlier, there was even greater confusion among those who write about art. Many of these are great poets, but they use the analytic methods used by art critics the world over, which do not

permit them to arrive at constructive conclusions. Because they are unaware of the true nature and historical importance of our movement,

most

of them

have continually accentuated

the

deviations I mentioned before. They have also been poisoned by the concepts of Pure Art. What then is the way out of this situation? Many people believe that everything will be solved by condemning what they

call the “monopoly of the big three”, by which they mean Jose Clemente Orozco, Diego Rivera and myself. But neither my colleagues nor the art critics will get anywhere unless they produce better ideas and a bettér plan than ours.

This plan might be based on the following considerations: 1. Systematic criticism of the “Mexicanist”” concept (there is

nothing worse

in art than overwhelming

nationalism),

of

archaeologism, of popularistic revolutionarism, of material and technical stagnation (out of date techniques and materials

inevitably lead to crude simplicity of style). The work of Diego Rivera is characteristic of this stagnation despite its great intrinsic value both to the art of Mexico and the world. 2. Systematic criticism of Pure Art tendencies (fortunately more theoretical than applied) and of the political confusion

(nihilistic liberalism) which is becoming more apparent in the work of Jose Clemente Orozco which nevertheless still has extraordinary potential strength. 3. Systematic criticism of all the mystical ballast and romantic emotivity (totally antithetic to a modern, realistic concept) which appear in my own work; and criticism also of what

Art and Revolution

18

remains obscure and incomplete in my theoretical formulations. 4. Systematic criticism of anachronistic colonial intellectual Purism (malinchismo), (our formal origins are to be found in Rivera’s interest in Cubism), and also of the subjective, decorative picturesqueness which smothers the work of Carlos

Merida and Rufino Tamayo, although they have evident ability; it also smothers the work of all those Mexican artists who left our movement for the outworn practical and theoretical trends

of the modern School of Paris, and whose painting today is directed only towards the snobs and decadent oligarchs. 5. Systematic criticism of “Mexicanist” and neo-academism,

which

has

harmed

the work

traditionalist of so

many

talented young painters of the younger generations, whose only formal doctrine is “good craftsmanship”, “good painting”, “good drawing” and “good engraving”, all by means of abstract techniques, and who have obviously forgotten that our art is basically monumental and realistic. 6. Systematic criticism, in short, of the two causes of the

disintegration and crisis of modern Mexican painting: (a) Persistence in the use of the theories, material techniques

and primitive and primitivistic styles of our first period.

(b) The swing from the functional doctrines and practices of the Mexican neo-realist movement to the tendencies of the so called Pure Art School of Paris, the theoretical concern of which

was

originally to find a new order in painting,

to “make

impressionism an art like that of the art galleries”, in other words a new classicism, but which has become transformed into a chaos of purely formalistic speculation, and is now a new

decorative style destined to enhance the houses of a snobbish minority, an artistic toy for the entertainment of “ladies” and

“gentlemen”. (These comments on the Pure Art movement of Paris do not imply a denial of its great importance in demolishing traditional academic routines; but to remain “graciously” demolishing them, is another thing.) To sum up:

In opposition to the pseudo-modern

aesthetes of the Paris

Modern Mexican Painting

119

School there has been formal progress in the plastic arts (by “formal” I refer to the material and professional phenomenon which culminates in style). This formal progress, which is a progressive accumulation, signifies an increase in plastic values,

and

the perfection of plastic language

proceeds

historically

from

the invention

and eloquence;

it

of the silhouette,

through the invention of formal schemes the invention ofspatial schemes, the invention of the structure of form and the structure of space, the invention of perspective, and the shading ofspace, the invention of the movements offorms in space, the invention

and play of textures, the invention ofthe vibration oflight and the emphasis on the discovery of the subjective (abstract) elements which evidently form part of people and objective things. A process ofhistorical progress which is similar to that of the sciences and sociology. Our modern art movement in Mexico on account both ofits theory and its practice, and in spite of the negative aspects I have pointed out, is on the road to finding and accumulating all the positive plastic values which history has bequeathed us. It is the only movement in the whole world to attempt this. It is the eternal desideratum of an increasingly more integral and more veritable realism. We can desire nothing better than postBaroque art.

3 A New Direction for the New Generation of American Painters

and Sculptors (Drafted by Siqueiros and published in the first and only number of the magazine Vida Americana (‘American Life”), edited by himself in Barcelona, Spain, 1921)

Detrimental influences and new tendencies Our work is mainly extemporaneous, it progresses incoherently and produces next to nothing of permanent worth

to match the vigour of our great racial gifts. Isolated from valuable new tendencies against which we reacted with hostility and

prejudice,

we

adopted

from

Europe

only the decadent

influences which have poisoned our youth and prevent us from seeing essential values; the anaemia

of Aubrey Beardsley, the

preciosity of Aman Jean, the disastrous archaism of Ignacio Zuloaga, Anglada Camarasa’s fireworks and the sculptural confections

of

Bistolfi,

Queralt,

Benlliure,

etc.,

all

this

profitable art nouveau, dangerously camouflaged as art and which sells so well here (particularly if it is imported from Spain). Spanish art has shown marked decadence from the early nineteenth century; recent exhibitions in Madrid representative of Spanish contemporary art fill one’s heart with despair; traditional literary art, theatrical art in the musical comedy style

(the Zarzuela of folk art) which has contaminated us through racial afhnity. Sunyer, Picasso and Juan Gris, three modern Spanish geniuses, avidly embraced Cézanne and listened to the voice of Renoir, many years ago. Fortunately a new, vigorous group of painters and sculptors, more in tune with the spirit of the times, is emerging in Spain;

A New Direction for the New Generation

they are concerned

to free themselves

21

from

the enormous

weight of their traditions and to become more universal; most of them are from Catalonia. We extend a rational welcome to every source of spiritual

renewal from Paul Cézanne onwards: the invigorating substance of impressionism, purifying cubism, in all its ramifications,

the

futurism which liberated new emotive forces (but not that which naively tried to annihilate the previous invulnerable process) and now the new revaluation of “classical voices” ... (Dada is still

in its birth process); all tributaries of the great river, the many psychic aspects of which we may easily find within ourselves;

preparatory theories, generally endowed with fundamental elements which have made painting and sculpture into a plastic art again and enrich it with admirable new factors. We must give back their lost values to painting and sculpture, and at the same time endow them with new values. We must make our work conform to the inviolable laws of aesthetic equilibrium as did the classical painters, and become craftsmen as skilled as they;

we must regard the ancients as models for their constructive

basis and their great sincerity, but we must not use archaic ““motifs”?

which

would

be exotic

for us.

We

must

live our

marvellous dynamic age! Love the modern machine, dispenser of unexpected plastic emotions, the contemporary aspects of our daily life, our cities in the process of construction, the sober and

practical

engineer

of our

modern

buildings,

stripped

of

architectural complexities (immense towers of steel and cement

jammed

into the ground);

our

comfortable

furniture and

utensils (plastic materials of the first order). We must dress our

invulnerable humanity in modern clothes: “new subjects”, “new aspects”. Above all, we must remain firmly convinced that the

art of the future must be increasingly superior although it is bound to suffer from transitory decadence.

The preponderance of the constructive spirit over the decorative or analytical We draw silhouettes, filling them with pretty colours; when

modelling, we remain engrossed in superficial arabesque and overlook

the concept of the great primary masses:

the cubes,

Art and Revolution

Paes

cones, spheres, cylinders, pyramids which should be the scaffold of all plastic architecture. Let us impose the constructive spirit upon the purely decorative; colour and line are expressive elements of

the second rank, the fundamental basis of a work of art is the magnificent geometrical structure ofform and the concept of the interplay of volume and perspective which combine to create depth; “to create spatial volumes’. According to our dynamic or static objectivity, let us be constructors first and foremost; let us mould and build on our personal emotional reactions to

nature, with a scrupulous regard for the truth. We must specify without ambiguity the “organic quality” of the “plastic elements” in our work; we must create matter which may be solid or fragile, rough or smooth, opaque or transparent, etc. Our framework must be firm, but, if necessary, we can caricature in order to humanise it. Artistic theories whose sole aim is to “paint light”, i.e. to copy

or interpret luminosity (“luminism’’, “pointillism” “divistonism’’) are lacking in that creativity which is the objective of art; these are discredited, puerile theories, which we in America have been enthusiastic about for the last few years; they are sick branches

of impressionism, which Paul Cézanne had pruned and restored to its essentials: we must make impressionism something as solid and durable as the art in the art galleries. An understanding of the admirable human context of Negro Art and Primitive Art in general has oriented the plastic arts towards a clarity and depth lost for underbrush of indecision; we must come the ancient settlers of our valleys, the sculptors (Mayas, Aztecs, Incas, etc.); our

four centuries in an closer to the work of Indian painters and physical proximity to

them will help us to absorb the constructive vigour of their work, in which there is evident knowledge of the elements of

nature, and these things can be our point of departure. We must adopt their synthetic energy, but avoid the archaeological reconstructions (Indianism,

Americanism)

which

are so fashionable

leading us into ephemeral stylisations.

lamentable Primitivism, today and which are

A New Direction for the New Generation

23

Let us abandon literary motifs and devote ourselves purely to art

Let us further reject theories postulating a “national” art. We must become universal; our inevitably appear in our work.

racial

and

local

elements

will

Our free schools are really open-air academies (as dangerous as the official academies, where at least we learned to know the classics); in them we have commercially oriented teachers and a type of criticism which nips personalities in the bud. Let us close our ears to the criticisms of our poets; they produce beautiful literary articles, completely divorced from the true values we seek in our work.

4 A Declaration of Social, Political

and Aesthetic Principles (Drawn up by Siqueiros in 1922 and signed by all the members of the Syndicate of Technical Workers, Painters and Sculptors, among whom were Diego Rivera, Jose Clemente Orozco, Jean Charlot, Ignacio Asunsolo, Xavier Guerrero, Fermin Revueltas, Roberto Montenegro, Carlos Merida and many others)

The Syndicate of Technical Workers, Painters and Sculptors directs itself to the native races humiliated for centuries; to the

soldiers made into hangmen by their officers; to the workers and peasants scourged by the rich; and to the intellectuals who

do not flatter the bourgeoisie. We side with those who demand the disappearance of an ancient, cruel system in which the farm worker produces food for the loud-mouthed politicians and bosses, while he starves; in which the industrial workers in the factories who weave cloth and by the work of their hands make life comfortable for the pimps and prostitutes, while they crawl and freeze; in which the Indian soldier heroically leaves the land he has tilled and eternally sacrifices his life in a vain attempt to destroy the misery which has lain on his face for centuries.

The noble work of our race, down to its most insignificant spiritual and

physical expressions,

is native

(and essentially

Indian) in origin. With their admirable and extraordinary talent to create beauty, peculiar to themselves, the art of the Mexican people is the most wholesome spiritual expression in the world and this tradition

is Our greatest treasure. Great because it belongs collectively to the people and this is why our fundamental aesthetic goal must

Social, Political and Aesthetic Principles

25

be to socialise artistic expression and wipe out bourgeois individualism. We repudiate so-called easel painting and every kind of art favoured by ultra-intellectual circles, because it is aristocratic, and we praise monumental art in all its forms, because it is

public property. We proclaim that at this time of social change from a decrepit order to a new one, the creators of beauty must use their best

efforts to produce ideological works of art for the people; art must no longer be the expression of individual satisfaction which it is today, but should aim to become a fighting, educative art for all.

O New Thoughts on the Plastic Arts in Mexico (Lecture delivered by Sequeiros on the occasion of the closure of the exhibition of his paintings in the Casino Español Gallery, Mexico City, February 10th, 1933)

(1) Painting and sculpture are professional crafts for mature people For the last ten years it has been said that painting and

sculpting are crafts. This was the opinion of the Syndicate of Painters and Sculptors. Other people feel that they are professions, like any other profession; this is the opinion of the older Mexican painters. I maintain that painting and sculpture are professional crafts and I use both these terms in their commonly accepted sense. They are crafts because the work is done with the hands and is subject to the material laws of experience. They are professions because they require objective scientific

knowledge. Of course all this refers to externals and not to the subjective emotional factor which produces the creative impulse that makes use of the material means available; this is a completely

personal, congenital factor. It could be said that if experience is the fruit of practice and artistic know-how is only acquired by methodical application,

then a work ofart can only be produced after many long years of hard work, when the painter or sculptor attains his creative

maturity after sufficient practice in making use of the means of expression. Before this, his work will have been the work of a

Plastic Arts in

Mexico

2]

beginner, showing an incomplete, heterogeneous personality and will therefore be inferior as a work of art, no matter how great the artist's talent. (2) Spontaneous, intuitive works of art produced by children, youth and

dilettantes are only of relative value and this must be made clear in order to put an end, once and for all, to the dangerous fetishism which has grown up about them The painting and sculpture of children, youth and dilettantes is of great interest as an expression of the primary, aesthetic values ofa given social, geographical or racial moment; but that is all. It may be of some value to the professional painter as a source of aesthetic elements worthy of further development, but it can never be considered representative of a period or of a nation. To believe otherwise is a transitory kind ofsnobbishness. (3) The professional craft of painting and sculpture can only be taught

through apprenticeship to a master A painter or sculptor who does not produce any work cannot

teach. Painting and sculpture cannot be taught theoretically, no matter how good an artist the teacher is. For the last century, the

Academy has applied a fatally bad method in attempting to teach art pedagogically in preference to the age-old method of practical apprenticeship in the private studio ofamaster. We must return to this system, and without any mystification.

All Diego Rivera really did was to change the name of the old Academy

of San Carlos, when

he renamed

it the School of

Plastic Arts. The pedagogical system continued as before, and in fact continues to exist in the School, and a pedagogical system of teaching art is the equivalent of an Academy. The pupils are taught to manufacture their colours and prepare their canvases;

but this cannot be taught in the abstract because it is intimately connected with the technique of the master who each apprentice chooses. The quality and nature of the colours and the canvases,

etc., are of the utmost important in the generation of a work of art. There is as much variety of materials and techniques as there

is of aesthetic styles. It is a great mistake to suppose that the materials and techniques of art can be chosen according to an invariable recipe.

Art and Revolution

28

But how could we put this system of teaching art into practice? How can we put an end to the mystification which exists in the so-called School of Plastic Arts and Related Subjects? The School of Plastic Arts should be turned into a museum. The department of the Ministry of Public Education which is in

charge of drawing should disappear. The “open air schools”

have no reason to continue. Artistic drawing shouid no longer

be taught in either primary or secondary schools. The School of Plastic Arts is not only useless to its students, but itis also deadly

to those artists who teach there. Magnificent painters turn into magnificent bureaucrats. There is nothing worse for the success ofthe plastic arts in Mexico than to reward its great painters and

sculptors by giving them teaching posts, which is a death sentence to their art. The painter or sculptor who becomes a

teacher has to spend two or three hours a day teaching and another eight hours a day fiercely defending the bureaucratic post he occupies. An artist thrown the “bone” of a teaching post becomes an ineffectual teacher and a full time defender of the bone. Therefore we must put an end to this situation. The two anda half million pesos which are spent at the present time on art

teaching in Mexico should go into a reserve fund which would periodically buy the paintings and sculptures produced by Mexican artists. Those who are fortunate enough to have their work purchased in this way would have to set up their own studio-workshops and accept those pupils who choose them to be their masters. Let us suppose that at the present time there are forty painters and ten sculptors who could set up and direct their own studios. That would make fifty studios. Let us suppose that the master of each studio must take ten students. We would thus have 500

students. Supposing that the Government buys ten works a year from each master at a cost of one thousand pesos each. Each master would annually receive 10,000 pesos and the government would pay outa total of 500,000 pesos. For even the most voracious of artists in Mexico, 10,000 pesos is a

magnificent

income

and enough

to cover the expenses

of

Plastic Arts in Mexico

29

running a studio. There would be enough left to carry out public works of art, which would again benefit the studios. The students’ work would also be purchased at exhibitions which would be held from time to time. And the masters would still be able to do private work. And what should the government do with the work it acquires? It would go to enrich the collection of the School of Plastic Arts, and could be hung in galleries set aside for modern art. Secondary schools and universities could have art galleries attached to them. Exhibitions could travel all over the Republic and be sent abroad. In short, my suggestion shows how we could create the studio-workshops we have been talking about for so long and expenses would be no higher than they are now. I am certain that all those painters and sculptors who feel they are still capable of producing good work, will realise the advantage of this form of work and teaching. The only opposition will come from those who have already become bureaucratic fossils. (4) Artistic drawing should not be taught as a separate subject in primary

and secondary schools

Constructive primary

and

geometrical secondary

drawing

school

should

classes

rather

be

taught

than

in

artistic

drawing. This would be of great use to those children who are going to become workers or technicians. Constructive drawing is indispensable for all kinds of work, from the simplest to the

most complicated. The conditions oflife both today and in the

future make this a vitally needed subject. As for artistic drawing, pupils should have the materials readily available and the right to use them whenever they want. But it would be a recreational

activity. Group teachers should be able to give whatever guidance is needed. They should limit themselves to drawing the children’s attention towards nature and away from the bad

influences of newspaper drawings, magazines and book illustrations. Furthermore, children’s drawings are always of interest. Those children who have an inclination for art, those who wish to become professional painters and sculptors, are sure to

Art and Revolution

30

apprentice themselves to master artists. The children must have

the right to choose the master whose work they most admire.

(5) Some art is imitatively, descriptively or anecdotally picturesque ;some is essentially picturesque

There is a great deal of confusion about what is truly picturesque. Some works of art can be picturesque because they are weakly imitative or descriptive, or because the anecdotal content is more important than the plastic structure. But itis not only imitation or anecdote which are picturesque; an abstract work of art, devoid of imitation, description or anecdote, novel in form and of Pure Art tendency, can also be picturesque. This

is twice

as

bad

because

it is an

organic

defect.

The

picturesqueness appears in weak plastic concepts, small, dispersed proportions, in puerile detail and in snobbish eccentricities. There are Cubist and Surrealist pictures which are

as organically picturesque as the worst anecdotal or descriptive painting. The choice of artistic object, whether a theme or an anecdote, or in their place abstract forms, lineal rhythm and a simple correlation of values, does not add up to a work of art unless they are worked out by the artist with constructive energy,

emotion and strength of mind. Of course, the danger of picturesqueness is much greater when popular themes and well known stories are used, as we shall see further on. (6) The exaltation of popular art was a natural reaction against the aristocratic, European art of the Porfirio Diaz period

This exaltation was good in some ways, but it has acquired a dangerous direction, not only for those painters and sculptors who follow it; it can also harm the manifestations of popular art. We must therefore define what is meant by popular art and its importance for professional painters and sculptors. Popular

art, although it has accumulated a great deal of technique and

experience, is really the manifestation of a race or people who have been slaves for centuries and have therefore lost the

possibility of expressing themselves in monumental

terms as

they did when they were flourishing. This is why popular art,

although undoubtedly beautiful, is invariably picturesque.

Plastic Arts in Mexico

Sy

For professional painters and sculptors, popular art is in the

same category as the art of children, youth and dilettantes: it constitutes an important document which reveals geographical, social and racial values which allow the professional artist to revise his aesthetic principles. In popular art the professional artist may find the seeds which he can develop into a work ofart;

but nothing more.

To make

a fetish of popular art and

children's art is not only very dangerous to the formation of an artist, but also for popular art itself. (7) The greatest danger to the modern Mexican art movement is to be

found in the painting called “Mexican Curious” This type of painting increases in direct proportion to the tourist trade in Mexico. It is one of the effects of Yankee imperialist penetration. Consciously or subconsciously, most of Mexico’s painters and sculptors are influenced by this tendency. It is in fact part of the popular art fetish. It manifests itself as a tendency to paint the typical picture that the tourist wants.

Modern

art is thus ceasing to be an organically aesthetic

expression of geography,

social environment

and Mexican

tradition; instead it becomes folk art for export. All this “Mexican Curious” art, produced in industrial quantities, is structurally an alien art dressed up in Mexican clothes. Both famous and mediocre artists paint pictures ofthis type, some to

a greater extent, some to a lesser. Cornejo paints like this all the

time, Diego Rivera only half, but the facts are significant. We must put all conscientious Mexican painters and sculptors on their guard against this, otherwise our movement, with all its

great potential, will sooner or later become a school of folk art instead of remaining faithful to the enormous and monumental artistic values vital to all important movements. We should see less of popular art and more of the work of the Indian masters, both of Mexico and the rest of America. Their work expresses

clearly and

gently,

what

folk art expresses

in immature

language. If we want to learn to draw and compose, they can teach us better than anyone. If we wish to avoid puerile trivialities, we should look to their works, because they will

teach us to understand the great essential masses, the primary

Art and Revolution

Sy

forms. We shall also find in the work of the American Indians the metaphysical complement inherent to the masterpiece ofall

the world and all the ages. By studying their works we shall understand clearly that art is not only a problem of the mechanics of composition, it is also a problem ofstate of mind.

Indian traditional painting will make us ratify what we ourselves have produced in the same geographical conditions. We can see how in their painting our regional flora is not reproduced descriptively but is used to create equivalent plastic forms. Ina

word: we have nothing here which can teach us to paint or sculpt better than our Indian sculptures and pre-Cortesian monuments. There has been too much made of popular art and this is

because young painters and sculptors are more concerned with Posada, votive offerings and tavern paintings than the works bequeathed to us by the Indian masters.

The importance of Mexican indigenous tradition for us does not mean that we should ignore the other important traditions of the world. Nor should we exchange “Mexican Curious” art for

archaeological

art; nor

should

our artistic production

be

limited to a national scale. We must be modern and international first and foremost, but we must contribute artistic values of our own to world aesthetics.

(8) In escaping from folk art we must not become snobbish Some of our artist comrades, in trying to escape from the

influence of “Mexican Curious” art, unfortunately fall into a type

of snob art which is totally alien to our own geographical reality. They believe that “Mexican Curious” is something more than an

imitation of popular art; that it accepts popular art as its point

of departure and is organically weak, because it concentrates on

the picturesque

external

aspects;

they believe that “Mexican

Curious” artis also under the influence of archaeological art, and this is a very grave mistake. They do not understand that archaeological works of art produced at a time when American indigenous art was flourishing have no connection with the picturesque elements of modern popular art. Itis extremely easy to imitate popular art, and there are many imitators. We can

Plastic Arts in Mexico

33

only understand the plastic values of the ancient Indian masters after years of detailed study. This shows the distance which separates it from the petty, degraded popular art of today.

The snobbish trend has been increasingly noticeable in Mexico in the last five years. Itis a logical reaction against Diego Rivera’s prolific production of “Mexican Curious”. But we must find the right way, which is not to be found in European painting and sculpture. Contemporaneous painting and sculpture is becoming more and more a kind of cerebral masturbation,

both

characteristic

and

representative

of the

decadent bourgeois classes. I repeat, that this does not mean that I think we should isolate ourselves from European art trends. On the contrary, I believe we should be thoroughly

informed of everything that is happening outside Mexico, but I also believe that a set of circumstances (tradition, geography,

race and social conditions) have given us the possibility of accomplishing something which would bea real contribution to universal

beauty,

and

yet

be

alien

to

the

snobbism

so

characteristic of European culture today. (9) Mural painting must complement architecture Good mural painting is very far from being simply the

painting

of panels,

however

important

these may

be as

individual works of art. Murals require an ornamental style which will provide a connection between the panels and the architectonic whole. There are, furthermore, logical principles which will not permit pictures to be painted in places where they cannot be appreciated. Simple, quiet colour schemes are required which do not destroy the unity of the walls and the whole structure.

Mural painting simply to cover the walls, as though one were merely trying to paint very large pictures, would reflect very detrimentally on the quality of the mural.

Neither is it acceptable to paint a motley ofbrightly coloured objects, people, etc, in the manner

of the detestable mural

paintings of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Many of the Renaissance masters both cannot and should not be considered good mural painters. The best mural painting

Art and Revolution

34

was produced in Europe by the pre-Christian civilisations and the early Christian schools. From Giotto onwards there is clear

evidence of decadence in the ornamentation of buildings.

The most recent examples of incomparably magnificent work in the interior and exterior ornamentation of monuments was done by American civilisations before the Conquest. What I have just said should show how necessary it is to putan

end to the system of decorating public buildings with murals of variable artistic value. We have not yet built in Mexico one unit

of real worth. Everything that has been done so far will pass into

history as a mediocre example of mural decoration. And since

we in Mexico have a chance to decorate buildings, we must learn by our experiences of the past ten years and produce something better.

(10) We must return to formal painting and keep right away from the puerile work of the contemporary art snob None of the ancient masters, or the masters of the great periods of art, would ever have presented a preliminary study, as

a finished work of art. All the great masters, the great painters and sculptors of all times have always worked on the basis of a series of studies in preparation for a big work. They would never have dreamed of exhibiting these studies. The drawings of the Renaissance painters were never regarded, either by themselves or their admirers, as great artistic achievements, but as stages of varying importance which they achieved in the process of producing a work of art. In the main it has been the French modern painters who have extolled

the virtues of the initial study, to which

they have

sometimes given greater importance than to the greatest efforts of the master. Matisse is an eloquent example of this trend. Idolatry for work realised with the minimum of effort has been topical in Europe over the last few years. They have a name for this kind of work; they call it: intimate, essential, a work with the

concentrated essence of a larger work. But in fact, this doctrine is evidence of impotence and, in general, a proof of capitalist

decadence. We must flee from this tendency.

Our work must be as

Plastic Arts in Mexico

35

transcendent as we can make it, as elaborate and as complete. Our work must be replete with artistic values. It must be both physical and metaphysical, and as methodically and seriously constructed as the best work of the best artistic periods.

(11) Portrait painting is also a good art form, although some would say tt ts not

Modern painters often speak derogatively of portrait painting. A portrait—they say—is a psychological problem, and psychology and art are two separate things. In my opiniona portrait presents the painter or sculptor with a subject of great plastic complexity, from which he can produce an integral work

of art. I have already said that painting and sculpture require not only a knowledge of art mechanisms, but also metaphysical expression, and portrait painting emphasises this, because all

the factors required for a complete work of art appear in a portrait. I also believe that a portrait requires a high level of plastic gymnastics,

since it places the painter and sculptor first and

foremost on an objective plane. We must finish with false theories and advise the new Mexican painters and sculptors to paint portraits as well. (12) Who can criticise the plastic arts?

Some maintain that only professional critics should speak about the arts. Others say that the only valid criticism is that of

the general public. I maintain that the only people who can contribute adequately and in a way that will be useful to both

artists and to culture in general are those persons (bourgeois or proletarian) who can be considered, on account of their education and artistic experience, to be both more perceptive and of better taste than most of the intellectual public and the popular masses. The truth is that there have never been professional art critics. Those who called themselves art critics, have really been exaggerated eulogists of one school or another. There is no doubt that in emotional matters where individual

sensitivity and sensuality count for most, phlegmatic eclecticism

Art and Revolution

36

is impossible. Most of the so-called contemporary art critics are grandiloquent poets who use painting and sculpture as a pretext to write beautiful poems. As for the masses: the bourgeoisie is characteristically

nouveau

riche;

the middle

classes

or

petty

bourgeoisie have been educated by the bourgeoisie; and the proletariat is the final receptacle of the bad taste of the classes which exploit them and dominate them. The proletariat owes to the bourgeoisie not only its economic oppression but also its abominable aesthetic taste. The radio playing the songs of Agustin Lara, the gramophone and Yankee cinema are the spiritual food of the masses: how then can they have other than bad taste? Only the peasants still have traditional good taste, because they are closer to our older cultures and further from modern bourgeois culture. In spite of everything, it is only the educated minority who can adequately evaluate the plastic arts. It has always been so and so it remains. (13) Social art or pure art

Intellectuals all over the world are divided on this question.

Those who favour Pure Art affirm that there is nothing more divorced from the class struggle than the arts. They say it is possible to produce a work of art in our present society, and that

art is an individual, organic expression and that nothing can perturb its creative process. They also maintain that social art is necessarily anecdotal and political and therefore inferior as a total art expression. Those who favour social art, on the other hand, say that artists must put their work to the service of the proletariat in its

struggle against capitalism. We are living in times of bitter class

war, in imperialist times, in the final stages of the capitalist regime, they say. The artist has only one possibility: he must

make up his mind

to serve either the bourgeoisie or the

proletariat. I support this latter theory, but would like to clear up a few points. I believe that painting and sculpture should serve the

proletariat in their revolutionary class struggle, but I believe that

Plastic Arts in Mexico

37.

the theory of pure art is the ultimate artistic objective. I should add that there has never at any time or place in the world been a manifestation of such art, and it could only existina society with

no class struggle, with no politics; in a completely communist society.

I fight for this type of society because in doing so I am fighting for pure art. I also believe that a painter or sculptor should not subordinate his aesthetic taste to that of the revolutionary proletarian masses, because, as we have already seen, the taste of the masses has been perverted by the taste of the capitalist class.

In his painting or sculpture the revolutionary artist should give expression to the desires of the masses, their objective qualities and the revolutionary ideology of the proletariat; he must also

produce good art. Serge Eisenstein, the great film maker, put this very clearly when, on opening the exhibition of my work, he said: “The great revolutionary painter is a synthesis of the ideas of the masses and their representation by an individual.”

(14) The duty ofpainters and sculptors in society today 1s to collaborate aesthetically and personally with the class historically destined to change the old society for the new The painters and sculptors of today cannot remain indifferent

in the struggle to free humanity and art from oppression.

6 What “Plastic Exercise’ is and how it was done (From the explanatory leaflet produced when the mural “Plastic Exercise” was inaugurated in December, 1933, in a private house in the village of Don Torcuato, near Buenos Aires, the capital of Argentina. It was “painted on a curved surface, and was an extraordinarily fruitful experience in which | had as assistants the famous Argentine painters Antonio Berni, Juan Carlos Castagnino and Lino-Eneas Spilimbergo”)

The technique * Plastic Exercise interior.

is a monumental

pictorial

* It was painted in modern fresco on cement,

work

in an

in a building

designed by the architect Jorge Kalnay. * Tt filled an architectonic aerial space of ninety cubic metres and covered 200 square metres of surface. ae is semi- cylindrical iin shape.

‘In

making

it we

used

modern

tools,

materials

and

processes, instead of archaic ones. In this we adhered to the material reality of our time, a fundamental premise for all important work. * We exclusively used mechanical elements:

A photographic camera instead ofa pencil for the initial sketches. A mechanical brush instead of an ordinary brush made of wood and bristle. Flexible rules and varied resources—stone, metal, vegetable, live, etc., as a complement. There was only one antecedent in formal, monumental

“Plastic Exercise”

painting:

39

the

external

frescoes

in

Los

Angeles,

California. * Instead of an immobile, academic (bench), we used a transparent glass one, which was spatial, versatile, dynamic and mechanical. * We used a camera both to collect optical material and to make final readjustments to our work.

* We made the mosaic on which it stands, using a mortar of OS

coloured cement.

" We used artificial lighting as scenic complement to our work of art (never before attempted in formal, monumental

painting). * We worked collectively instead of individually. We formed a

POLYGRAPHIC TEAM who

carried

projects. We thus coordinated enriched our creative potential.

out multiple photographic our

personal

abilities

and

* By working together daily on both large and small tasks, we

found a perfect method of learning and self-teaching. This provided us with further proof of our conviction that the only

way to learn both the science and craft of painting and graphics is by participating in the total process ofa piece of work. * We also made an important discovery: we found out how to touch up the fresco with silicates. The complementary practice

of touching up fresco painting had been lost after the Italian Renaissance.

* Our work was purposely photogenic and “cine-genic” so that it could be easily published and widely distributed. This was important as, in itself, it was private and recondite. Methodology * Plastic Exercise is a dynamic, monumental painting for a dynamic spectator. Barnacled, static spectators, academic cadavers and objectivist snobs will not really enjoy it. * There was no previous sketch. We started directly on the walls, and were influenced by architectural space as we

progressed. developed

By living permanently and

readjusted

our

with

work.

its geometry,

There

was

we

nothing

artificial, everything was based on the architectonic skeleton

Art and Revolution

40

which organically complemented the geometry of our work. * In

accordance

with

a basic

ictorial art, we divided

premise

the geometrical

of monumental,

structure

of our

architectural field of action into anatomical sections, which we previously analysed objectively. This was the basis of our composition.

* By working out an infinite series of harmonious correlations between all the facets of our architectonic anatomy, and then relating these to each other with interspatial connections, we were able to integrate perfectly balanced reflections, sizes,

weights and dimensions (all active) into the total interior air space of our geometric body. Our work could therefore also be called a “Plastic Box”. * Plastic Exercise is a versatile, spectacular, scenographic,

active painting. It is versatile because it makes TOTAL USE of the architectonic structure and infrastructure, and also because it gyrates in harmony with the movement ofthe spectator. * In active pictorial art the optical phenomenon is obtained

by making use of the geometrical topography of architectonic space. The “trick” we used here looked like “visual magic” and was obtained by making multiple dynamic use of the visual perspective. * We worked out the dynamics of our construction with regard to the dynamics of spectator movement, and were thus able to interweave visible and invisible plastic superpositions, which were both formal and informal, sometimes voluminous shapes,

sometimes

simply

arabesques,

but

always

corres-

ponding to the infinite number of places from which the work could be viewed.

* In order to give Exercise dynamic action, we mounted it ona frame with parallel and concentric circumferences, and from this we obtained an unlimited multiplicity of correlated curves

and straight lines. * We

broke

with

the

tradition

of static

photographic

reproduction, and obtained dynamic photographic reproductions by the use of a cine camera. Instead of placing the camera

symmetrically

in front

of the parts

we

wanted

to

photograph, we kept it moving, following the path logically

“Plastic Exercise”

41

taken by a spectator. We did not place benches which would give arbitrary points of view. We used the camera as though it were the eye of a normal spectator. In this way, we broke away from the deadly, academic form of photographic reproduction,

which even today provides us with fictitious versions of the great works of art of antiquity, which were painted by an artist who

took into account the logical points from which his work would be seen and incorporated this into his work. Our form of photography allowed us to give live, complete photographs, rather than mummified, academic ones. It also contributes to the formation ofa new idea in art photography, which can itself,

independently of the object being photographed, be a work of creative art. * In looking for methods of publicising our work, we found that of “FILMABLE ART”” or ‘‘CINE-PHOTOGENIC ART”, i.e. art with

the preconceived notion of being filmed; art conceived scientifically and with pre-meditation so that it can be filmed with the idea of producing superlatively dynamic art, but yet without relinquishing its autonomous value as a static work of art. * Its quality of pictorial-filmable-art stems from the visual “magic” inherent in descriptive geometry, infinitely enhanced by the search for active art of the highest potentiality. * In our opinion PICTORIAL-CINEMATOGRAPHIC-ART is more complete than objective-realist filming, because it requires from its authors not only organisation and combination of cinematographic values and elements with real, live materials, but also the creation of prime, filmable object-matter.

* The union of monumental painting with cinematography, which

we

have

discovered,

is the most

powerful

means

of

disseminating Graphic Art to the masses. * External, monumental plastic art belongs to the permanent and floating masses of atown, FILMED MONUMENTAL ART belongs

to all the towns, to all humanity. It is the highest expression of public art. * Leon Klimovsky is already at work filming Plastic Exercise. * Plastic Exercise is a live class of art and graphics. It is the result of the active method of learning. It is the product of a

42

Art and Revolution

totally superior machine for producing art: the only machine possible in these times. It is the vehicle of expression of our times: mechanics and group work joined with a combination of

various expressions of art and graphics in a common effort with highly creative intentions. We use mechanics because the only vehicle capable of expressing dynamic art must be mechanical. The Italian futurists did not understand this, and so perished in defence of an abstract theory of movement. Their bier was easel

painting. The “enemies of anachronism” died of anachronism. Of course, now they are fascists. * Plastic Exercise 1s obviously only an initial demonstration of the truth of our general theory of modern art. It is merely the

first halting step along the road of dynamic art for the masses of the world, which is opening before us. The antecedents of this road are few and clearly defined. Up to now there have only been ““snapshots” of movement (Pablo Uccello, for example). This art movement has yet to be built; we still have

to construct the living vision of movement for movement by

movement, and this could only be done in our times. The static, museum art of objective, passive, emotional, pseudo-modern (pre-cubists, cubists, post-cubists, popular and archaic Mexican muralists, neo-classicists, metaphysical realists, etc.) are not in :

tune with this coming world and will be worthless during the long, very active period of the future. Soctal Projection

* Plastic Exercise is NOT an ideologically revolutionary work, by which I mean that it is not a work ofdirect, immediate use to

the revolutionary proletariat in their present struggle against

capitalism. Plastic Exercise has no proletarian, revolutionary content. It is not a work which will foment revolutionary activity

in the masses. It has no direct, political belligerence. It is not

psychologically subversive. Neither in form or content is it revolutionary. lina. solitary and distant private residence, and in the most private place ofthat residence, it could not be revolutionary (so

thought the majority of the team who made it). It could only be carried out there, because of demagogic causes, which we could

“Plastic Exercise”

43

not accept. The art of the proletarian struggle must be carried out in the streets. * As its name indicates, Plastic Exercise is only a project of abstract art, only a group art exercise, art practice, dynamic, technical, plastic GYMNASTICS, carried out by painters with revolutionary convictions, both as individuals and as part of a group. * We, the authors of Plastic Exercise, formed a technical and

ideological team, and we accepted the commission for this work because we realised the opportunity it gave us. It gave us the Opportunity to practise the mechanics of dynamic art, the mechanics of group work and the method of dialectical construction of dynamic art, which was indispensable in order to be able to produce the totally revolutionary art which was our

objective. Our team was preparing the way to become the focal point of greater, more complex and more powerful projects. * Plastic Exercise, a casual commission, for which we worked ona salary basis (this will only disappear when our society does) is an initial CONTRIBUTION to revolutionary forms and art both in

this time of struggle and in the victorious times of the future. * It is a revolutionary contribution because it isan example of dialectic method applied to an expression ofplastic art; because it is a collective effort; because of its mechanical technique;

because of its psychological activism; because ofits dynamism and documental reality; because of itsmonumental drive; and

because of its artistic equivalence which belongs to the future world of the workers; because ofthe great optimism ofits ardent lyricism; because it experiments with elements which will certainly be needed to build a revolutionary pictorial work of plastic art, in the open air, in the sunshine, for the great masses

of the future

and

also for realising

the vitally necessary

simultaneous, active, mass-reproduction of art in this present

period

of semi-illegality or illegality of the revolutionary

proletariat. * When instead of “Academies”, active studies, nudes, exercises in technique, we revitalize subjects with a totally revolutionary content, in the open air, then the importance of

Art and Revolution

44

this experiment and the use we made of these circumstances will be appreciated. * A work of art does not express itself in terms of class or

society through direct political images; it expresses itself by

means

of aesthetic

equivalences.

Otherwise

how

could

we

revolutionaries call abstract art a bourgeois expression ? Works

of art are a “chemical-physical” reflection of the motor which drives them; they are the synthesis and pure extract of that motor. * This explains why work like Plastic Exercise which contributes revolutionary technique and methodology can only be considered as the reflection of a revolutionary motor, of revolutionary social dynamics. An old motor, on the point of

burning out, the decrepit motor of the intellectual bourgeoisie, can only give birth to pale artistic expressions in those dark

official academies disguised as liberal, modern schools. * Plastic Exercise is a revolutionary contribution because it is an achievement (however rudimentary) of dynamic art which is

both documentary and capable of being reproduced, all of which are essential qualities of revolutionary art. Itis as dynamic in its form as in its social content. It will be as human and

realistically dynamic as the size of its surroundings and the number ofits spectators, who by reflection also have a part in its construction. It must be multiple if it is to belong to all men. If revolutionary art means spectacular, theatrical, multi-

dimensional art; active for a spectator caught up in the most violent activity the world has known; an impulsive art which inspires the masses, then there is no doubt that Plastic Exercise contributes to this in its form, technique and methodology in spite of the restrictions imposed on it by the place where it was done and its abstract theme. * There is no doubt that it will contribute to an absolutely

revolutionary improvement in plastic and graphic art. * All revolutionary artists will soon realise the truth ofthis. I am quite sure ofthis. Buenos Aires, Argentine Republic, December 1933.

> Towards a Transformation Plastic Arts

of the

(Plans for a manifesto and study programme for studio-schools painting and sculpture, written by Siqueiros in New York, 1934)

of

Painters, sculptors, engravers, newspaper _ illustrators, photographers, architects (Mexicans, South Americans, North Americans, Europeans), we have decided to foment an

international movement to transform the plastic arts. Our movement is based on critical analysis of the two great contemporary art experiences: the Paris movement and the modern Mexican movement usually known as the Mexican

Renaissance. Both these movements are disintegrating today. One of our valuable antecedents is the mechanical techniques

used by Siqueiros in the groups he formed in Los Angeles and Buenos Aires; the Mural Painters Group of Los Angeles and the Polygraphic team of Buenos Aires. What do we want?

We want to produce an art which will be physically capable of

serving the public through its material form. True art forms which will reach far and wide. This art must be commercialized according to the possibilities of each country, in order to avoid the bourgeois élitism of European art and the tounst-oriented bureaucracy of Mexican art. We must rid ourselves of the European Utopia of art for art’s sake, and also of Mexican demagogic opportunism. We must put an end to superficial folk art, of the type called “Mexican Curious” which predominates in

Art and Revolution

46 Mexico

today,

and

substitute

for

internationally valid though based on functional elements. We must coordinate our abilities and together as a technical team. We must centrism of modern European art and

it

an

art

which

is

local antecedents and experiences and work put an end to the egothe false collectivism of

official Mexican art, with its “socialism””. We shall both learn

and teach our new art in the course of producing it: theory and practice will go together. We shall put an end to sterile verbal didactic teaching, which has produced nothing of value in the last four hundred years of academism, and which even today is still the

only method of teaching art both in Mexico and all over the world. We must make use of all the modern tools and materials which serve the purpose of our art, and put an end to the incredible

technical anachronism

to be found in Mexico and Europe.

Instead, we shall establish the fundamental

premise that art

movements should always develop in accordance with the technical possibilities of their age. Modern technique and mechanics have made such enormous progress that they can enrich our creative

capacity beyond our wildest imagination. Unfortunately artists today seem to know nothing of the science and technology from which their materials evolve, and their knowledge is restricted to knowing in which shop to buy them. Modern industry has made revolutionary changes in the chemistry of pigments which modern artists know nothing whatever about. We must develop a polygraphic art which will combine both plastic and graphic art and provide a greater potential for artistic expression. Art must no longer be separated into units,

either pure painting or pure sculpture, it must find a new, more

powerful, more modern

language which will give it much

greater repercussion and validity as an art expression.

We must use new, dialectic forms, rather than dead, scholarly,

mechanical ones. We must evolve a dynamic graphic art in tune with the dynamism of the world today, and we must rid ourselves of

mysticism, of snobbish “‘archaeologism’’, and the other defects of modern art in both Europe and Mexico. Our art must have a real scientific basis. We must get rid of the

Transformation of the Plastic Arts

empiricism,

and emotivism

which

47

have characterised

the art

movements of the world until today. For the first time in history,

we

shall find scientific truths which can be proved, either

physically, chemically, or psychologically. In this way we will be

able to forge a strong connection between art and science. We must foment the teaching of exterior mural painting, public painting,

in the street,

in the sunlight,

on

the sides of tall

buildings instead of the advertisements you see there now, in strategic positions where the people can see them, mechanically produced and materially adapted to the realities of modern construction. We must put an end to tourist-inspired Mexican muralism with its archaic technique, and bureaucracy; murals

painted in out of the way places and which only emerge from hiding in select monographs published for foreign amateurs. We will be preparing ourselves for the society of the future, in which our type of art will be preferred to all others, because it is

the effective daily expression of art for the masses. We shall, of course, conserve all the absolute values of the other

art movements,

because

we

feel that tradition

is an

accumulation of experiences on which our work must be based. This is even more important since our movement is a classical movement, in as much as it responds to the social and technical

realities of the moment in which it exists. We shall give practical form to our theories by creating workshop schools of plastic and graphic art, from which we shall exclude archaic, livid monocopy forms and procedures, such as

easel painting; we shall exclude everything which cannot be reproduced, we shall exclude exhibitions in “distinguished” galleries for the benefit of amateurs and critics, expensive limited editions, in fact everything which can be considered art for the private collector and for a privileged élite. In this way we shall be consequential with our own

period of history, and

we shall be anticipating the art forms of the future. In this way we shall provide an immediate and evident service to the great masses and to all humanity. In our workshop schools we will develop polychromed engraving (both

the

traditional

and,

more

especially

the

modern),

polychromed lithography (traditional and modern); large editions of

48

Art and Revolution

polychromed posters (mechanically printed); photo-engraving (by experimental methods); scenography; applied painting (on standards,

flags,

posters,

curtains

and

commercial

art);

reproducible polychromed sculpture (made of cement, plaster cement

and all other modern materials); photo-genic painting (all our artwork must be able to be photographically reproduced); photo-montage, cliché montage (applicable to all kinds of graphic reproduction); documentary photography and cinema; manual and

mechanical printing (the problem ofprinting is fundamental to all popular art); modern mural painting (on cement, with silicates,

using a spray gun and other applicable tools or mechanical means

such as electro-ceramics,

etc.); the chemical theory and

practice of pigments and all other art materials (to prove the great superiority

of

modern

materials

over

traditional

ones);

descriptive geometry and industrial drawing; the social history of the arts

(rather than anecdotism). As for publicity, we

shall have simultaneous

exhibitions

(in

private buildings belonging to organisations and in public places; at home and abroad); co-ordinated exhibitions (of multiple

painting and photogenic art); we will publish popular monographs (at prices accessible to the people); we shall set up permanent sales posts (in towns and villages, in factories, etc); we will try to make

direct sales ofpersonal work (in order to help our collaborators, etc.). Our workshop schools will have a publicity section which will take charge of this commercial programme and invent new sales methods, because we feel that our economic development

depends on our finding a way to commercialise our products in accordance with the possibilities of the masses. New York, June, 1934.

3 Letter from the Front Line

in Spain (To the authoress, Mari Teresa Leon de Alberti, April 27th, 1938)

Dear Maria Teresa, I was so happy to get your letter. I had already lost hope of

ever hearing from you two again. OnJanuary gth I wrote you a very long letter, a copy of which T enclose. It tells you all about my trip to Mexico and how often I think about you both.

I am working very hard. I was in command of Group No. 2 in the Sierra Herrera operation. Recently, in the Sordo operation, I was liaison officer for Colonel Burillo, commander of the

Extremadura army. Then I was given the job of forming the 29th Division. As commander of my old brigade, I have been in charge of the Puente del Arzobispo sector, in Sierra Altamira, and it is possible that within the next few days my command will be extended to include Guadalupe. I am quite pleased about this, as it provides me with more problems and as you know

there is nothing better in life than a problem. The harder and more complicated the better.

Well, war is like modern art (hardly as envisaged in my obsessive

solitary

attempts)—it

is mechanics

and

physics,

chemistry and geometry, geography and cadence, it is equilibrium and synthesis. War, like art, can express in one go

both the positive and negative of human nature. So there is nothing surprising in my returning to my original profession, the one I practised in my already somewhat distant youth. I

50

Art and Revolution

rather feel I have gained something by it, perhaps war suits my hasty, impatient nature. Curiously enough, as you will see, in both war and art I spend

my time fighting against the academicians. I will give youa

short

example.

The

academic

soldier

considers

defence

to

be

rigid

containment of the enemy offensive. His only aim and purpose is that the enemy shall not pass. But I, a functionalist in both war and art, conceive defence as an offensive, because it is really a counter-offensive; it implies infinite mobility. The academic defends and fortifies a line; we functionalists defend and fortify azone and fill it with traps. They work ona linear plane while we work in spatial depth. The academic only sees one facet, the functionalist has a multi-faceted view of the problem. (It is the

same thing with painting—the academician paints flat pictures within the limits of a frame, whereas the muralist is functional.)

We functionalists conceive our fortifications in topographical terms; they must be the living expression of the forms to be found in local topography. You might say that the basic functionalist concept of fortification is mimicry, because the fundamental object is that the fortification should be resistant, but also that it should be both objectively and subjectively

camouflaged; the scenography is important. (You write to me of stage design, and as you can see I am doing some military scenography myself). However, the academic conception of fortification is totally isolated from the surroundings. He feels that there are good plans for fortifications, trenches and refuges. He talks in formulae, like a tree with no roots in the ground. The old academic builds linear trenches and the new academic builds square trenches. The functionalist conceives of fortifications as active, changing and varied as nature itself, with its mountains, plains and so on. He feels that fortifications should be in accordance with the nature of the terrain.

And here’s another thing.

The academician says: the enemy must not pass; he must not breach the line anywhere, he must not overrun the line. The functionalist says: he must not occupy the zone, he must not overrun the zone. For the academician the advance posts (what

Letter from the Front Line in Spain

51

he calls the front line) are fragile, i.e. if too much pressure is brought to bear on them they may break. But the advance posts of the functionalist are elastic; if they are pressed too hard, they stretch as the enemy expends his offensive and then snap back,

when the time comes, with all the strength ofa coiled spring. In academic defence, when the line is broken, there is inevitably a withdrawal (or drastic retreat) to a second line of defence and so on. It is obvious that in war as in art, the academician conceives of spatial depth as a series of curtains situated one behind the other at more or less equal intervals. Here is the number one defence line; here is the number two defence line, etc., etc. The

functionalist has a more integral concept of defence, which covers the whole area, both flanks and rearguard, in fact every yard of the defensive zone. There are no neutral spaces between

one line and another; there are no stages. He does not conceive

of defence like a game of chess with a rigid and inevitable pattern of movements; his defensive moves cover the whole area and the whole problem in every possible direction.

What do you think? Isn’t there a great similarity between camouflage and the spatial organization of your stage design? In war as in other things, there is a violent struggle between formalism, rhetoric and dialectics. This is why anyone who really wants to and has an active rather than a passive, isolated view of his problems, can do good work anywhere. I shall try and send you some of my articles on military instruction, mobile troop transport, etc., so that you can see in rather more detail

what I am doing at the present time. I could carry on writing, with my habitual spate of words, which used to afford us amusement when we were together in Mexico and Paris . . . but the fact is that my unit is about to

change its position and the orderlies are making such a racket that my beloved assistant, the big little lieutenant Belmar, who is typing this letter for me, can hardly hear me dictate. You ask me about Mexican theatre. Except for Ruiz

de

Alarcon and a play, which Juan de la Cabaaa is sull thinking out, I can’t think where I could dig up any for you. However I should like to remind you of some plays by Madaleno y de Oro which I believe have already been published in Spain. Ofcourse,

Art and Revolution

52

I have no idea of what’s been happening in the past two years. I have no news ofMaria, she hasn’t written for five months. If

she answers the letter

Iam sending by the same postas this, I will

write and tell you. I am sorry to hear about Rafael and hope you will soon find

out what the matter is; it is important for him to get better soon. Has he done much writing lately? I should like to read his latest work. Before I finish, I would like to make a small correction of your spelling: the Mexican says, “Quiubole” not “Que hubole”

(“Whassup with him?” not “What's up with him ?”’). I embrace you both.

3 War time, War art (Manifesto first published in the double number 8-9 of Forma, January-February, 1943, in Santiago, Chile, preceded by the following note: “Shortly before leaving for the States, Siqueiros gave the Associated Press the following manifesto initiating his campaign to get American artists to aid the war effort of the United Nations through their art”)

Painters, sculptors, engravers, poets, novelists, writers, musicians and actors: it is not enough for you to participate personally in anti-fascist activities. There are others who are better suited to organising meetings and raising funds. The war effort needs your art; it needs your creativity and the incomparable eloquence of which you are capable.

Your contribution will not be slight, because we need precise ideology and the technique that goes with it. There must be wherever possible.

team

work

and

communal

work-shops

There must be a central coordinating body for war art. There must be a team of war graphics and painters who must produce drawings and engravings, posters (both printed and hand painted), external murals, internal murals, blown-up photographic murals, polychrome sculptures, curtains (net) and other scenographic painting which may be necessary in the theatre of war, etc. There must be a team of war writers who must write words for songs, marches, hymns, satires about bombastic Nazi leaders, daily news offifth column intrigues, war poems, war stories, war novels, war plays, etc.

A team for theatre and choreography, to perform the plays written

Art and Revolution

54

by members of the writers team, and collaborate closely with the other teams. They would perform at all sorts ofplaces and on all sorts

of occasions,

either

in theatres

or wherever

they are

needed. A cinema unit who would further develop and perfect what is

already being done in their line, and would also collaborate closely with the other units.

A musical unit would collect popular songs appropriate to the war effort and write them down; they would also compose new songs, marches, hymns, etc., in close collaboration with the

other groups.

You must fight daily both in the front line and the rearguard, (and in the enemy front line and rearguard as well) against all the Axis demagogy and crimes, you must expose their pseudo racial doctrines, destroy the defeatist intrigues of the fifth column and destroy tlie enemy’s morale. And you must do all

you can to strengthen our own morale—the morale of the fighting forces and the industrial workers. You artists, and the governments of your countries must understand that art can become as powerful an arm of war as any that the armie$ use in their battles. It is an arm which attacks

through the eyes, and ears. . .and through the deepest and most subtle human feelings. Therefore every democractic government in America must give ample economic aid to these artistic units, because they must be supplied with the most modern equipment and be allowed to operate on a very wide field ofaction, etc.

All progressive organisation and all artists should demand support for these artistic units. War art against the Axis,

daily, in many forms, with eloquence, and perennial creativity, and geared to win not only

freedom for humanity and the right to national determination for all peoples, but also the right to build in the future worldA PUBLIC ART FOR PEACE and this should be our slogan. DAVID ALFARO SIQUIEROS—representing the many Mexican, American, Argentinian, Spanish and Chilean painters who for the last twelve years have joined me in my endeavours for public art

10 Jose Clemente Orozco, the formal precursor of our painting (This article was published three times; it first appeared in No. 398 of the magazine Hoy, on December 7th, 1944, under the title “Letter to Orozco on visiting the exhibition of his paintings, drawings and engravings at the National School, which opened on September 25th and runs until October 25th”. It later appeared as one of the chapters of my book Ours is the Only Way (Mexico D. F., 1945) with the same title as this chapter; and finally it was divided into two parts and published in 1946 on September 8th and 9th in the newspaper Exce/sior under the title “Jose Clemente Orozco”)

My dear friend and esteemed colleague, Orozco: Your exhibition has inspired me to write you a public letter.

My object in so doing is to bring out several subjects which you and I have been discussing extensively of late. I sincerely hope they will be of some help to the authentically modern art movement, both in Mexico and all over the world. Neither your

work nor mine, nor that of any others who belong to our

movement, can ever be classed as having occurred “biologically and spontaneously”. Because of the way in which our work is conceived

and

brought

to

life,

its fundamental

aesthetic

physiognomy, its monumental heroic tone, it cannot be classed as the miraculous

metaphysical

production

of “exceptional

individuality’, with no specific origin, which the panegyrical poets who pass for art critics in Mexico seem to think your work is. Our poetical art critics, some of whom are sincere, while others are not, are only very poor colonial copies of the poetical art critics found in Europe today. Our work is determined by

historical

social causes,

it is an integral, living part of a

Art and Revolution

56

collective, intellectual movement, of acommon aesthetic drive

which developed along with our collective, national political aspirations, which probably form part of aworld wide pattern. Why should people be so blind to this very obvious fact?

In the first place, these critics have forgotten that basic logical principle which says that “you cannot judge the achievements or fully appreciate the details of any historical phenomenon, unless they are examined in their context”. In other words “you cannot see the wood for the trees”.

As you know, our eulogists with their talk of “creative criticism’’ resemble nothing more than those fanatical critics of the bullring, each of whom supports his own favourite bullfighter and looks no further; but of course they write their criticisms in the most “‘poetic’’ style, and it is not only useless, but sometimes inspired by unconfessable motives. They are not the only ones who saw confusion; they receive daily and vociferous aid from many of our academic and purist

colleagues, who wish to further their own particular ends. I shall therefore avoid this highly inconvenient method and start with a circumstances.

somewhat

bare

analysis

of

the

historical

Modern Mexican painting is first and foremost the expression of the Mexican revolution in the field of culture. It would be incorrect to say that its only source was the important preHispanic and Colonial culture of Mexico, because Guatemala, Honduras, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia, to a greater or lesser

degree, also have the same cultural background. Had itnot been for the Mexican revolution, contemporary Mexican painting would have been as intellectually colonial and as snobbish as it was in pre-revolutionary Mexico and Spain and the rest of Latin America. Had it not revolution, it is more than possible that you and

domestically as it still is in been for the other gifted

Mexican painters would have been forced to emigrate, like Picasso, Gris and Dali, to a more fertile social environment, because the Spanish-type academism which was found in all the “schools” was a reflection of the political situation. The only alternative was to asphyxiate in the stuffy socio-intellectual environment.

Jose Clemente Orozco

57

How otherwise can you explain our urge to make our plastic arts as monumental, social and public as they were during the great periods of Mexican history? How else to explain our interest in the problems of mankind and of social progress? How else to explain our new humanism which, without formulating its theories, even before the strike of 1911, already formed the essence of our intellectual purpose in an art world totally isolated from the direct problems of every day society, lost in an Epicurean sensuality, morbid, domestic, “Gidean”, in short decadent, so characteristic of aesthetics at the turn of the century.

With the exception of Dr. Atl who had the honour of being the first, no one has played a greater part than you in the whole process of the Mexican revolution, from its very beginnings, throngh the period ofits development and the crises which came

at a later date. Diego Rivera’s participation was not as great as your own, because he only really became involved after 1921,

when he returned to Mexico, or perhaps from 1919 when, through his relationship with me, he established contact with the political and aesthetic non-conformism of Mexican youth at the time, a youth which had participated so intensely in the

military period of the civil war. My own participation began in 1911, with the strike in the School of Fine Arts. Everyone else came in at a later date. Further, I do not think that the mental vicissitudes of the Mexican revolution are quite as evident in the work of any painter as in your own. I must tell you that I sincerely believe that both your painting and your politicalaesthetic theories are the most faithful reflection of everything,

both

positive

and

negative,

which

existed

during

the

revolutionary, iconoclastic period of art. Let us examine what I have just said. You first became involved at the time of the first antioligarchic demonstrations, which later combined with the

armed fight to produce the Mexican revolution. The essence of your artistic thought and your painting undoubtedly reflect the earliest beginnings of the revolutionary movement. You yourself have stated that this was a direct consequence of the advanced political and aesthetic ideas of Atl, our political and

58

Art and Revolution

intellectual precursor, the theoretician of our movement.

He

was inspired in Europe and particularly in Italy by the teachings of the famous socialist, Enrico Ferri. Your interest in art was not

only stimulated by the popular feelings prevalent all over Mexico against the elitist aristocracy of the oligarchy of Porfirio Diaz, it was inspired by the most progressive sector of this feeling. What other reason could have caused you to rebel against the formal academic teaching practices of the time in favour of more popular subjects, such as your famous pictures

of night life in the back streets and slums of the capital city? The Porfirian francophilistic idea of beauty which centred on the decadent period at the end of the nineteenth century, totally

rejected your choice of subject which they felt was scandalous and exposed our country to shame. Your artistic feeling for the people was born of the political popular movement of the time. I have no doubt that this was the pictorial expression of your hatred of the dictator and was the beginning of the neo-humanistic movement to which we all came; it is of no importance whether

you arrived at your position instinctively or through political reasoning. The important thing is that you did it, that you drew your inspiration from your surroundings. You are a man of deeds more than of words, more practical than theoretical, an excellent artist, and with your innate ability you created the first

and best art forms of what was later to become our movement. Ad taught us the first letters of our doctrinaire alphabet, which we have not yet completed, and you gave us the first letters of our artistic alphabet. Goitia was another like yourself, he also

fought actively during the revolution. You then expressed your intellectual involvement in a practical way by becoming a direct militant in the revolutionary ranks. It was no longer enough for you to express your anti-

aristocratic feelings in your pictures; you became the official artist of the Constitutionalist Army’s field paper La Vanguardia,

which was directed by Dr. Atl. You joined the group of student agitators who were attracted to the Revolution by the idea of social change; with them you formed part of the famous “La Manigua” group in Orizaba, Vera Cruz. Instead ofjust painting pictures of popular life, you began painting polemical, anti-

Jose Clemente Orozco

59

clerical pictures—the best anti-clerical pictures ever produced

in Mexico. This was the perfect occasion for you to give full rein to the sarcastic iconoclast you carry within you, to the universal

Jacobin who

unfortunately

appeared

later. And

while Atl

remained the theoretical precursor and the first civil artist, and

was the first to negate the parasitic, bohemian concept of the artist,

both

newspaper

in his post

as

director

of the

Carranza

Army

and through his activity in organising the Red

Battalions of workers in the capital, you were the artistic precursor of the incipient school of Mexican social art, which fathered the international movement of social art. This was the

second stage in your contribution to the creation of our art form; the first was your drawings of ordinary people. Goitia, though in a less direct and dialectical manner, followed the same course with his vivid, realistic paintings and drawings of the civil war. Although these anti-clerical drawings of yours were small in size, they were monumental in their historical context, because they were public; I do not think anyone could

say that these drawings are less important as a form of artistic expression than the more technically advanced murals that you have painted in the last few years. Is it really possible to believe in the absurd, pseudo-modern criteria of Paris, that concrete political expression cannot be artistic and that the only true source of art is abstruse and poetic? This is a lie, a wicked lie

invented by the enemies of social art; they say that the great art of the past has always been

ideological. mythology

Was

Egyptian

of Greece

and

obscure

and not concrete

mythology the Mayas

obscure? and

Incas?

or

Or

the

Was

the

dogmatic subject matter of the Christians during the middle ages,

of the

Byzantines,

the

Goths,

of Cimabue,

Giotto,

Masaccio, etc., was that obscure? Was the religious painting of the Renaissance, which gave rise to the Reformation, obscure?

Was the religious art of colonial Mexico obscure? Never! It was both clear and specific. The decadent painting of today is both obscure and abstruse, subjected as it is to the social concept of the art gallery, of the expensive monograph, of the glossy

magazine, of the monstrous limitation of prints and lithographs, and also to the mercenary critics who are an

Art and Revolution

60

integral part of the speculative, commercial aspect of the art world. Your third concern and your third practical contribution manifested itself in your immediate and total adhesion to our collective decision to paint murals. Your concern and practice helped make possible a better revolutionary programme of education, our famous Barcelona manifesto—which was the first theoretical formulation of your aims—and the mature

Cézanne-inspired

“constructivism”

of Diego

Rivera.

You

immediately declared yourself in favour of the supreme objective of modern times, the restoration under present social conditions ofa public art form, such as had been characteristic

of all the great art periods of history. You gave yourself up completely to a movement which was to lead to the new classicism

which

the French

had sought, from

David

to Ingres, and

from Cézanne to Picasso, through imprecisely defined paths of a purely objective nature—“from the canvas to the infinite”—which nevertheless left intact the physical, material

and therefore social forms. Your new position was the logical continuation of your previous political activity. In the first place, you, in company with all Mexican progressives, dedicated

your thoughts and work to the people; you then used your art as a weapon which fought daily and directly on the side of the people; and then you broadened the scale of your art because you understood that truly social art can only be transmitted

through social forms, that it must be public and large in size. And in this you were no ordinary contributor. You contributed a more important sense of form to our common cause which was still in its infancy, still popular, primitive, ethnographic and folk-loric; you gave our pictorial form a more dynamic professional technique, which was connected to the art of the end of the Renaissance and the Baroque periods, and also to the

individual and sporadic expressions which had appeared during the nineteenth century, in Europe. It is my opinion that you intuitively understood that a return to muralism did not mean a return to primitive techniques—an error in which most of our artists still persist. You understood that a muralist must use the most advanced techniques available in order to make his work

Jose Clemente Orozco

61

more socially eloquent. Because, my dear Orozco, no matter what they say—those aesthetes who call themselves modern yet

continually look to the past—there must always be progress and improvement both in art as in science, as in the whole concept of

society. But something else also appeared in your work at this period; while other artists remained faithful to or were attracted by the subjectivist, “metaphysical” deviations of the French pseudo-modern tendencies, you remained substantially faithful to the ideology of functionality and to the objective of social eloquence; you were as powerful a political cartoonist on the walls as you had been on paper. It is unimportant that this was intuitive rather than reasoned; neither is it important or to the

point that your ideological development was so immature, so vacillating and at times contradictory or even destructive, because

at that time we were

all like that. You

showed

the

way for others to progress, but no one progressed as far as you did.

Your fourth concern was with the fight against fascism, and at the same time as you were painting your murals you also collaborated in our graphics campaign against the rise of fascism. Thus the popular art of your first period was later supplanted by your anti-clerical and pro-revolutionary art, and

this in turn was enriched by your fight against the powerful enemy which threatened our newly born democracy. With us, you understood that mural art could not reach everybody in the country and that the artists must produce work which could be mass reproduced by mechanical means. And so you became the permanent cartoonist, always on time with your work, of our

first paper El Machete, which was the organ of our Syndicate of artists. Your work on that paper gives you the right to be called the most important anti-fascist cartoonist of Mexico and perhaps of the whole continent, since ours was the first antifascist paper in America. In spite of the difference of technique, it can be said that just as your murals were superior to your earlier work, so your newspaper work was superior to your

murals as regards ideological synthesis and the polemical strength of its politics. There is no doubt that these are intrinsically your best drawings to date. Perhaps they are the

62

Art and Revolution

most important political drawings which the Mexican artistic movement has yet produced. But it must be emphasised that you

were working in a less isolated situation when you produced these drawings, they were the result of the team work which necessarily exists in a paper with a political platform. Here,

more than previously, your creative potential derived vigour and nourished itself on the ideological and tactical political studies of many people; for this reason your work was the direct result of our social art movement, with the natural characteristics of the people. How can the “metaphysical” “poetic” snobs possibly believe that intellectual solitude is the ideal medium for artistic creation? Is it not true that in the past

the greatest artistic creations were produced on a great social scale, by the emotional and rational interaction of politically

homogenous doctrines? The aesthetes of today who say that art must be used for social and proselytising ends if it is to be free, are guilty of gross sophism. The art of the past was obliged to reflect the doctrine of the State, and in politically backward and primitive states, these doctrines did not always guarantee the artists a total freedom of expression. But could anyone today, except a fool or a liar, claim that modern art is free simply because artists are not forced to paint subjects imposed on them by the political ideology of their economic masters, when the

artist is limited to painting for the domestic use of a small minority of society and must pander to their chic, epicurean and infantile taste?

In this discussion on the relationship between yourself as an indiviaual and our collective movement, it is obvious but paradoxical that you are not exclusively the author of the contributions I have mentioned. This has been said before but it must be emphasised. You produced your work by means of your creative faculties out of our collective discussions, from

everything we did collectively, in what was evidently a process of

political education; it was unquestionably the result of our corporate activity, which was then just beginning, the result of our Mexican Syndicate of Revolutionary Painters, Sculptors

and Engravers and of the ideological progress of everyone who

took part in the Mexican revolution. It is unimportant, as I said

Jose Clemente Orozco

63

before, that you did not play a direct part in the activity of the Syndicate, perhaps you played no part at all, but nevertheless

you were cate

inevitably the recipient of everything the Syndi-

contributed

to

the critical,

technical

and

intellectual

environment in which you found yourself. Furthermore, had you been able to participate in our daily activity, your innate

potential would have been further enriched and your iconoclastic tendencies would have been checked . . . and perhaps this would have stopped you becoming such an egotist. And all the other reasons? They all hang together and 1 shall deal with them as one, which covers the whole of your later ideas

and activities. It was inevitable, both for reasons of our own and for national, political reasons, which are outside the scope of this

article—but which correspond to one of those critical periods inherent to all social change—that our Syndicate should split up and its members separate. And this is the cause ofthe crisis from which our movement still suffers; the cause of its gradual loss of

collective social significance and the gradual return of us all, toa greater or lesser degree, to doctrines and practices completely contrary to our original ideas; mural painting and massreproduction have been progressively displaced by easel painting, the social function of which is limited to the interior decoration of the homes of the oligarchic élite. This was the origin in Mexico of all the pseudo-modern absurdities which mask the real decadence of contemporary plastic arts all over the world. The natural consequence of your increasing isolation (that “isolation without loneliness which is Orozco’s”’ which Luis Cordoba y Aragon considered a virtue), the loss of ideological support which you had found in the doctrines of Dr. Atl during your populist period; the loss of the ideological support which

had sustained you through the period of your anti-clerical drawings and your revolutionary combatant period; the loss of the ideological support which we all gave each other during the first muralist period, and also during the period when we edited El Machete. The normal logical beginning of your surrender to a concept which, if you examine it closely, you will

see belongs to the snobbish doctrines of the so-called Modern

Art and Revolution

64

School of Paris . . . although you have added a few philosophical-sounding ideas of your own, which come from your previous liberal period. Your opinion of “the truth at all

costs” belongs to these ideas. (“Never mind the mistakes or the exaggerations. The important thing is to be able to think aloud,

to say what one feels at that very moment, etc., etc.””, as you said in your letter to Justino Fernandez the art critic.) But is it really

the absolute truth, to unleash all your bitter scepticism against the relativity of democracy as a political doctrine, without also

referring to the hypocritical attitude of democracy’s worst enemies, who emphasise the limitations of the democracies and speak in favour of anti-popular, ultra-dictatorial regimes? No! It is impossible to respect as absolute truth your sarcasms

against social progressive renegades unless at the same time you also attack those who first seduced them and then hypocritically condemned them. You must state the whole truth without

- forgetting the worst things—you must Speak out against social and personal deeds which repel you; but you must transform the partial truths you speak today into whole truths, and when you do that both I and many others who admire your work will

be the first to support you. Unless you do this your ideological expression will lose its clarity—because you are still an artist

who

uses

his art to transmit

ideas,

concepts

and judge-

ments—and your work will continue to be interpreted in the most incredible and contrary ways, which may be miles away from your real intention “for confusion is the best servant of

both Moors and Christians’’. I can give you a few concrete examples of this. Justino Fernandez, in his article Jose Clemente Orozo, his art and ideas, considers you a humanistic philosopher with a tendency to mystic Christianity, while Luis Cardoza y

Aragon in his book The Cloud and the Clock says that in your work “there is no philosophy, no dialectic, no narration”... and that you “have the honour to be always inexplicable”. Can you, a

vigorous, political painter feel flattered by these opinions? Does it do you any good to be called “the metaphysical poet of the arts”? Does it do our movement any good? By saying all this, I am not implying that there is no positive value in this later work of yours; your work still has a revolutionary though one-sided

Jose Clemente Orozco

65

essence. Neither am I saying that the intrinsic artistic value of your work has diminished. You were the only fresco painter who

realised that primitive, age-old techniques were not adequate to

the dynamics of your third period and so dared to try other methods; you experimented with lime, you combined fresco with tempera. Were you successful in your attempt to improve on ancient methods? I don’t think you were, because a new society needs a totally new technique, the material technique which is furnished by its industry; but nevertheless you were the only one of the muralists who became dissatisfied with the established procedure—and in such a situation, dissatisfaction

opens the way to progress. You were also the only one who promoted the importance of the mural as an integral part of architectonic space and not as the flat, static panel which was typical of our first period. I also appreciate the monumental scale of your contributions to our work, while others cooked in the private kitchen of Art for Art’s Sake. I believe that you have improved both technically and artistically, but I also believe that your social involvement should keep pace with these improvements.

You ask me to sum up my thoughts regarding the historical importance of your ideas and art in the context of our modern social art movement. . My answer would be as follows. Your ideas and your work represent the iconoclastic, de-

mythifying and therefore lyrical period of our work, with all your extraordinary innate potential—an art potential which is unrivalled in the contemporary world. You express with almost

mathematical exactitude the ideological mistakes of many of the important politicians of our revolutionary movement.

Your

exuberant faith at the beginning was like theirs. Your extreme Jacobinism also. Your first doubts were the same as theirs and finally your tremendous scepticism and anguished return to a mystical past is also similar to theirs. Your attitude smacks of a

weak romanticism which would judge the frailties of men as misdemeanours of the movement they belong to. Your illness is either curable or incurable—and I believe you

can be cured. When the hopes of the people again grow strong,

Art and Revolution

66

this may inspire your enormous strength as a painter. I certainly do not think you are finished. You are perhaps the youngest of

all those who today suffer an intellectual crisis. Perhaps one of

the very few of what has been called the first generation—and

there will be even fewer of the second—who can retrace their steps, no matter how far they have travelled in the direction of

Gide and Breton. If you are unable to do this, you will be caught

up in the vicious circle in which the artists of the “modern Paris trends” have found themselves for the last few years. There is no historical future in these trends; when the war ends, these artists will either have to take the way of new humanism, new classicism, a new neo-realist humanism, or they will have to stay where they are. Our first task is to put an end to crisis in Mexican arts. What can we do? * Our collectivism was formerly on an infantile, immature scale; now we must become authentically collective. * Previously we made no precise formulation of our

doctrines, now we must gradually develop a collective intellectual programme, which will fundamentally regulate our work. There has never been an important school of art withouta doctrine. * Previously our technique and use of materials was unavoidably primitive and archaic, now we must use a truly modern technique in accordance with modern technical progress.

* Although our previous production was social and public it only reached a limited audience and was disturbed by remnants of aestheticism and commercialism, our production must now expand and become a national functional expression, thus

acquiring more universal aesthetic values. * Formerly our subject matter was diffuse and infantile, later it became contaminated by the type of evasion called “art for art’s sake” and became abstruse and sceptical; today it must

become

increasingly more

concise, clearer and polemically

more powerful. Unless we do this, our movement, which made the first attempt to overcome the prevalent decadence of Western art,

Jose Clemente Orozco

67

and which is today in grave though not insoluble crisis, will fail, either partially or totally, as other movements, such as that from David to Ingres, and from Cézanne to Picasso, have done, and at

the same time will lose its international belligerence.

ls Atl, the Political and Theoretical Precursor (From the book importance of serious artistic Alfaro Siqueiros

Ours is the Only Way, the national modern Mexican painting. The first reform in the contemporary world. and published by himself in Mexico,

and international manifestation of Written by David 1945)

Dr. Atl was famous for his vitality. His political and scientific activities have been talked about for years. But very few realise the historical importance of his role in the development of

modern Mexican painting. This ignorance is due to the fact that even less is known at home than abroad about the exact nature and importance ofthe

social aesthetic movement which gave birth to our painting; and in the same way, no one understands the causes of the present crisis which is not irremediable.

My object in writing this is therefore to give a brief account of the brilliant contribution this great fighter made to our art movement.

He gave us our first idea, our first enthusiasm for mural painting; the idea ofa return to public art, to a new classicism,

to civil art in a world where art was being produced for private domestic pleasure, with all the fatal consequences this can have

on the intrinsic value of a work of art and its social range and accessibility. It is common knowledge that Dr. Atl was enthusiastic about wall painting from the very beginning of the century (Orozco and others say it was even earlier). It is unimportant historically that his was a purely lyrical position; it

Atl, the Precursor

69

was the type of romanticism normal to all precursors, in every sphere of human activity. Only time could produce the technical

maturity of Diego Rivera and the others. * It is to Dr. Atl that we owe the second official revolutionary

attack on the pseudo-academic teaching of the old school of San Carlos, now the school of Fine Arts. The first attack was

carried out by the students with their strike in 1911, when they received such intelligent support from their teacher Alfredo Ramos Martinez. It is not very important that this activity was mainly destructive and devoid of integral solutions, because at the time the important objective was the destruction of the old

system

which

had ruined

so many

generations—a

mental

structure which denied the powerful sources of Mexican tradition—so that the way could be prepared for a new

progressive system of art teaching. Had the first movement not been so nihilistic it would have been difficult later to establish the present doctrine of new classicism which believes that any

teaching system which fails to produce a socially functional art is intellectual suicide for the teacher and intellectual murder for the student. * We owe to him the first direct political militancy of Mexican artists in the ranks of the revolution, where we refound our

national culture; we owe

to him the beginning of the end

of the apolitical, bohemian, parasitic artist, the typical Montparnassian, the intellectual snob of today, and to him is due the birth of the citizen artist in the widest sense of the term, comparable to the best artists ofthe best periods of art history. It

is evident that his participation in organising the workers of the capital into the Red Battalions was an incentive to the exstudents of the School of Fine Arts and the striking students of the school, to participate in the political and military life of modern Mexico—without this the Mexican art movement would have been theoretically impossible. In assessing the value of these historical facts, it is not important that what was done was done more in a spirit of adventure than of a solidly based political conviction. Without this definite public position, Mexican artists today would perhaps not be able to appreciate

that only an artist who is integrated into society and its progress

Art and Revolution

70

can create important works of art, because these works can only reflect his own relationship to the real society of his time.

* We owe to him the first, most categorical and publicly expressed admiration for Mexican popular art, which had obviously been underestimated and frequently despised by the

francophile intellectuals of the pre-revolutionary oligarchy; and he was responsible for the state’s first attempts to foment and protect this art. Atl was the predecessor ofall later admirers

and

state

supporters

of the popular

art which

simultaneously with the political transformation

emerged of Mexico.

Any archaeological errors he may have made are historically unimportant, because they may have been due to his admiration

for the surprising forms of pre-Hispanic tradition; he made us understand the need to incorporate this collective art form ina way which was commensurate with the political and social conditions of the present. It does not detract from the value of

his admiration for the people’s capacity for creating beauty, that he did not investigate it more deeply. He laid the foundations for the idea that when a people maintains its latent ability to produce popular art—as precarious as its economic life is precarious—it is in a condition to rebuild at a favourable sociological moment a monumental, heroic, humanitarian art, of use to the state and the nation; this is how a people keeps its

national heritage alive. * We owe to him Mexico’s first dissatisfaction with traditional materials: he was the first person, in a world which was fatally immersed in a mystical, regressive love for ancestral, archaic

methods, to search for a modern physical medium. Once again it is relatively unimportant that his solutions were only partial and that he was unable to foresee the importance of the tremendous chemical and mechanical discoveries of the contemporary world. Nevertheless, it was undoubtedly he who sowed the seeds of the immutable principle that an artist’s material and tools determine the character of his work, whereas the academicians and the intellectual pseudo academic and pseudo-classical snobs of Europe believe it is determined by the artist’s sensuality. * He was the first person in Mexico to express his break with

Atl, the Precursor

71

the academic routine of composition and perspective in a society in which artists were limited by the “chic” domestic

nature

of art which

prevented

solutions

to be found

dynamic

them

from

discovering the

in contemporary

scientific

progress. It is again unimportant that he merely substituted curvilinear perspective for rectilinear perspective. His practical application of the method, which was in any case superior, showed us that the spectator was neither a fixed statue, nor one

on a revolving axis; today we can see that the spectator is a human being in movement, with an infinite number of viewing points available to him each of which produces its own infinite distortion of the visual plane. * We owe to him—in his own work of course—a systematic

and permanent withdrawal from gallery art and primitivism, from the retrograde art characteristically found all over the world in the production of both academicians and so called modern artists. It is relatively unimportant that his modernity

has not yet attained a higher level because in order to do so it is necessary to draw on more modern emotional sources—the new emotional sources created by man’s contact with contemporary mechanics—and the more up to date direct use of modern materials and tools. It is evident that anti-archaic theories must

go hand in hand with similar decisions regarding the material, physical production of art. * We owe to him an unquestionable persistence in the spirit

of monumentality, in the rejection of everything domestic and thus lacking in a lyrical quality, in a world where the general taste

for

art

has

been

conditioned

to

domesticity.

It is

unimportant to the chronological importance of this fact that his desire for monumental

limitations

art was unable to break the formal

of easel painting—destined

exclusively for the

elegant private home—nor the anti-social limitations of awork of art which has not been conceived in terms of mass reproduction—and therefore maximum popular circulation—through the extraordinary facilities of modern mechanics; in other words, he did not touch the new vehicles of monumentality. In any case, his constant support for the heroic, truly professional work of art, at a time when dilettantism was at its

EZ

Art and Revolution

apotheosis is an outstanding example to the artists of our country and all over the world. * We owe to him the important

cosmogenic,

contribution

of his

panoramic (if the term is applicable) sense of

landscape which is a direct consequence of the new poetical

angle supplied by the airplane, in this world of “academics” and ‘‘moderns”’ who, immobilised, stare with monocular vision at

the small scrap of land they can see through the window; at the little bit of countryside, with a group of trees, a cow, or perhaps a little cowshed. Dr. Atl showed us the way to a truly modern,

poetic artistic view of the universe. * To sum up, our most important debt to him is his eternal youthfulness, his invariable audacity, when faced with the reactionary audacity of the world today, with its veneration of

archaic art forms, disguised as creative invention, as the “most important formal revolution of all time.” It is a pity that during recent,

been

lamentable

reduced

occasions

of pro-fascist madness,

he has

to limiting himself to painting pictures and

has had to forgo the other essential aspects of a totally revolutionary artist. These are attitudes and experiences oflife which those under forty, the young artists of Mexico and other countries, owe to this man of over sixty. Attitudes and experiences which all of us would do well to examine closely and evaluate historically, so that we may make authentic improvements and re-encounter our

social platform,

from which

Mexican

modern

derived its strength and its international prestige.

painting

102 Rivera, the First Practical

Exponent of our Art (From the book Ours is the Only Way, Mexico, 1945)

In

a

previous

article,

Modern

Mexican

panting;

the first

appearance ofprofound reform in contemporary art, I said that modern Mexican painting was “the first objective manifestation in the present era of anew public art, a new and greater State art”. I shall now perform an act of chronological justice, by talking about the first important man among its founders: Diego Rivera. But

before I start, I must remind my readers that I have had, and still

have, my differences with Rivera regarding technique and the historical appreciation of our movement.

However,

I do not

think this article is the place to refer to our well-known and very great political differences of the past. I can assure you that these differences of opinion will not make the slightest difference to this article, which will only present objective opinions—objective opinions which I believe are indispensable for the future health of our movement, which is my main concern.

During its first years our movement was publicly identified only with Diego Rivera. Mexican painting was Diego Rivera and nothing more. Later on, two other names became associated with his, those of Jose Clemente

Orozco

and my own.

This

occurred with the publication of Ana Brenner’s book Idols Behind Altars (Payson & Clarke Inc., New York, 1929). This book, although infantile and anecdotal, is perhaps the only true

history yet written about the resurgence of modern Mexican painting. At a later date, the presence in Mexico of Serge

Art and Revolution

74

Eisenstein, Hart Crane, Eugene Jolas, William Spratling, Eyler Simpson, Gabriel Garcia Maroto, Waldo Frank, Elie Faure and

many other European intellectuals, gave Mexican painting the stature of a movement, of a school of painting, “The Mexican School of Painting”, the “Mexican Renaissance”, and the names of many other artists received deserving mention, among them: Dr. Atl, Roberto Montenegro, Ramon Alva de la Canal, Fermin Revueltas, Jean Charlot, Carlos Merida, Fernando Leal, Rodriguez Lozano, Xavier Guerrero, etc., all important participants in this first period.

Afterwards the names of the “‘second generation” of artists, Rufino Tamayo, Julio Castellanos, Leopoldo Mendez, Carlos Orozco Romero, Pablo O’Higgins, Maria Izquierdo, Alfredo Zalco, Antonio Ruiz, Frida Kahlo, Augustin Lazo, etc.; and

finally the names of a “third generation” of artists began to be mentioned by the critics, Guerrero Galvan, Juan O’Gorman, Jose Chavez Morado, Antonio Pujol, Raul Anguiano, Luis Arenal, Juan Soriano, Guillermo Meza, etc., and also artists

even younger than these. Mexican painting gained credit as a national

movement,

then

as a continental

movement,

and

finally as an exemplary expression of international art. It thus became a competitor, in intellectual opposition to the modern trend of Paris. There was talk of two roads: the objective road of modern ideological art, of modern social art, of a new public art,

the Mexican movement, and the road of subjective art (“from the surface of the canvas outwards into space”), of a modern art limited to aesthetics, the intellectual focus of which was the

group of international artists working in Paris. It was thus accepted that there was a difference between their society art and our social art.

Intellectual competition leads to commercial

competition.

Mexican modern painting became the natural rival of French modern painting on the U.S.A. market. This commercial rivalry was relatively small before the war, but when the Paris marchands

found their traditional European markets closed to them, the

competition grew much fiercer. Commercial rivalry, whatever

its scale, brings with it a

theoretical discussion as to the intrinsic values of the objects

Rivera

75

involved. The modern art marchands of Paris found it necessary

to destroy the prestige of their competitors,

the modern

Mexican painters. What tactic could be better than to deny the

international value of the Mexican movement and give it the status of a mere branch of the great cultural creativity of the Modern School of Paris? The best way to do this was to attack the best known Mexican painter, Diego Rivera. This is what the Rosenbergs of the Paris market have done, with the conscious or unconscious aid of those francophile art critics, both Mexican

and foreign, who function in the intellectual commercial circles of our country, and with the aid also of those Mexican painters,

particularly those of the third generation who have forgotten the theory and

most

of the tradition

of modern

Mexican

painting and have been yielding to the temptation of the “‘pure artists’,

who

offer them

what

they think

of as permanent

economic security, without understanding that we are all “in the same boat”; furthermore, they are supported in this position by the extreme commercial blindness of the very people interested

in “the business of Mexican painting”.

It is therefore vital to fight against these competitors, who have so far had it all their own way. We can be sure ofour victory

in this battle, because we are sure that our road is the right one; we can be sure that our involvement with the problems of man and society and the technical problems of our times will lead us to the “new classicism’? which the others seek but have not been able to find because of their decadent snobbism and lack of ideological objective. This is our objective, as it is of the real pro-classicist movement based on Cézanne.

My first step in achieving this will be to defend our most famous painter, our most polific painter, and in so doing I shall concentrate on the positive aspects of his work.

Diego Rivera foresaw, in 1919 before any of the other Mexican

painters

living in Europe

at that time,

the nature

and

importance of the intellectual transformation which the Mexican revolution would cause in Mexico. He was the first Mexican painter living abroad to ally himself with the aims and ideas of the Mexican youth who had partic:p «ted in the armed

Art and Revolution

76

struggle. Angel Zarraga, the other “famous” Mexican painter who was living in Paris during our civil war, was unable to free himself

of his

pseudo-aristocractic

However, at a later date, Roberto Martinez did this.

Diego Rivera was

and

academic

ideas.

and

Ramos

Montenegro

the only Mexican

painter residing in

Europe in 1920 who found himself intellectually and morally

able to transmit to the young Mexican left the principles of Cézanne: “to restore to the plastic arts the tundamental values which disappeared after the Renaissance”; he was the only

person

capable of transmitting to them

the anti-academic

rebellion of the pre-cubist period, and the pro-classicist interests of the new, post-cubist figurativism—the only person

who pointed out the degenerative dangers which could arise from commercial

snobbery. Without

the intellectual

aid of

Diego Rivera I would have been unable to formulate my “Call to the artists of America”, published in 1921 in the magazine Vida Americana in Barcelona, which Ana Brenner historians of Mexican modern art considered theoretical formulation” of our movement.

and other the “first

In 1922 Diego Rivera, with his cultural background and his already evident professional maturity, made

Mexican

mural

painting possible, and everything of value in the Mexican art movement today is founded historically on this basis. Without Rivera’s enthusiasm for public, heroic, Byzantine and Etruscan

art, our muralist movement might have had to wait until the rest of us had acquired greater maturity and the theoretical knowledge we then lacked. His neo-primitivism, his ethnography, his archaeology, his interest in folk art, were not only inevitable, they were necessary at that time; that he has still remained in such a primitive phase is quite another thing.

During the course of our first mural period (1922-4) Diego Rivera gave us the practical sense of our valuable pre-Hispanic traditions, of the values of colonial mysticism, of the varied nature of Mexican popular art; he showed us how to apply in

practice all those things which, at the time of our Barcelona appeal, were only a theory of how to find universality through direct contact with the valuable traditions of our own country.

Rivera

Hii

During the healthy period of our muralism, which coincided with the period during which he mainly worked in a collective group,

Diego

Rivera insisted in demonstrating,

with more

fervour than any of us, both theoretically and practically, the

vital need to be good craftsmen. He gave us the theoretical principles and practical experiments which would enable those of us who were “not so old” to fight against the routine teaching of the academics,

and

the auto-didacticism

of the pseudo-

moderns, against the idealisation of “ingenuity” and the dilettantism which the snobs of the Modern School of Paris found so gratifying; he made possible our present ideas about modern professionalism in modern art, in the broadest sense of

the term. At the same time, because Diego Rivera had more professional experience and more theoretical knowledge, he was

the first to pass from the aesthetic mysticism of our very first murals (in the National Preparatory School) to an eloquently ideological objective which was essential if our art was to be committed to the problems of mankind and society; his initial

theory and practice established the pattern which enabled us to improve on them. Diego Rivera, who extended our mural movement abroad at a slightly later date than Orozco, showed that our movement had international value and was not merely a native form of expression with a purely local function; he showed that, although our economy was still semi-colonial, our movement

had universal values even for the economic capitals of the world; he demonstrated that an impulse which derives from a

national urge to rebel, can destroy imperialist oppression of cultural creativity. Diego Rivera remained faithful to mural painting throughout a period in which easel painting enjoyed great success in Mexico, owing to the development of the tourist trade, from which he, with his great prestige, could have profited very greatly, as did Orozco. He kept his faith and confidence in our new Mexican school, born in the heat of the Mexican revolution, and he also kept faith with the fundamental art

forms ofall great periods of history—the forms ofpublic art.

Art and Revolution

78

And finally, Diego Rivera is vital enough to accept, as he already has done, fundamentally, by accepting the programme of the Centre for Modern Realistic Art, that our movement must

now study the problems ofproceeding to a second stage which will take into account the science and technology of our time. He understands in theory that art forms which disappeared four hundred years ago and have been resurrected cannot, in

themselves and unchanged, become the definitive style of our movement.

In theory he understands

that technique cannot

remain static and that therefore each successive generation of Mexican painters brings new energies and vigour to the evolution of our modern social art.

To sum up: it is impossible to understand ay full magnitude of Rivera’s work unless we understand that mural painting is fundamental to it, and that his easel painting is only complementary. The work of Diego Rivera, together with that of Orozco, must therefore be considered as the first expressions of

public art after a long period of world decadence. He was the first painter to produce a work ofart which was important in the

development of public art, although it had all the negative and positive elements of the period in which it was produced. This was the period of transition, the intellectual and technical

bridge between the “Montparnassian”

art of the “modern

trends” of Paris, between the art of Cézanne and our new collective drive towards a social art which would be valid for the present and future of every country.

ls The Function of the Photograph (Article published by David Alfaro Siqueiros in No. 441 of the magazine

Hoy, Mexico D. F., August 4th, 1945)

There is nothing more “comfortable” in art criticism, as in all other types of criticism, than the literary method. This is the

method which most critics have used in discussing the work of Manuel Alvarez Bravo, on show at the Modern Arts Society. When the critics refer to his ““photo-poetry” they are merely writing “photo-literature”. Their criticism is doubtless very fine, like that of the aging bohemian, affected Surrealist poets of Paris, but because it is one-sided, and only “artistic”, it is of no use, or even frankly harmful, to the somnolent artistic

intellectuals of Mexico, who are still arguing as to whether photography is or is not—yes, in the abstract—one of the fine arts. In Europe and the States it has already become obvious

that, in general terms, the mechanical procedure ofphotography can produce art.. I shall therefore try to use a different, less poetic method in

discussing photography. Although I know that this subject will have to be developed much further, I shall try to be less poetic and more objective. In view ofits origins and historical development, what is the

function of photography? This question can perhaps be answered more clearly by means of other questions which have already been answered.

Who developed this system of preserving images which we call photography? It was mostly developed by painters or people with an interest in art and artistic techniques, from the days of pre-Christian Greece.

Art and Revolution

80

True development started at the time of the Renaissance and it was actually discovered in the nineteenth century. Why should painters have wanted to invent the photograph? Because they were professionally interested in reproducing images. At first their interest was empirical but later it became scientific. They were not merely trying to compare the images they produced themselves with those of the camera. There is no question but that they were instinctively looking for a vehicle, either accessory or direct, which would lead to a more integral, truer, more realistic realism, since realism has

always been and will continue to be the basic desideratum of artists at all but the decadent periods of history. Even the “dandy” surrealism of the decadent international snobs in Paris searched for absolute realism, although of course their aesthetic angle was quite different. Logically, the painters who imagined and developed the photograph did not suspect that their brain-child would be primitive and colourless. They were hoping to capture a-true image in colours. Modern technique has already been able to produce this and it will soon be widely available. When that happens, their documentary tool will amply have fulfilled its

original purpose. How then can we explain that photography serves science, technology, everything, but not the plastic arts which brought it

into being? This is the most astounding part of the story; the most incredible paradox. Photography has not, in fact, fulfilled the

objective for which it was historically designed; and while it has made technical progress the heirs of its creators have fallen into decadence. All branches of physical science (astrophysics to a surprising degree), chemistry, medicine (through radiography and other more recent techniques), cartography (and thus geography), teaching,

military

science

and

art,

etc.,

all owe

more

to

photography than to any other of their scientific tools. As we should all know, photography can provide docu-

The Function of the Photograph mentary

81

proof of what was previously a hypothesis, and in

providing proof it has been the most valuable instrument of progress in every branch of science and technology. Photography has made scientific proof unquestionably real. Propaganda, publicity and sport also owe it a debt. What should the attitude of painters and artists be to this vehicle which their predecessors conceived and which has been

so highly perfected and developed? I must repeat, the idea of those who first conceived the notion

of the photograph and perfected the camera obscura, was to fix the image of man and the things about them as a document in their search for greater realism.

Artists of the great periods, of the progressive periods which had not yet developed the sophistical concept that the value of

art was absolute throughout history, were interested in finding out the mechanism by which we perceive things through an interplay of light and shade; they were trying to work out the principles of spatial depth and correct the errors of perspective;

they were trying to work out the movement of spatial volumes (they wanted to know how a horse runs, how an explosion occurs, the rhythm of man, etc.), they wanted to discover the

principle behind the expressions through which man expresses his sentiments (they wanted to see, not just to remember, howa

man

looks when he is crying, frightened, happy etc.); they

wanted to discover the way in which architectural surfaces were permanently active in terms of man’s physical and “metaphysical” mobility; they wanted to discover the principle behind artistic dialectics; in the last resort, what they wanted was to discover a basis from which they could analyse rationally all the scientific elements which are to be found in a work of creative art, and leave behind them the purely emotional, ultraprimitive basis on which they had hitherto functioned. Of course they could not foresee that their invention would overtake them and would provide them with realistic elements

which they had not previously imagined. They could never have thought that the first photographs, the daguerrotypes, would imitate the painting of their time. Far less could they have imagined that modern photography, in its

82

Art and Revolution

ultra-perfection, with its immensely valuable ability to capture

objective images would be inspired by the fundamentally subjective snob art of today. Photography could in fact be the technical expression of the essence of each historical period, so that painting could be successively

modernised,

truly modernised

and weaned

for

example from the pre-Raphaelitism which has set the formal aesthetic pattern for artistic production in the modern world,

including Mexico; it could serve to connect the plastic arts with new interests, which were also objects ofinterest to the Baroque

painters with their search for movement and physical and psychological action, which was the last word in the formal progress from the schematic art of remotest antiquity through the thought-provoking spatial art of the Middle Ages, and the chiaroscuro of space and volume. But the inventors of photography may also have thought of something else: that this new vehicle for preserving images, might also be able to create an art of itsown, a photographic art. And if they could see what has become of photography, perhaps

it would satisfy them more than any other development in the art field.

This is only one aspect of the function of photography, but it is a very important aspect which requires a thorough analysis; and Manuel Alvarez Bravo’s exhibition provides an excellent opportunity to do so.

Before finishing this article, I would like to make clear what I believe to be the integral function of the photograph today. The function of the photograph is: * To serve,

psychological

in a documentary

collaborator

sense,

which

can

as an

objective and

“check”

the plastic

process of both painting and all other art. * To serve, in a documentary role, science and technology. * To serve, in a documentar) role, teaching, propaganda and publicity. * Photographers,

specialised

or

otherwise,

can

simultaneously contribute their own particular aesthetic expression, their aesthetic, photographic product. We are talking about a machine? Only a machine can create graphics

The Function of the Photograph

83

and plastic art. All the tools used to produce art are machines, even the most primitive. * If artis to be carried out on the material, public, democratic scale which is required in today’s world, then we must be able to mass-reproduce it.

14 National Cinema:

True or False?

(Article published in the magazine As/, Mexico D. F., September

15th,

1945)

In this article I shall answer the fourteenth question of the twenty-five in the questionnaire which I published in the last number of Asi. Can the financiers, script-writers, directors, stars and extras, technicians, etc., really be proud of the economically precarious, painfully provincial imitations of vacuous, multi-

millionaire Hollywood productions which are being produced in Mexico today? Can the Mexican people be proud of them ? Have we improved on those very old films “‘Storm over Mexico” and “Nets”, or has our national cinema become more and more anaemically picturesque, novelettish and musical

comedy-like? In spite of its technical progress, it is culturally harmful both politically and aesthetically to Mexicans and all other South Americans. In view of the fact that the cinema is the best medium for

educating the masses, would it not be worth the Government’s while to control or nationalise our cinema industry, as Czechoslovakia has already done, and most other European countries are bound to do in order to avoid the mediocrity which must inevitably result from the mercenary box-office mentality of private film producers? In answering my previous question, I shall take the problem as a whole and will not refer to particular aspects or minor exceptions. In this way I hope to avoid errors in the appreciation

National Cinema, True or False?

85

of details and injustice in referring to isolated actors and productions. The beginnings of Mexican cinema

Modern

Mexican

painting

and

cinema

appeared

simultaneously. They are both, to a certain extent, a natural

consequence of the Mexican revolution: a consequence of the cultural upheaval which the revolution caused. Itis no accident that in the Barcelona magazine Vida Americana (1921), the Mexican intellectuals who had emerged from the Revolution simultaneously published a manifesto to “The Artists

of America”,

which

was

considered

to be the first

theoretical formulation of the future modern art movement in Mexico, and also an article on “The beginnings of Mexican cinema”. This was the first step in the orientation of Mexican art towards social functionality. Mexican cinema and Mexican painting “were born” of a

strong nationalistic feeling, like all powerful art movements which are destined to play an important role in the world ofart. In our country’s political struggle, we of the art and cinema world acquired real knowledge of the men, geography, archaeology and general traditions of Mexico. We began to discover and understand the vitally urgent problems of our national identity. At first, of course, we were very unsure of ourselves. The first films, with their primitive technique, were the exact equivalent

of our first murals and political prints. In their essential aesthetic honesty they could be compared to altar pieces and anonymous popular songs. Infantile voices, full of social vigour, urging on the fighting masses. There is a peasant proverb which says: “You learn to speak by speaking”, and this was fundamentally what we were doing. When we achieved maturity, we would serve a cause, the cause of our people and our nation, and not exist merely for the amusement of snobbish

élites or masses sickened by superficiality. This was our original programme, our elemental doctrine. But then what happened?

Art and Revolution

86

First support from abroad

Later, the young Mexican cinema industry received valuable

help from abroad (we painters would have given a great deal to have been able to receive help like this). The extraordinary material which later went to make “Storm

over

Mexico”

(although

unavoidably

adulterated

by

Hollywood) was filmed in Mexico. The stylistic and thematic

basis of Mexican cinema had its origins in this material. It seemed a healthy antithesis to the poison which Hollywood

generally turned out and it already hinted at the dynamic cinematographic art of Mexico, of the intrinsic and immediate problems of the Mexican, at the geography, archaeology and popular art of Mexico and its heroic history. Monumental and therefore public material, it was comparable to our own mural

painting. A material in which the people were the actors. Neorealist and neo-humanist, it was of immense importance for thc mass aesthetic production of the future. Of course, it had all the defects one would expect from its foreign directors; it was decorative, “‘artistic’’, and to a certain extent made for the tourist; these defects were also typical of its time, and certainly

not done on purpose. It was the product of all the negative and positive elements of Serge Eisenstein and his technical collaborators. Mexican cinema and our modern, social painting were continuing to develop on parallel lines. First fruits of our apprenticeship Then came “Nets”. A “primitive” masterpiece at the first try,

and not made by foreigners alone. Several Mexicans played a creative part in the direction ofthis film. As in the case of“Storm over Mexico”, it differed from the “Hollywood School”. The subject was more human and social. It conformed to a more active concept of cinema, rather than theatre, and therefore was more dynamic than the static type of cinema usually seen at that time. As in the first film, there were mass scenes in which the people acted, and the cinematography was neo-realist, public and heroic. The screen play was by Paul Strand, Emilio Gomez Muriel, Agustin Velazquez Chaves and Silvestre Revueltas, while

National Cinema, True or False?

87

Julio Bracho also participated. It was a fertile consequence of what had been learnt from the previous film. There was still a healthy relationship between the progress of the cinema and that of painting. But,

did

the

Mexican

cinema

fulfil

its

expression—and educator—of the Mexican historical struggle?

role

as

the

people in their

Increasing international prestige

When “Storm over Mexico” and “Nets” appeared, they received, unfortunately, more prestige abroad than they did at home. “Nets” was widely shown in the States and in Buenos Aires and, as a very important cultural event, in nearly all the important capitals of Europe. I was able to see it in one of the best cinemas in Paris, in 1937. Of course it was not only the specific value of the film, it was, to a greater extent, due to an

awakening worldwide interest in the new Mexico, in a Mexico with new political interests which had emerged from the civil war. How

to exploit these successes?

How

to profit from this

magnificent debut? A market appears The two films we mentioned before prepared the way, and “Alla en el Rancho Grande” was produced and released. A

Mexican

film with a superior material

(though

not film)

technique, and spoken in Spanish, for countries where the majority of the population was illiterate. It still had some ofthe

good qualities of its predecessors: a good popular plot, and a certain degree of honesty, etc. But it also contained a reactionary

nucleus, sufficiently disguised as to be invisible at first sight from the public. It was successful all over Mexico and Latin America.

This film was no longer a ““spearhead” oftechnical progress, and was somewhat lacking in merit. It enjoyed the same political prestige as revolutionary Mexico enjoyed among the great masses of the oppressed in Latin America. It was the socially exemplary voice of Mexico, the voice of Mexico which would

guide all those peoples to find national independence,

the

Art and Revolution

88

ownership of their land, worker reform, reading, culture and industrial modernisation. The film was not destined solely for

the large elegant cinemas of Spanish American capitals, but for cinemas in the outlying districts and the provinces. The poor

applauded while the rich suspected and despised it,as they did

everything which did not come from the imperialist capitalist centres of culture. There was no doubt that a continental commercial outlet had been found for Mexican cinema. Was adequate use made of this extraordinary opportunity? A step in the wrong direction

Our painting and engraving continued along its original, powerful way,

in spite of contamination

from

the pseudo-

modern trends of Paris and the dreadful stagnation of form. To an extent, art remained the daily collaborator of a politically

progressive state, even during the periods when the state was merely using demagogic words to hide its anti-revolutionary programme. It enjoyed a degree of economic prosperity, which mainly contaminated easel painting which pandered to the taste of the tourist. Unfortunately,

the cinema industry was quite a different story. When it conquered the popular South American market,

capitalist speculators began to show their avarice. Big film studios were built, important foreign technicians were brought in; the physical “tricks”

of North American

and European

cinema were partially learnt; new writers were paid; new actors

and extras were brought in, and so on. New capital was also incorporated, and the prosperous new industry acquired a powerful economic backing; but the initial impetus was lost,

and with it the great objective and the embryonic international value of the first efforts. The Latin American market was flooded with economic competition in the shape of films from the U.S.A., Europe and the Argentine. Mexican cinema became, with rare exceptions, uncouth, mediocre and anti-revolutionary; it became an art which directly and shamefully censored the revolutionary

programme which gave it life and sustenance—everyone knows that the State has provided both direct and indirect financial

National Cinema, True or False?

89

support to the film industry; it became an art form which merely transcribed the platitudes and “polemic chorus” of the enemies of the new order. Mexican cinema—with very rare exceptions—became a source of corruption for those intellectuals who were interested in writing for it. Important writers, some with a revolutionary

background, slowly became more and more enslaved to the social views of the bosses of the cinema industry. This happened at a vital period of Mexican history, I do not refer to political

events, but to human affairs of awider and lasting interest. Mexican

cinema

an element

of corruption for the actors,

although many of those who worked in the cinema were outstanding. It made non-professional actors theatrical and failed to get theatrical actors to adapt to the needs of the cinema. Although many tried to resist, they all became simple gesticulators, with the manners and diction of a musical comedy actor, or at best they were melodramatic. On the whole, drama became funny, and comedy ““dramatic”.

Mexican

cinema, which began so well, has managed

to

become a carbon copy of American technical “tricks” or of the static, theatrical cinema of Europe. It never seems to copy the

good examples. Mexican cinema has falsified Mexican life and the Mexican people. It has turned our horsemen into theatrical tenors or dolled up cowboys, in a servile transcription of the “Mexican

gunmen”

invented by Hollywood.

Our peasants have been

““washed”, licked clean, and dehumanised because of the stupid inferiority complexes of our producers, which have also turned our “aristocrats””, our provincial bourgeois into an anxious,

puerile, unsuccessful copy of the gentlemen of European and American “High Society”. All this is totally alien to the people and things of Mexico. And

to top all this off, Mexican

cinema

in its permanent

intellectual servility towards the worst elements of European and American cinema has made the love idyll of the stars, the focal point of all its plots. Instead of making the people act in

films and letting man play himself we have been given heavily made up, dehumanised actors.

Art and Revolution

90

When Mexican cinema tries to escape from this pattern, as it has done very exceptionally ona few recent occasions, It merely falls into the most puerile and on occasion ludicrous versions of the pseudo-surrealist, snobbish affectations of the Paris trends; and it does this so timidly that it almost makes you cry. This is the natural consequence of a half-hearted rebellion, a

shame-faced insurgence, afraid to offend the taste and pockets of its financiers.

Mexican cinema has gradually become a mixture of the theatricality of Hollywood’s operettas, the superficiality of the Spanish zarzuela, the sentimentality of French and Italian melodrama, the intellectual snobbishness of the supposedly modern French films and others of the same type, and of the

pathological degradation of traditional Mexican “burlesque”; its aesthetics answer exclusively to the socio-economic motor

which drives it and which is logically only interested in boxoffice returns and in fighting against its political enemies, although this involves trafficking in the most dangerous ideological and intellectual drugs in existence, on a national and continental scale. “ But what its “stupid” financiers—and also its artists and technicians—do not know, is that eventually this will lead to an economic catastrophe. Better box office results would accrue in

the long run from fewer but better films, with good technical and social qualities.

I have travelled through most South American countries and I can assure you that Mexican films are so unpopular with both

ordinary and intellectual audiences, that Argentinian films, which are bad enough, are beginning to gain ground. Is it too late to return to the right road, which would also be the right commercial road ? Radical changes are urgent

The Government must intervene and fight against poverty, disease, illiteracy and the general lack of culture, and for good farming, good industrial development and a real industrialisation of the country; it must educate the people both politically and aesthetically to be able to take part in this

Natianal Cinema, True or False?

91

process. The cinema is vital to every facet of progress in the Mexican

revolution,

in Mexican

democracy,

both here and

abroad. A Mexican cinema which is colonially and economically dependent can do no more than it is doing. It can never become a powerful cinema, as important as the most important in the world, which is what both Mexico and Latin America need.

The Mexican government can solve this in one of two ways: they can attempt an emergency solution which would only be partial,

or

they could

try the permanent

solution

of total

transformation. The Government must exercise aesthetic and political control over private cinema production, through a thoroughly competent commission set up for that purpose. And when the time comes, the industry must be nationalised because it represents the State’s best educational medium. It would be just as logical for the cinema to remain in private hands as it would be for the Ministry of Education—and all other official entities of education and culture—to become private, speculative capitalist concerns. Unless this is done, Mexican cinema,

the “pride”

of its

mercenary propagandists, the “pride” ofits bought critics, and today in economic trouble, will continue to bejusta big bone of contention for everyone, including its own trade union workers.

th The Creed of David Alfaro

Siqueiros (Published in the Catalogue to “45 Self-Portraits of Mexican Painters”, the National Institute of Fine Arts, Mexico, 1947)

The modern Mexican art movement, our movement, is a proclassicist movement similar to that of the period from David to

Ingres and from Cézanne to Picasso; however, we have taken the right road, the objective road towards a new classicism, a new realism,

the theoretical

desideratum

of the modern

artist at

which he hopes to arrive by reconquering, in the social and technical conditions of the democratic world, the forms of public art which disappeared after the Renaissance. This is more than just abstract theory; the work of our artists over the last twenty years has been the first step in this direction, which is the only possible universal route for the future. The modern art movement in Mexico, of which I am one of the founders, is the most important art trend in the world today.

I shall pass over the infantile or primitive stage of this movement: the period when it was necessarily ethnographic, archaeological and folk art. I believe that in the plastic arts, as in science and technology, there is inevitably a formal progress which extends from the cave

drawings to the dynamic desires of the Baroque artists and contemporary concern with subjective synthesis. I do not believe that the dynamic contribution of El Greco (who was the most advanced exponent of the Baroque) was understood by those who came after him. I try to adapt his

teaching to the conditions and forms of our time.

The Creed of D. A. Siqueiros

a3

To put this more directly: I admire the modern School of Paris for its desire for the greatest possible freedom and

creativity, in natural reaction against the ““inert”” laws and routines of Post-Renaissance academicism. I particularly admire

the magnificently synthetical dramatic elements which appear in some

of Picasso’s

work,

but at the same

time I reject the

domestic and “distinguished” turn which this has taken. I am interested in the powerful heroic and monumental spirit of Jose Clemente Orozco, but instead of the violent graphics he uses to interpret his great subject matter I would prefer to use a truly pictorial method. I bow before the magnificent craftsmanship of Diego Rivera, but I would prefer truly modern professionalism. I understand Rufino Tamayo’s contribution to the use of colour, his discoveries on “local colour”, but I would discard the chic Parisian elements which have crept into his work. I applaud the democractic spirit of the majority of Mexican

painting in the generations following my own, their “good painting” and their good craftsmanship, but I would try to avoid their trite conventionality (the real artist understands the voice of the people now and in the near future, and does not

limit himself to imitating the past or the present). Faithful to the origins of the modern Mexican School, I direct all my efforts (all my work is a plastic exercise with this objective

in view) towards mural painting and mechanical reproduction, because I consider that these are public forms which respond to

the new Socialist civilisation that is taking the place of the previous capitalist one. I search for the new realism which will result from all that artists, both past and present, have

contributed, including the subjective contributions of modern art; this will be a new, neohumanist realism.

I naturally believe that this can only be achieved through a new technology, which will include the use of materials and tools which have been discovered by science, and also all the complex problems of composition and psychology. I believe that archaic technique can only produce archaic forms and emotions.

16 Towards a New Integral Art (Article published in No. 1 of the magazine Espacios, directed by the architects Guillermo Rossell and Lorenzo Carrasco, Mexico D. F.,

September, 1948)

In all the periods when art flourished, it was integral. It was integral in China, Egypt, Greece, Rome, the Christian Middle Ages, the Arab world, the pre-Renaissance, in India, in preHispanic America—and even in Colonial America. It would be

clearer to say that it was a unitary art, simultaneously expressed in

architecture, sculpture, painting and polychroming. This

plastic unity was

the result

of functional

unity:

a

functionality born of devotion to geographical, territorial and climatological characteristics, and to the techniques, materials and tools which historically corresponded. It was also commited to the social-aesthetic objectives ofthe period. In the contemporary art world, in which a new Renaissance is

beginning, there has been a brilliant resurgence of painting and architecture, coincidence,

but they have not yet found a new point of because their social and aesthetic concepts of

function are either incomplete or insignificant. The Mexican muralist movement, our movement, began with a functional political purpose and is an exception to the general conditions of world art which I mentioned above. This is why it is historically so important. Of course, the first murals to be painted in Mexico were

painted on architecturally amorphous buildings: the National Preparatory

National

School, the old ranch chapel which

School of Agriculture in Chapingo,

Palace, the Secretariat of Public Education, etc.

is now

the

the National

Towards a New Integral Art

95

Sometimes the work was done in new buildings, in which, however,

the murals

did not form part of a pre-conceived

pictorial-architectural whole. Examples ofthis are the buildings

of the Health Ministry and the Supreme Courts ofJustice. Finally, those of us who

could

already perceive the very

explicable aberration of our first artistic efforts found ourselves obliged to make arbitrary modifications to the colonial architecture where we had to work. Such was the case of the work I did in the old Customs building, now the National Treasury. We vitally desired to produce a mural which would form an integral part of architectonic space and not merely independent panels linked together by decorative ties. In this it is true to say that our movement was touching on the fundamental aspect of function, which was the social, human

purpose of the whole building; but it did not attain what today we might call integral function, the objective of integral art, which is what we have been talking about. Even today, while we are complementing colonial buildings with our mural paintings, buildings are being put up alongside us in which the architects have no idea of the need to coordinate art forms. There is no question but that we made use of old techniques because we were painting in old buildings. It is clear that the methods of fresco and encaustic are organically related to that type of architecture. In all artistic manifestations, and particularly so in those plastic arts which are material arts, the superforms or styles, and

in the final resort, the aesthetics which spring from them, are a consequence of integral function and the corresponding techniques. It must not be forgotten that the materials and tools used in the plastic arts are generically important and tend to determine both form and style.

Up to now I have cited a historical fact and given some opinions on it. But does the path which the evolution of society follows allow us to suppose that art can once more become integral, i.e. that architecture, painting, sculpture, polychrome,

etc., will again form a whole? It is my opinion that those who have maintained in this twentieth century that the various manifestations of the plastic

Art and Revolution

96

arts have become definitely liberated by becoming autonomous,

are mistaken. If, over the centuries, the highest manifestation of artistic creation has been integral art, then this “liberation” is really only a mutilation, merely a potential reduction of the aesthetic phenomenon in the field of plastic arts. The separation ofsculpture, painting, stained glass, etc., from

architecture, was a logical consequence of the individualistic

ideas of the post-Renaissance society, the liberal society. The

new society, which we see emerging today, will be more and more a collective society, infinitely broader in this sense than

those societies which gave rise to our artistic past, because they

were theocratic, collective-religious societies, in which the people were enslaved to the minority which ruled them. The world of today, which is only a small foretaste of tomorrow’s world, is already a multitudinarious world for the service, among many other human things, of integral plastic

arts.

There cannot be the slightest doubt: in the future architecture will be on an urban

scale (the architecturally autonomous

building will cease to exist): great stadiums, theatres and cinemas (both indoor and outdoor); immense schools, hospitals, asylums, museums, monuments to the new social heroes and the

heroes of science and art, etc. And these buildings will be built not only in the big towns or near the big towns but all over every country, and they will be integrally artistic as in the best periods of the past, but in the neo-democractic and socialist conditions of the future. This architecture with its complement of mural painting, whether fixed or mechanically mobile, will also have a

new

type of stained glass, total polychromy,

total social

eloquence, because this new art will not only be comfortable in the material sense of the word, but also in the psychological, educational, political, and above all aesthetic sense.

This integrated art can only come about through new scientific mechanical

technology (the technology of the past was

almost empirical and craftsmanlike). The great technological improvements in building modern architecture, in fact in all building, has not yet, strangely enough, been understood by painters, sculptors, designers, etc.

Towards a New Integral Art

97

A new technology which will add to cement, steel, glass and plastics the materials invented by modern organic chemistry,

and

which

can

be used

in mural

painting,

monumental

sculpture, polychromy of buildings, etc.—for example, celluloid, artificial oil cloth, bakelite, vinyls, all the silicones and pyroxilines, luminous paints, all the many forms of artificial

lighting, stuccoes and finishes which absorb paint through an electrical discharge, just as today we have photographic paper which is sensitive to colour, and dozens and dozens of new materials which science will invent for us. This new technology will also provide us with modern

mechanical tools, such as the spray gun, the lineograph, the airograph, the pantograph for murals, the camera, the cinema camera,

etc., the electric projector and everything else which

facilitates and enriches figurative art work. A new technology of materials implies a new technology of forms, relative to the new forms of composition and perspective, because the old forms are too static, too mechanical in the philosophical sense of inert, and would not be right for the active spaces of active architecture, of an architecture in which

geometric forms will be highly dynamic rather than static. The idea that the rectangle, the square, the circumference, etc, are no

longer fixed forms

but can

be transformed

into all the

geometrical shapes imaginable. A composition or perspective in which the spectator is not thought of as a statue or as an automaton revolving on his own axis, but as a human being who can move about in given space in an infinite number of ways. A pictorial and sculptural technique which will be added to architectural surfaces which are both concave and convex, anda

combination of both, and broken up into pictorial and sculptural areas which will be part of the preconceived architectural plan.

A psychological-political technology, which must be an elegant socio-political complement in a formal neo-realist structure, if its integration is to be functional. Today we find purely decorative additions to modern architecture, and it is quite evident that these are essentially trivial.

I have not the slightest doubt that the old technologies of painting and sculpture, and the old technology that most of my

98

Art and Revolution

Mexican comrades are using, would be considered “heretical” in the new architecture and the integral art we all want. Just imagine for a moment a pale piece of sculpture, a sculpture

which has not been polychromed, or a mural painting which is

really just an enlarged easel painting, the fresco and encaustic processes, the rigid composition of an autonomous mural, the traditional illumination of a sculpture or a picture, and you will

understand that they would not be right. Modern painting and sculpture have not been right for ancient buildings, but the old forms of painting and sculpture would be even worse in new buildings. New voices, the new voices of an integral art which can only come from new throats. Fundamental problems of a society which supports the plastic arts, and in which teams of the most diverse artistic disciplines think and work together, will have to sit down and work out a solution based simultaneously on theoretical premises and subsequent practical applications.

197 Plastic Integration in the University City (Letter to the architect Carlos Lazo, in charge of building the University City of the Federal District, written on February 20th, 1951)

In answer to your questions regarding the inclusion of paintings and sculpture in the overall plan for the University City, I would like to make the following points: 1. It is impossible to imagine that a University City could be built in Mexico today—in the centre of the modern muralist movement—without including painting, and as a natural corollary, sculpture. 2. Mexico is, in fact, the only country in the world today where

a true movement of plastic integration could exist; the term usually used by Mexican muralists is: a truly unified modern art movement. 3. Up to now, Mexican mural painting has been carried out in

old buildings or in buildings which were not specifically planned to include painting and sculpture. 4. Therefore the construction ofthe University City will be the first opportunity for Mexican painting and sculpture to attain the second stage. It is because this opportunity has not so far arisen that our movement is today in an impasse. 5. Did the architects and engineers who drew up the plans for

the University City understand this? It might be mentioned that construction is already quite advanced and this problem has not yet been discussed. It is quite obvious that there has been no official and organic participation ofthe pertinent specialists.

100

Art and Revolution

This matter must be decided urgently otherwise our University City will only be integrated after the manner of Corbusier-Miro or Corbusier-Leger, which would be totally contrary to the essence of Mexican muralism and would not benefit Mexican architecture; this would be the lesser of two

evils, the greater would be that the University City should be built like the recently built banks and cinemas in Mexico, in which architecture, painting, sculpture, illumination, etc. have been simultaneously conceived but with such a commercial sense ofaesthetics that they can only serve as an example of what not to do. The other danger, and this is by far the worst, is that

the University City in Mexico, a country with a great figurative art movement and great architectural drive, should have no painting or sculpture. What then is my opinion and that of most of the Mexican painters and sculptors as to how to solve this problem both in theory and in practice?

1.

A commission of the most experienced Mexican muralists

and of younger painters with mural experience, together with a few sculptors, should immediately be coopted onto the panel of

architects and engineers in charge of the project. 2.

This

commission,

in

closest

collaboration

with

the

architects, should resolve the following essential problems as quickly as possible:

(a) The exterior and interior polychroming of the University City.

(b) The decision as to where mural paintings and sculptures are to be placed, both inside and outside the buildings. (c) Which subjects correspond to the University City as a whole, and which to each of the separate buildings or sections. 3. In view of the novelty of the problem both for Mexico and the rest of the world, I do not think it likely that the different ideas and tastes ofthe architects, painters and sculptors involved

will make agreement impossible. It should be possible to set up separate teams,

each with its own

aesthetic and constructive

Plastic Integration in University City evaluation, which would

nevertheless conform

101 to the general

plan and a certain uniformity of style. 4. Architects, painters and sculptors, once they are integrated into the directive body, should immediately proceed to revise all

the work in process and all the plans which are now being

developed, from the view point of plastic integration. 5. The author of these lines will contribute his own point of view from within this commission, like all the other painters, architects and sculptors. 6. Public discussion on this problem is impracticable for

reasons of time, and can only be abstract at this stage. Only the opinion of specialists with some practice in specific areas can

give results.

18 Chapters from the book “How to Paint a Mural” (From

D. A. Siquieros, How

to Paint a Mural,

Ediciones

Mexicanas,

1951)

THE

IMPORTANCE

OF TEAM

WORK

It is obvious that a mural painting, because ofits size, cannot be carried out by one man alone; it cannot be an individual work of art. Easel painting is, by its very nature, individual. It is therefore quite difhcult for painters whose mental

structure was been formed by easel painting to understand what we might call the collective painter. It is very possible that during our first period, which ran from 1922 to 1924, we Mexican painters exaggerated and idealised the theory of collective work, and this was why we became somewhat disillusioned with it, up to the point where we actually thought of it as a utopian dream. We used to speak—perhaps too much—of a “collective studio”, like that of the Italian

Renascentists. What really happened was that our chronological proximity to easel painting, with its concept of panel and not of space, made it almost impossible to work as a team. However, my later experiences in painting murals, in Los Angeles, California, gave me some practical experience which on the one hand dispelled my mystical ideas about directorless team work, and on the other hand inspired me to work in a team

in San Miguel de Allende.

How to Paint a Mural

This is the only type of work which painting. I allowed my collaborators, to learn for themselves. Since we subject of the mural, I allowed them to the wall.

103

can teach the art of mural both teachers and pupils, all knew beforehand the

to start tracing directly on

What was the result? In the first place, we found we needed a director, in the same way as an orchestra needs a conductor. In the second place, we noticed that each one tended to apply his own style. And in the third place, we discovered that no matter

how good the drawing might be, it was no good for mural painting unless it conformed strictly to the mural method of polyangular drawing. It was a motley collection; each one had unconsciously tried

to paint his own composition as though he were doing an easel painting and not painting something which formed part of a whole. The weakest part was the tracing on the vaulted ceiling, because the distortions ruined the sense of proportion with the tracing on the walls. The members of the team decided that it would be a good idea if they were to organise themselves into as many teams as there were subject zones. Our mural was dedicated to General Ignacio Allende, an outstanding figure in the Mexican struggle for independence; there was one team for Allende’s birth, one for his childhood, etc. Because they were all traditionally easel painters, they felt that the solution to the problem lay

exclusively in what we might call the plastic or graphic language of the painting, in other words, in its style. For the same reason,

they felt that a figure started with its dress and not with what was underneath the dress. And it is a fact that the contemporary world believes that style is both cause and effect, rather than the

culmination of an aesthetic-practical function. In mural painting style is determined by architectural factors and, if the function of the place to be decorated is taken into account, of

spatial and social factors too. If you start off by deciding the style, you destroy everything before you start. We noticed that, typical ofpainters in an individualistic world, they had not only

begun with the style, but that each one had tried to impose his own style. Like good easel painters, they totally forgot the

104

Art and Revolution

spatial sense of the composition and each painted an autonomous area. It was hardly necessary for me to join in the discussion. They themselves were constructively critical and arrived at important conclusions. These were, more or less textually, as follows:

In painting a mural, all the painters form a team and that team must only have one director. The director, who should be the most experienced painter, should, when the fundamental

bases of the work are decided, encourage and coordinate the creative contribution ofall the others; ifa wall painting within a determined room is considered as an integral pictorial fact, it will simplify the composition if each area is.considered as the corner of a picture. Mural painting has no room for the feudal

techniques of easel painting; in order to paint a mural we must find a technology that responds to its physical problems, we must find mechanical tools, synthetic materials, and new concepts of composition, and more industrial methods of working.

The painters who were studying at San Miguel de Allende to become muralists, also realised the way new materials and tools

which make painting quicker and easier to do collectively, determine the character of the work. What should we say about

a man who tried to paint an oil painting using the fresco style? THE

PRACTICAL

PHOTOGRAPHED,

WORK

OF

SO THAT

OF THIS

STAGE

THE

MEMBERS

MISTAKES OF THE

CAN WORK

OF

THE

TEAM

BE OBSERVED. SHOULD

BE

SHOULD THE

BE

RECORDS

KEPT

The members of the team were allowed complete freedom of expression in applying their own interpretation of what I had taught in my lectures, and proceeded to trace out both the composition and the subject of the mural to be painted. They were very bewildered by the problems they encountered. They had completely forgotten to take the spectator into account. Nor had they taken into account the geometry ofthe vaulted ceiling. Like all other painters trained in the tradition of easel painting, they thought of the mural as just a much larger picture. They had each concentrated on the

How to Paint a Mural

105

section assigned to them, and forgotten the concept of the whole. The tracings on the vertical surfaces were terribly overcrowded, so full offigures that these were no longer visible, and the arches or horizontal surfaces seemed completely shapeless. I suggested that the students should take photographs of what they had done. When they themselves had thought things over, they realised that I had been right about the tracings. I think that this is a practice which should never be omitted. The photograph isa lesson in self-criticism and I think itis essential to study the photographs before actually starting to paint the mural. UNDERSTANDING

THE

GEOMETRIC

STRUCTURE

OF THE

ARCHITECT

Once the tracing has been done and the photographs taken, these are put away for later use and the formal work is begun: the architect’s geometric structure must be thoroughly understood. In the case of San Miguel de Allende, the architect lived in the eighteenth century and did not leave any plans. Therefore it was necessary to measure very carefully all the arches and the walls and floor, and analyse these geometrically.

This was a much more complicated task than it would have been

in a modern building. However, we were able to understand it perfectly, particularly as in the course of our work we got rid of several extra layers which had accumulated over the years, and

got down to the original structure. I then recommended that we should closely observe the room while walking both fast and slowly, and this is of vital importance.

Movement

gave us a

better understanding of the elliptical composition the architect had used than cold objective analysis would have done. By studying the height of the walls, the relationship between the walls and the vaulted ceiling, the inter-spatial relationship between

the

arches,

vaults,

walls

and

floor,

we

came

to

understand the marvellous play of space in the room where we were to paint our mural. A lineal scale model—if the term can be used—built

with wire, would

then give us the rhythmic

geometric play of the architect and this would be the framework for the structure of our mural. We had already decided on the

Art and Revolution

106

objective magnitude and subjective dynamics of our mural. We now had the springboard ready from which we could project ourselves

into our work;

and it was an extraordinarily fine

springboard. In my opinion, the process I have just described was the only one it was possible to follow, particularly as this was an ancient

building and the mural could not easily be cleaned away once it was done. It would be a very grave error not to reconstruct what I call the dynamic geometry of the architect, when we do not have the architect’s plans to hand. At this point, we should talk about the question of style in

painting murals in old buildings; this is a subject which has been heatedly discussed by all the Mexican muralists, both among themselves and with easel painters, and with many foreign artists. What style should we use when painting a mural in a colonial building? I have always given the following answer: There is nothing more absurd than to reconstruct a style of the past. In the case of Mexican colonial architecture, we would

be faced with an insoluble problem. There was no real mural painting done during colonial times. In my opinion, mural painting in colonial times manifested itself in the form of the great Baroque altar pieces in high relief, with polychromed statues and paintings, all enclosed in a gold-plated frame. This was religious painting and the style was in keeping. There is no doubt that in old buildings the only thing which must be respected is the spatial factor and what I might call its functional strategy. This is exactly what the Italians did before the Reniassance, and they were often working in buildings which had been built long before. I believe that what we did in San Miguel de Allende ratified my point ofview. FUNCTION

AND

SUBJECT

SHOULD

BE DECIDED

BY THE

TEAM

Once the structure and the infrastructure of our mural have been decided, we must discuss the subject; in this case it was dedicated to the memory of Allende.

San Miguel de Allende, the name of the village where we were

How to Paint a Mural

to paint our

mural,

TOT

was

thus called in honour

of General

Ignacio Allende who was born there. In our group discussions we commented that he had been one of the most capable and forceful insurgents in Mexico. After a series of discussions we decided that our subject would be “Monument to General Ignacio Allende”. We decided to divide our (overall) subject into several subsections. What should these be? What historical and human circumstances had determined the revolutionary mentality of General Allende? The best way to find out was to study the relevant texts, and to talk to some of the more important local inhabitants.

We discovered that Ignacio Allende had belonged to one of the richest families in the locality. His family, of purely Spanish

descent, owned the biggest cattle ranch in an area which was the largest cattle centre in Mexico, and perhaps in all America at that time. We also discovered that in colonial times the most

important tanneries of the country were situated in San Miguel de Allende, and that there was a big trade in exporting hides and animal fat to Europe,

and to other American

countries. We

discovered that Allende’s baptism had been a great event in the town. The place where Allende had been baptised was the sacristy of the parish church, and was still practically intact. We discovered that as a boy he had frequently shown a spirit of rebellion. He had been a pupil of Father Diaz de Gamarra, the

first Cartesian in America, who had taught him the ideas of Rousseau and the French Encyclopaedists. We discovered that at

a later date Ignacio Allende, in common with most other young revolutionaries, probably owing to their great vitality, had lived

a disorderly passionate life, and had been distinguished as a sportsman, particularly as a horseman and a bull fighter. In the birthplace of Ignacio Allende which also saw his political and military exploits, with the aid ofthe local inhabitants we came to know his history and that of the area where the spark of independence had been struck. By choosing a historical subject in a place which was so

important in the fight for Mexico’s independence did we help our art in any way? Was it an arbitrary act to get a group of

108

_

Art and Revolution

young artists, most of them foreign, to spend time on this study? Would it perhaps have been better to take as a subject for our

mural something which was not related to history and had no ideological content? The group contained formalist, semiformalist and pro-realist painters; none of them had any definite theory to which they could make their work conform. The decision to give our mural a political function and adopt

the theme of Allende was unanimous; by exalting the figure of one of our great political heroes we were both disseminating history and fulfilling a political function. We resolved to link the plastic

beauty,

rhythm,

geometrical

movement,

colour

relationships, and the play of textures, expressions and pictorial psychology to a utilitarian purpose.

Had we not done so we

would have been guilty of ridiculous escapism. When we were discussing the subject, we decided that this type of subject could only be painted in a realistic style, a style which corresponded to our functional purpose, in the historical and aesthetic

conditions of the precise moment in which we were painting it.

But could we determine a priori what the realistic style of our painting would be? Should we paint in the realistic style of the German primitives? Or the Flemish primitives? Or perhaps we

should paint in the style of Diego Velazquez de Silva, who may perhaps be considered the first naturalist realist? In the style of Courbet? Or in the style of the Nain brothers? Or should we copy the pro-realist style of the painters of the Soviet Union? We decided that we could not decide this beforehand. We would

decide our style during the course of our work; we would trust to our own perception and rational consideration of the problem, based on the reactions of the public. Art, we said, is produced both by the artist and his audience simultaneously, and we added: art must be suited to the audience. This is why art

was great when it had a great audience, and was poor when its audience was socially restricted. All this discussion about the function of the room, the subject

and the style led us to divide our subject into the following sections:

The baptism of Allende amid silk and gold, the gold of the

Baroque churches of Mexico; the wealthy childhood ofAllende;

How to Paint a Mural

109

the tempestuous youth of Allende; Allende the student, concerned with the theories of the French Revolution; Allende the conspirator; the spark of the War of Independence; the

shooting of our hero and his simultaneous apotheosis. We had already collected a lot of historical facts about our subject. We now had to develop the theme ina series of concrete studies. For example, we needed a troop of horsemen for various sections of our mural. What would be better, pencil

sketches or photographs? We would find out in practice. We set to work with both pen and camera, and after eight days of field work

we returned

to the studio and compared

results. The

pencil sketches were vague aesthetic pictures from which it might be possible later on to reconstruct the action of the horses and men, but it would be a slow, tedious process. It was obvious that the physical and mechanical anatomy of men and horses in action had been perceived briefly and schematically. The photographs, on the other hand, gave us what we needed,

although the camera has monocular vision. Thus we had the objective material from which we could work.

If an object is known we can create a painting from it when we are looking at it or when it is not present. Even the abstract artists

admit this. A photograph merely fixes the presence ofthe object and has enormous documental escape from reality, the modern committed the greatest blunder because a mechanical apparatus

capture reality. The camera

value. I believe that, in their painters of the school of Paris in the history of art, precisely had just made it possible to

allowed objective art to emerge

from its impasse, it made it possible for realism to progress. The camera is the indispensable tool of a new realism, and it would

be impossible even to think of solving such problems without it. The

camera

consolidated

astronomical

and

astro-physical

knowledge. X-rays allowed medicine to acquire a more than empirical knowledge of the inside of man, and permitted him to photograph the inside of a living organism. It captures images: how can we, who create images, ignore or despise it? The camera is a new collaborator which will accompany the development of muralism and will be valid in the future as well as today.

Art and Revolution

ie) DECIDING

ON

THE

TOOLS

AND

MATERIALS

TO

BE

USED

What implements did the first prehistoric painters use? They

used blood as the adhesive agent and they mixed it with earth and natural pigments. Some time later, they used milk (today milk is used to manufacture casein-based colours). It is said the Egyptians, who invented beer, used that instead of milk or blood. It is quite certain that the Egyptians and Ancient Greeks used tree resins, like the American copal which was used by preHispanic Indians. There is no doubt that their materials and implements developed in accordance with their industrial development. Of course, the intellectual contemporary world, which believes that artistic creation can only be produced by artistic

genius, is not interested in these problems. It has not tried to find out more about the materials used in the past. Nothing is known about the kind of paint used by the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Etruscans, the aborigines of pre- Hispanic America,

etc., when they polychromed the outside of their buildings (the very fact that these buildings had been polychromed was ignored); all that has been said regarding this has been in the nature of ahypothesis, and it has referred mainly to the Mexican murals. It has been suggested, for example, that encaustic wax was used to polychrome the walls. What do we know about this process? The first murals to be painted in modern Mexico were

painted with the encaustic process. Diego Rivera used it to paint the amphitheatre of the National Preparatory School in 1922, Fermin Revueltas used it to paint the right hand panel of the North Door of that building, Garcia Cahero used it on the central panel, and Fernando Leal and I both used it on the

staircase of the Small School in the same building. Our process was slightly more modern than the original. In order to melt our colours and to warm up those parts ofthe wall which were to be varnished with copal we used a blow torch, and

this was also used to go over our work. I often asked myselfat the time (I was 23 years old) whether

How to Paint a Mural

111

there was any point in using the essence of lavender which was the most expensive of the three components of encaustic wax? I came to the conclusion that the lavender oil was only used to

keep the colours runny and easy to manage, because when we applied the heat it evaporated. Could we perhaps use petrol, which cost only a minute fraction of the cost of the lavender oil?

And so I did. The paintings which I produced using petrol are today as well preserved as those of Rivera and the others who used the orthodox recipe based on oil of lavender. In fact, the

only real advantage of the lavender was its scent. However, we all felt, particularly Rivera, that fresco was the best mural paint. The Egyptians, the Greeks, the Pompeians and pre-Hispanic Americans had all used it, and so had the preRenascentists, the Renascentists, Giotto, Masaccio, Michel-

angelo, etc. We said: we are reviving mural painting, and fresco is the best process.

What is fresco painting? In those days painters painted with oils, tempera and water colours; these were all industrial products, and the artists had no idea of their chemical composition, they only knew where to buy them. Some of us, particularly Rivera and myself, had been to Italy

and spent long hours looking at the most famous frescoes, which we had copied; but like typical painters of our times, we had only copied the style, because at the time we did not know that style is the natural result of the media used to produce it.

And so we tried, like all our artistic colleagues of the postCézanne and Cubist period, to copy the fresco style in oil. (In

fact, the modern French painters stopped painting oil paintings with oil, because they believed the flat, pure colours, the primitive colours, were better.) So fresco had to be rediscovered. Rivera spoke to us of abook on the subject by Chenino Cenini, written towards the end ofthe Italian Renaissance. Where could we find this book ? Wewenttoall the libraries, the antique booksellers, and miraculously we found the book—but it was written in an Italian that no one in Mexico could understand. Not even Rivera could make sense ofit.

A young Frenchman called Jean Charlot was working with us, and he had learnt at the Fontainebleau School a recipe of sorts

Art and Revolution

112

for fresco painting. He told us that the idea was to paint onto a mixture of lime and sand which was still wet, with colouring powders dissolved in plain water. But Jean Charlot had no idea of the proportions to be used, or the consistency of the lime and

sand. We had learnt something, but not yet enough to be able to start working with the system used by Giotto and Michelangelo.

At this stage of our search, Xavier Guerrero appeared, a pure

Indian Mexican of the Nahua race, who had been brought up in the north of Mexico. His father had'been a “duck” (wall painters are called “ducks” in Mexico). He had learnt from his

father all the processes of applying paint to walls, which have

been used in our country from the remotest times. And when we told him what Charlot had told us about fresco, he said: “The stuff the Frenchman calls fresco has been used here in Mexico for years. Those red ochre walls you all have in your kitchens are painted with fresco. Both the inside and the outside of Mexican churches and even the house fronts have always been painted with this. The only difference is that sometimes we put some cactus juice in the water and this makes the mixture a little more

consistent and the colour adheres better.” Xavier Guerrero gave

us information regarding the local use of fresco. In these technical

conditions,

we began

to produce what

might be called the second stage of our work. As we progressed, we

discovered

that

the

cactus

juice was

not

necessary.

It

produced a kind offilm, rather like tempera. When the pigments were dissolved in plain water, they crystallised sufficiently, and this fixed the colour. When we returned to our study of the

origins of fresco, we came to the conclusion that we were using exactly the same process which had been used all over the world for centuries, even for many centuries before Christ. A few years

ago, several European painters suggested that we were not using the true fresco process, because our liquid penetrated the layer of lime and cement to a depth of at least six millimetres. They

were totally wrong. The liquid did not penetrate at all, it could not penetrate, and the crystallising process had already been described. Contemporaneous painters who try to maintain the theory that art is an exclusively emotional phenomenon do not

understand these things.

How to Paint a Mural

oes

Up to then we had used the traditional methods of encaustic

and fresco. Was it possible that nothing had been invented since with which to paint both interiors and that the original techniques could not Even then I had my doubts, which conversation, and also in the articles

exteriors? Was it possible be improved on? I frequently expressed in which Jean Charlot and I

wrote together and published anonymously under the signature of “Engineer Araujo”. About seven years later I was able to substantiate my ideas, as follows: Fundamentally, if you paint with Egyptian fresco (the traditional mixture of lime and sand) and you want to paint well, you must produce pre-Christian or mediaeval Christian art (in the Giottesque style of my compatriot, Rivera, whose frescos painted over the last twenty years are the best example ofthis). If

you paint with od (and oil represented enormous progress over fresco and the old tempera; oil made the pictorial revolution of the Renaissance technically possible), if you paint with oil you have to paint Baroque, Renaissance Christian art. The small oil painting, the water colour, the pastel, etc. (intended for the small,

private room) belong to the nineteenth century impressionist art

of the new

bourgeoisie.

When

you use these industrially

anachronistic materials in the present time you either produce archaeological art (Picasso in his neo-Etruscan or Pompeian

period), or false magic (Orozco in his murals), pseudo modernity and nothing else. It is an immutable art principle that materials and tools have a genetic value: they produce their own fruit. Each period reflects the voice ofits own industry and the level ofits technique, and this is an eternal law. None of my concrete opinions on the composition of mural

painting was the result of mere aprior intellectual speculation, they

were

all

the

natural

result

of a

graded

series

of

‘coincidences’, logical coincidences, if Imay use the term. The same thing happened with regard to my views on materials. In 1932 the Chouinard School ofArt in Los Angeles invited me to participate in a collective mural painting in their own building. This was to be an external mural on a rough concrete wall. In Mexico

we had painted murals on walls made of brick and

pra

Art and Revolution

plaster, but never on concrete. Would it be possible to use the

traditional fresco mixture of lime and sand on rough concrete? At first I thought it would be totally impossible. We decided to consult an architect, who turned out to be the famous Austrian, Neutra, and he answered our first problem as follows: “I would not advise you to spread a layer of lime and sand on a concrete

wall, although I, like all the other architects of my generation, do not know anything about fresco nor about mural painting. I have lived at a period when mural painting does not exist.” He then explained to us the different characteristics of mixtures of cement and sand and lime and sand, the way they contract and

expand,

their different rates of drying and their chemical

peculiarities. He then asked me

to explain to him exactly what fresco

painting was, and how the colours became firmly fixed into the mixture. When I explained that they became fixed because the

grains of pigment crystallised together with the other parts of the mixture, he said: “‘Cement crystallises even more strongly than your mixture of lime and sand. Why don’t you use the same

process, using cement instead of your traditional mixture?” And so we started work. It was a fact that our colours became even more solidly fixed in cement than they had done before, but we found that the cement set more rapidly than the lime and sand mixture, which meant that we had to work very quickly on a very small area.

Because it was setting two or three times faster, we found it impossible to work with our traditional tools, i.e. with paint brushes.

When I observed industrial painting in the United States, I discovered that in painting cars, refrigerators, railway carriages, furniture, walls and many other things a spray gun was used instead ofa brush. Even the finer work was done mechanically. Commercial art was already converted to the aerograph, the

lineograph and the pantograph. Perhaps we could find a tool

which would be commensurate with the setting speed of the cement. Could we use the spray gun?

We had anxious talks and grave doubts over these questions. One of the members of my group, a famous English painter of

How to Paint a Mural

115

formal, academic inclination, made the following statement: “A

great part of the painter's sensitivity is in his finger tips, which are almost electrically sensitive. How can this be transmitted

into a large piece of industrial machinery?” This appeared to be a crushing argument. But during the night I consulted with my pillow and began to ask myself: “When has a physical, material work of art ever been produced without machinery? Wasn't the hard stone used to mark a softer stone, a machine? Isn't the paint brush made out of wood and bristle, produced in a factory? Weren't the implements used by

the pre-Renascentists and the Renascentists to paint the clothing of some charcoal

of their characters, mechanical tools? How about holders? Didn't people maintain for years that

cinematography would never become an art because it was produced by machinery?” And so I realised without any doubt that we must use modern implements to produce modern art.

And we began to use the spray gun. How did we use it? All we did was to substitute a modern instrument for an an old-fashioned one. It was a tool which allowed us to work faster, but we hadn’t yet realised that tools

play just as important a part in determining a work of art as materials. They are not inert insensitive media, animated by the hand of man; they have voices of their own and man must interpret them. When the paint brush was invented it produced new possibilities, new styles, new forms, in figurative art. Here was a parallel case.

Nevertheless when I began to use the aerograph, and thought I had merely exchanged a slow tool for a fast one, I secretly suffered tremendously from the blurred effect I obtained from

the new tool. We traced and modelled with did not give us the same plasticity as our With our new machine we were producing different from what we had inherited from

the spray gun, but it traditional brushes. something radically the great periods of

the past. Now if my theory were to prove true, sooner or later we

were bound to get good results. It was simply a problem of finding the most fertile combination ofthe creative man and his material means.

These things don’t happen overnight. It is quite possible that

116

Art and Revolution

when the brush was invented it was not very suitable for putting paint in the crevices made by hard stones on softer stones. Doubtless it took some time for the artists of the day to discover

the “manner” of their brushes, which they probably thought of as highly mechanical. We have similar problems. At that time we were using fresco colours, pigments dissolved in water. We spread them over the layer of cement with our air pistol. There was an evident contradiction in this use of old paint and new tools. It was only later that we discovered that tools, like materials, contribute their own aesthetic expression. The hard stone imposed its own style on the soft stone. The brush made its own contribution. New bristle, new fibre, new hair all determined

new possibilities. Each successive invention enriched painting

by making a greater variety of things possible. So we see that each new implement dictates its own style and we have to follow it. Does this mean that the artist is the slave of

his tools and his materials? Not at all. What I am saying is

that this is a problem of creation and procreation, not of spontaneous generation. And two elements are necessary for all

creation and procreation. I often say that the first thing an artist must do is to listen to his tools and materials and to understand

them. I often say also that you cannot paint an oil painting with fresco nor a fresco painting with oil. Perhaps it would be clearer if Isaid that a flute only produces flute music and not trombone music; that five different pianists can each interpret a work in his

own way, but they will all be playing piano music, and the one who plays the best piano music on the piano is the best pianist. There is no doubt that without steel, concrete and plastics there

would be no modern buildings. With regard to “accident” and “coincidence” in different pictorial materials and tools, and in rough and smooth surfaces, it is true to say that we find different textural accidents and

coincidences. Even in true fresco painting, different brushes produce different effects and textures. Otherwise it would make no sense for the painter to use different surface finishes and different brushes. And how else to explain the use of different

types of canvas in oil painting? The special thing about oil was

How to Paint a Mural

Y

that it was a thick paste rather than a liquid like previous paints. And this leads me on to further considerations which are important: the degree of pastiness of a paint is related to its period; the more modern it is, the thicker the paint; and this explains why we are always trying to find thicker, i.e. more plastic, paints. We could say a lot more about this with reference to definite

problems connected with mural painting and painting in general. I shall just make a few points now: 1. In painting, as in all the plastic (physical) arts, the materials used contain within themselves the most profound and eloquently poetical means of expression. It is the gravest of errors to look for poetry elsewhere than in the materials used to produce material art.

2. A given material, like a given country, can only produce its own formal fruit and its own poetical flower. The painter who does not think in terms ofhis materials and who thinks, like the

cubists,

only of investigating

geometrical

abstractions,

or

concentrates on the subject in the abstract as the surrealists do,

can only produce an imaginary tree in space, which has no roots. Painting is a material art which cannot create by using archaic or anachronistic materials and tools, precisely because these materials determine what is created, and behind every material there is a particular epoch of society with its own industrial characteristics. This is where the artist may draw close to or away from man, with all his historical problems. Perhaps it was because the poetic role of materials in shaping a work ofart was not understood that modern artists were sidetracked into a pretentious metaphysics.

3. How could the leading painters from Cézanne onwards believe that it would be possible to bring about “the most important revolution in the world of painting” without going any further than the superficial problem of style?

I ask myself the following question: Are we then not to regard modern Mexican painting as a revolution, since at first it used— and many of its painters still use—traditional tools? And I

Art and Revolution

118

answer:

It would

not

have

mattered

particularly

if the

cosmopolitan art movement in Paris had begun by using traditional materials, as long as it had also begun to understand that no revolution can be complete unless its technical means

are appropriate. But in fact they had no inkling of this problem, because their function was purely élitist or bureaucratic and therefore commercial.

A painting destined to adorn the interior of a rich man’s house had no need of a powerful material technique. Inside those houses, ifapicture is too near the fire they move it, if the

sun shines on it they pull the curtains, if it is made of fragile materials they protect it with glass, and every day a smart servant dusts it. Public art, as we call it, is very different. Because ofits size, this type of art requires a study of materials. First the problem of humidity has to be considered (saltpetre, natural fissures and

those due to building subsidence, etc.). Then the advantages and disadvantages of layers of fresco on modern concrete buildings have to be discussed, etc. And finally one understands that the

great scientific, technical and industrial progress of the modern world has contributed enormously to our pictorial technique and to the poetry of our era.

Should we change the technology we have inherited from the past? Our immediate ancestors were incapable of improving on “Egyptian” technique, and even those painters of the modern School of Paris who hoped to achieve “the most important

pictorial revolution of all times’? made no technical changes. 1 say that we must replace our old technique with one which is not

only in keeping with the science, technique and industry of our times, but is also an advanced technique, in the vanguard of science. Of course, we cannot do this a priori or all of asudden, it will be the consequence of a slow functional process, full of the mistakes from which man always learns. Only one really definite

statement can be made today. The material techniques of the

past are as useless to painting as the Greek flute with three notes is to modern music or monolithic building to modern building. From what elements and experiments Can we start to develop our new positively modern technology? We have the mural

How to Paint a Mural

119

panels of the “Bolivar” amphitheatre in the National Preparatory School (painted by Rivera), the main door of the

same

building

(painted by Fermin

Revueltas),

the central

staircase of the same school (the work of Emilio Garcia Cahero), the north side of the well of the staircase (Fernando Leal), and those which I painted myself on the ceiling and walls of the Small School of the Preparatory School. These were all painted with encaustic. There is the experience of all the murals which Rivera, Orozco and myself painted both in Mexico and outside Mexico (mostly in the United States). These were all painted in

traditional fresco. Of the murals I painted in Los Angeles, the first was done in fresco on white cement, using the spray gun for the first time, and the second was done on black cement, also with a spray gun, and making use of the camera, the electric projector and other less important implements. My mural in

Argentina was done on dry white cement with silicate. The transportable work which we painted in our experimental studio in New York, is now mainly in the collection of the Museum of Modern Art in New York. I may mention, too, the murals which Miguel Covarrubias painted in San Francisco, California, and the mural of the Mexican Syndicate of Electricians, in Mexico City, which I did in collaboration with Antonio Pujol, Luis Arenal and Jose Renan. This last was

painted on a dry cement surface with pyroxiline paint, using the spray gun, the camera, the electric projector, the lineograph, etc. Furthermore, it was the result of a truly collective effort, a real team effort. The mural I painted in Chillan, Chile, was produced in a room shaped like a cube and was painted on a concave surface, built of masonite and filled with celotex. In the same way, mechanical tools were also used in other murals, such as the one I painted in Havana.

BUILDING

THE

FIRST

SCAFFOLD

We decided to paint the mural of San Miguel de Allende with pyroxiline,

and

our

first

task

was

to

start

building

the

scaffolding. This must always be a complete scaffold, so that the fundamental tracings can be done according to a method which

120

Art and Revolution

we will call harmonic inter-spatial correlations, and not by the traditional method ofthe Italian Renaissance, which subdivided

the general structure into autonomous areas; this was the method originally used in the muralist renaissance in Mexico. Once

the scaffolding is built, we can proceed

to resolve the

harmonic correlations of the objective-aesthetic rectangle of each ofthe walls and also the arches. How is this to be done? For example, it is possible to trace out

autonomous zones by using a movable scaffold, which can be placed alongside each wall in turn. What sort of scaffold should we need in order to trace out our work as planned? For example, in order to trace out something which goes from the angle on the extreme left of the south to the extreme right of the north, we must

have someone

at both ends. An interspatial

tracing is like a net which joins together each and every part. So there must be a scaffolding which permits the artist to touch every millimetre of the hundreds or thousands of square metres of the room, so that painters can be placed at every fundamental

and complementary point ofthe space to be painted. The technique we use for our scaffold is absolutely primitive, and craftsmanlike, like all contemporary art techniques. At this

point I must make a digression which should prove useful. I believe that the tremendous difference which exists today

between the handicraft technique of so called modern painting and the nature of the world which has made enormous mechanical progress is the main cause of artistic failure. The

painter or sculptor of today paints in private studios with archaic tools and materials for a small “select” market. Contemporary artistic production has been limited to primitive, archaic methods of production, although the world has made incredible progress in chemistry and plastics. In conclusion: we must try to invent a modern type of scaffolding for our mural

painting instead of the primitive type we are using today, which

is of the type used by builders and only good for working on small areas one at a time. We must have a light mechanical scaffolding which can be set up and taken down very quickly,

and which should allow us to see the whole mural atall times,

because the mural must be considered as a whole. It would not

How to Paint a Mural

at

be totally beyond the bounds of possibility to believe that in the

near future, with the development of mural painting in more technically advanced countries, it might be possible to use a scaffold in the form of a rotating tower, with the possibility of extending itself in all directions like the apparatus used in the

cinema industry. Modern commercial art can provide us with very useful experience in this matter and in other technical matters. There are new paint formulas, for example, and movable scaffolds such as those used to paint advertisements on

very tall buildings. Of course all the problems inherent in a new mural technology depend on the official and private demand for more murals.

THE FUNDAMENTAL TRACING: COMPOSITION

We have already decided on the function of the room we are to decorate, we have decided on our subject, and made a historical study of it, we have collected graphic material to illustrate our historical study, we have produced sketches and photographs.

Now we must proceed to make a photographic analysis of the polyangular distortions of each area. When this has been done, we must start tracing on the walls. In mural painting, more than in any other kind ofpainting, we must go from the general to the particular. In mural painting, the main emphasis should be placed on the primary volumes as a structural base for subsequent details. The distance from which our mural is to be viewed requires that superfluous elements should be eliminated. For example, the lines of the face and all other anatomical details must be eliminated—for the simple reason

that, not being visible at viewing distance they will only weaken the pictorial structure.

Let us use the concrete example ofthe mural of San Miguel de Allende to show how we should proceed. First we look for what

in easel painting or simple, rectangular murals

are called

harmonious relationships. We begin to draw stright lines which

connect angle to angle in a rectangular, geometric way. We shall thus find the centre of a given space. Then we divide the vertical centre by a perpendicular line; then the horizontal centre; then

122

Art and Revolution

we bisect again; and this can go on ad infinitum, in the measure which the composition requires. This is done in all the panels which make up the space to be decorated. When this process has been finished in each autonomous area, we proceed to trace out the harmonious spatial relationships, i.e. the connection

between angle and angle, by means ofvisual straight lines, of the spatial volume or concavity ofthe whole room, or to put it more

simply, from corner to corner. This is done with string, and the projection on the walls of the places where these strings cross is observed from the different viewing angles. This is what gives spatial unity to the different parts of an architectonic space,

because it unites the arches with the vertical surfaces and the floor. We can thus surround the spectator with a “harmonious machine” which will provide him with harmonious solutions no matter where he is in the room, and whether he stands or sits, and looks up or down. After this, it is necessary to start marking out on this framework, the elements which refer directly to the subject we have chosen. On the wall or area which will deal with the

baptism ofAllende, we trace out the general composition which corresponds to that area, we observe it from its three, four, five

or more fundamental angles and we then draw the ground plan on which the figures and other voluminous objects will move. Before allowing people to come into a room, the room must be prepared just as the ground must be prepared before a troop of horses operates on it. When all the general fundamentals have been finished, we pass to the details, the realistic aspect of our subject. We shall find even more distortions in the details than we found in the

great masses of our composition. The small geometric forms which make up the figures and other objects suffer most acutely from the contraction of the surface on which they are painted. When looked at from the front, a person can be represented by

an oval, but when this oval is viewed from the central angle of the room it becomes so flattened that it cannot contain a normal human proportion. It must be extended or amplified into what is almost a circle or horizontal elipse. But then what happens at

the frontal angle or the less narrow angles? This is the problem,

How to Paint a Mural

123

and it has to be solved by shading or draping, or by using part of another figure. Each case requires its own particular solution, so that the spectator gets a normal, realistic picture from whichever angle he views it. We find a purely instinctive solution to this problem in the work of El Greco. El Greco, in his big murals solved this problem most admirably with a reflection, a cloud, a fluttering drape, the shoulder of another figure, etc. We must think out our solutions beforehand and make use of all the modern tools at our disposal, as you will see later. When the experts understand that there are many physical problems in art, perhaps they will decide to make a study ofthem in order to find solutions.

DETERMINING

In 1932

THE

FUNDAMENTAL

SPECTATOR

POINTS:

I was contracted by the Chouinard

COMPOSITION

School of Los

Angeles, California, to teach a class of applied mural painting. What they really wanted was that I should teach the students what I had learnt about painting with fresco in Mexico. When I went to the Chouinard School of Art I received my first surprise: they wanted me to painta mural on an outside wall,

open to the sun and the rain and which could be seen extensively from the street. Furthermore it was a solid concrete wall. In Mexico—I thought to myself—we have painted on brick walls, on masonry, on stone and even on a kind of volcanic stone

called “tegontle”. The wall could be seen from the street and was seen by an increasingly large public who, as they either walked or rode by, saw it from a very sharp angle, from the extreme right and hardly ever directly from the centre, because the top of a wall cut off their view. Up to then I, as a typical fresco painter of the first

mural period, intellectually (though not _ instinctively) considered the mural panel as nothing more than an enlarged easel painting. I thought of it as a problem which had to be resolved inside a much larger rectangle, but I thought of that rectangle as a static form and did not think of projecting outwards from the horizontal and vertical extremes. An independent, autonomous rectangle viewed by a human

124

Art and Revolution

spectator. My colleague Diego Rivera still uses that technique today, twenty-seven years later.

I now began to have my first

theoretical doubts. Would it not be better to resolve this mural in accordance with the angle from which passers by were going to see it? Should I take into account only the spectator who would actually come into the patio and stand motionless in front of the mural, as though he were looking at an easel painting? After we started our work, and while I was still observing the wall from

the angles,

both

near

and

far, from

which

the

immobile spectator would see it, something happened which was of importance both to my pupils and myself. We had a habit of wandering around Los Angeles, looking at the important buildings and dreaming of hypothetical commissions for murals and hypothetically solving the problems these would present. We often visited big government buildings, railway stations, etc. And one day we arrived at the Public Library. From the entrance you walked down a long corridor to an enormous vestibule in which an English academic had painted a large rectangular mural. From the entrance to the corridor you could already see part of the

mural, which seemed to grow in size as you walked down the corridor. When you arrived at the entrance to the vestibule you could see the whole thing. Visitors then had to proceed to a

lateral door, either to the right or the left, situated at each extreme of the mural. Once again I asked myself whether composition and perspective should be projected from a mathematically

symmetrical fixed point at an adequate distance from the rectangle. Could you consider the spectator as a statue ona fixed

point, gyrating on his own axis? The more I thought about it, the stranger it seemed: the composition limited to a rectangle; the rectangle considered as a static, geometrical form; the

traditional, rectilinear perspective—they were all undoubtedly

false and unscientific (with all due respect to the historical merit of Leonardo da Vinci). Composition limited to the mural rectangle, but using curvilinear perspective was also completely false. (This idea of a spectator moving along a fixed axis had

How to Paint a Mural

125

already started to worry a talented, perspicacious Mexican, Luis G. Serrano.) The human spectator did not fit into either of these

two categories, and the only difference in the second case was that the line became

curved and turned

the cubic space of

rectilinear perspective into a spherical space.This was progress,

of course, but only a weak beginning. What were we to do in San Miguel de Allende? From my former experiences, I developed a premise which I considered

fundamental to future murals: The pictorial composition ofthe mural must conform to the normal transit of a spectator in the place where the mural is to be painted.

What would this normal transit be at San Miguel de Allende? Let us have a look at several points: the entrance to the room,

through a door at the north-west end; the mathematical centre of the room; the extreme southern and northern angles, and the mathematical position in front of each of the sections.

Let us examine a concrete example of what might be called the superposition of only two “spectator points”: that of the entrance and that of the centre of the room, and perhaps to an extent the southern end and centre of the room. It is desired to

obtain normal realism from each of the angles, because it would be absurd to suppose that the wall will be seen from only one of our angles, whether from the entrance, which would be frontal,

or from the most obtuse angle, which in this case is the mathematical centre; an angle of approximately 22.5 degrees. We must pay close attention to this coordination ofspectator

angles throughout the whole of our work, at every stage. It is important in the geometrical tracing, the interweaving of perspectives and the choice of colour (colour in itself established its own terms and this is one of the few contributions which the snobbish formalism of Paris has contributed to the theory of

technique). All true architectonic space, whether indoors or out, concave

or convex, is a machine, and its parts, such as the walls, floor, arches, ceiling, etc., are the wheels of this machine, which must be seen as a machine which moves rhythmically, with a

geometric play of infinite intensity. Unless I am mistaken, a wheel by itself, or two wheels by themselves, or even three, even

126

Art and Revolution

if they are connected to each other, are of necessity static parts of

a body which is geometrically dynamic. One wall, two walls facing each other, even the combination between an arch and a panel, form a dynamic, rhythmic machine in which the ellipses

cross and mingle with each other. The parts on their own are as immobile as easel pictures, under the yoke of their frame. As we shall see later, and in this lies the marvel of the phenomenon, it is only the active spectator inside the mural concavity who can switch on this rhythmic, architectonic machine. We shall see

how when the spectator stands still, the machine stops moving. It has always seemed to me one of the powerful manifestations of life that all the volumes of man, both those which he encloses within himself and those which surround him, are activated by his own movements. As we walk or ride along the street, the shapes of the houses, the trees, the people,

everything

stretches

or

shrinks

with

the rhythm

of our

movement. Perhaps it has been easier to observe this from modern transport vehicles. Remember how the inclination of an airplane alters our view of the ground, and how mountains,

valleys and the microscopic things we see moving down below seem to acquire an extraordinary geometrical activity, which could not be observed from the vehicles of the past. This same phenomenon, dependent on the rhythm and speed of the spectator, happens in an architectonic space. It is essential to make use of this phenomenon in mural

painting. Anyone who paints murals without taking this into

account is not really a mural painter. And this is why I say, and I

do not exaggerate, that all mural painting in the past, even that of my Mexican colleagues, and most of my own work, is not yet mural painting. And although this may seem blasphemy, I say that all the best mural paintings of antiquity, together with those of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance,

are not really murals,

because their authors did not take sufficiently into account the movement of the spectator. In my opinion a truly spatial mural has not yet been

produced. All that has been done is to organise the balanced

interplay of autonomous panels. I shall recall only one example,

perhaps the best: Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel. We see there a

How to Paint a Mural

127

mural painting, The Last Judgement, and on the ceiling (although

the lateral paintings are not his) a work of genius which is, when

all is said and done, a series of murals painted horizontally and from top to bottom. Each of these panels or mural pictures has its own subject and its own unitary composition, and they are

connected to each other, in the way of the times, by trompe l’eil or simulated ornamental architecture.

There is no evidence in the Sistine Chapel that Michelangelo had any theories about the unity of architectonic space. I have

often thought that it might have been the materials and tools of those times which did not permit a uniform conception of a naturally active architectonic concavity. It is well known that

fresco is a long, slow job, especially on the ceiling and arches. It is impossible to make rapid alterations in order to correct the whole. We can also find an adequate example in Mexico: the

painting by Diego Rivera in the ex-chapel of Chapingo, now the School of Agriculture. This is perhaps Rivera’s most complete work, because it covers the whole of an architectural unit and is

not just a succession ofpanels like those of the Ministry of Public

Education

or the National

Palace.

Diego Rivera is a new

Michelangelo, four hundred years later, and followed the same method—that which the material technique of fresco forced on

him. In the ex-church of Chapingo, as in the Sistine chapel, there is harmonious coordination of many panels, each with its

own subject and solution, linked together by trompe Uceil. We cannot discuss the problems of pictorial, architectonic

space

without

utilising

the

Renaissance

knowledge

of

perspective, which is still valid, although there has been some progress in this field in the last few years. There are two kinds of perspective—rectilinear and curvilinear. Leonardo da Vinci perfected rectilinear perspective, which

assumes the spectator to be a statue on a fixed base looking ata fixed point in the centre of a straight line on the horizon, known as the vanishing point. Curvilinear perspective was invented by various painters at

the end of the last century or the beginning of this one, and presupposes

a spectator who is also a statue, but one which

128

Art and Revolution

revolves on an axis, which thus curves the line of the horizon,

but oddly enough does not modify the vanishing point. This

implies progress to the following extent:

the first type of

perspective envisages space as a cube and the second as a sphere, which is much nearer to the physical reality of the visual world. However, the real spectator is not a statue, but a man walking along a plane and activating all the geometric forms about him through his movement. A rectangle becomes a truncated pyramid, inclined sometimes to the right and at others to the left;

circumferences

can

become

eliptical,

etc.

An

active

spectator requires a new system of composition and consequently a new concept of active space in architecture. How did I arrive at these conclusions? Was it merely the result

of speculation? It was the result of the murals I painted in Los Angeles in 1932 and 1933. These murals faced the street and were to be seen by passers by, frequently from cars or buses passing by at some speed. In

San Miguel de Allende we were working on an interior. It could be said that the mural of Los Angeles was painted on a convexity and that of San Miguel on a concavity, an architectural concavity. We therefore had to consider a spectator moving at normal, slow speed, who would enter the room through its only

door. On entering the room, the visitor sees a frontal area and to his left a wall which is placed at about 10 or 15 degrees with regard to himself. This was our first observation point. He then walks to the mathematical centre of the room and takes a general look about him. In order to do this he would turn completely on his own axis and would move his head up and down. This was our second observation point. The spectator then advances towards the south of the room which shuts off his vision of the other end. This was our third point. Then he walks from one end of the room to the other, while moving his head up and down and from side to side. At this point, the

architectonic machine starts working in accordance with the rhythm of his movements, and when he gets to the other end of the room we get a situation similar to the one at the south end. This was the fourth point. The spectator having obtained a general view of the room, now proceeds to study it in detail. He

How to Paint a Mural

129

walks about, standing symmetrically in front of each picture, or panel, with part of the arches above it, which he raises his head to see. The room is divided into ten zones or panels, so he makes ten different stops. This was our fifth point. What would have happened had our work been composed in the traditional way?

In order to see it all, he would have had to walk round as though it were a museum, looking at each bit in turn, and without trying

to see them from different angles. If you were to ask me what scientific laws we would have to use in order to solve the problem of mural composition in terms ofa real, live spectator, I would have to answer than none has been formulated yet. Our method is purely empirical. No scientist

has yet investigated this problem. We can say that all traditional methods of perspective are false. And all the laws formulated by

the cubists, and which came to us through Diego Rivera, are false, because they function in terms ofa static geometric body, and envisage the rectangle as a visual rectangle, when in mural painting this is not true. I believe the error lies in considering a small rectangle which can be totally observed at once by the eye to be the same thing as a large mural rectangle, which cannot be totally seen in the same way, and therefore suffers distortions in those parts which are furthest from the eye in every direction; and these distortions are increased when the spectator moves. The only practical method of composition in architectonic space at the moment is to look at the series of problems to be

solved, and to resolve them by looking. The camera and the movie

camera

are

magnificent

collaborators

in

this

task,

although they do not correspond to man’s bi-ocular vision. In

fact, photography accentuates the distortions. MAKING

USE OF A POLYANGULAR

METHOD

TO

CORRECT

THE TRACING

It is necessary to use a polyangular method in painting murals, which will take into account the ten, fifteen, twenty or more

angles from which a spectator may see the work. How to do this? A separate composition and organisation must be worked

out from each ofthe angles decided upon, and the compositions relative to each angle must then be superposed so as to give the

130

Art and Revolution

spectator the illusion of reality from every point in the room. Since we had no past experience to go on, we had to work this out for ourselves. First we conformed our drawings in the normal way to our first spectator point. We then photographed the work from that point. We then photographed it from all the other points, in order of importance. This gives us irrefutable evidence of the approximate distortion which is visible. We then worked on the photographs taken from the angles, and corrected them so as to normalise the planes, and volumes of the objects.

I have only spoken of the camera so far, and not of the projector,

because

I wanted

to devote a short paragraph

this, in order to express myself more

to

clearly. If we take the

drawing as seen “normally”, not from an angle, and project it on to the panel from another spectator angle, we get something very similar to the original, because the image itself distorts as it becomes longer. This is why the projector is so important. When I say very similar, I mean that it is not identical to the original, because when the projector projects an image sideways onto a wall, the picture becomes distended towards the far side of the panel. This is quite logical, if the distance from the projector

lens is measured. In a field which has been investigated so little, there is infinite room for experiments, research and discoveries. We are merely

reading the first letters of an alphabet which is hundreds of times larger than our whole language. So we found it easy in San Miguel de Allende to make progress. Our photographic colleague (there should always be one or two photographers ina team of mural painters), John G. Roberts, invented an addition

to the projector lens which helped us to perfect to a very high degree the excessive stretching of figures, which I mentioned previously. This was a vertical axis, which moved the glass on

which the drawing was placed from one side to another according to the angle at which the projector was placed. Some of the other members of the team, for example David

Barajas and Ben Hammil, began to work out formulas and theories, based on our work with the projector, with regard to the problems of building pictorial or graphic forms on plane surfaces seen from an angle.

How to Paint a Mural

oa

Can you imagine how difficult it would have been for us to organise the horizontal planes of the ceilings, floors and arches without the use of the camera and the projector? There is no doubt about it: the problems of mural painting, and

of painting

in general,

are

fundamentally

tied to the

discovery of new technologies, with all the real significance of this world. The archaic techniques of so called modern European painting can only lead to retrograde solutions, whatever sophisticated plasticity is given to the geometric elements and general forms which are the skeleton of all painting, both figurative and abstract. I spoke of the problem of the arches. Although they are intimately connected with the walls, I will mention a few points.

The arches are not only horizontal to the ground, and therefore uncomfortable

for the spectator to look at, but they are also

concave and this is a further problem. There are profound differences between a concave and convex surface and a flat surface. If all geometric surfaces are active in terms of spectator movement, the concave surface is much more active. Distortion

is highly increased. Each surface imposes its own style of painting and the concave surface requires curvilinear drawings and spherical volumes,

and the total elimination of the true

straight line, although not of the apparently straight line, which can only be seen from certain angles ofvision. In the technical report I published after painting my small mural, in La Habana (1943), titled “Allegory of equality and confraternity of the black and white races in Cuba”, there is an

objective report on these concepts of mine. The technical characteristics are as follows. It is semi-exterior,

painted in a covered gallery overlooking a street. The covered surface is 40 square metres (five metres long by eight metres high); except for the horizontal part on the ceiling, it was concave to a depth of more than a metre and built on six 45

degree angles. This was an unusual form of pictorial surface, and the spectator viewed it from a very close position; the only

partial antecedents were my murals “Plastic Exercise” in the Argentina and “Death to the Invader” in Chillan, Chile. But this present mural was much more concave. I exploited this concavity so as to emphasise the active character (deformations

132

Art and Revolution

or distortions) which is found in every type of architectonic and geometrical space. I made use of my previous experience to try and build a more dynamic, a truly dynamic structure, because I

believe that so far we have only produced graphic snapshots of movement, a fixed graphic movement, but not movement itself as a visual phenomenon. I had previously decided to make the concave surface appear convex, and the horizontal surface

vertical, by using tricks of painting. And when I finished I was convinced that this small mural had enriched the possibilities of future murals. The photographs that were taken amply proved that the concave parts looked convex and the horizontal parts looked vertical.

FROM

TRACING

TO

COLOUR

My practice has led me to the conclusion that the preparatory

organisation of space should not be limited to the lineal tracing, but that immediately afterwards masses or flat areas of colour must be applied because (and this is one of the things which have been rediscovered by the abstractionists of the cosmopolitan

School of Paris) colour has a spatial value, since it gives different depths. There are as yet no laws about this, nor any formulas obtained by experience. The cubists, who constructed pictorial

space with flat colours, have not given us any information, although they have filled page after page with supposedly scientific laws which are really emotionally instructive.

It is

neither exaggerated nor slanderous to say that all this is just a bluff, one of the many which suit the international markets of

galleries like Rosenberg’s or Berein Jeune’s. I was perfectly conscious of this and did not provide the members of my team with any false information as we

proceeded to complement our spatial organisation of the mural at San Miguel de Allende with colour, using only our eyes and our feelings. For example, in the panel which was subjectwise the most important, the one on the extreme south depicting the death and apotheosis of our hero, we decided to represent a

range of mountains.

How to Paint a Mural

133

As we began to apply the colour I called the students’ attention to an interesting phenomenon: the luminous colours

(for example the golden ochres) seemed further from our eyes than the browns and siennas. Quite often the warm colours, those in which red predominates (the cold colours are those in which blue predominates), appeared further away than the others, which according to our traditional ideas are supposedly atmospheric.

What could this be due to? When will the experts help us to understand

this scientifically? I think I can put forward

the

following theory: colours have no autonomous value nor belligerency of their own; they only live through chromatic relationships with the colours

around them. It is perfectly obvious that when blue is surrounded by reds it

is not the same as a blue surrounded by greens and yellows, even though it is physically the same colour. There is no doubt that this is a dialectical problem. In this connection, 1 can recall a

case that the guides in Italy knew by heart. They used pieces of card to mark off an area which was an almost violet blue, in a

mural of Fra Angelico, and when the blue patch was cut off from the rest, it turned grey or drab. I can understand that the Italian pre-Renascentists

and

the Renascentists

had

to resolve

the

problems of the blues by studying the colours around them, because they were frequently short of really blue pigment which would stand up to the lime surface of fresco painting.

We called our system ofdividing up the room into areas offlat colours, the fundamental or initial polychromy of the work. By using colour in this way we accentuated the anatomy of the architecture and this is a classic method which we have amplified on theoretically. In pre-Christian antiquity, in the Middle Ages, the pre-

Renaissance

and

even

during

part

of the

Renaissance,

architecture and sculpture were always polychromed. The artists of those times used colour to delineate architectonic areas, the

columns of a building, the bases and capitals of columns, door frames, cornices, etc. Even today in some small villages in Mexico, in Italy and perhaps in Asia, builders will always finisha house with this kind of polychroming. The more outstanding

Art and Revolution

134

parts are painted in brilliant colours and the other parts with colours that blend into the background. Polychromy in sculpture was used in the same way. In our mural at San Miguel de Allende we highlighted the architect’s elliptical composition through the use of colour, we accentuated the concavity of the vaulting and the relationship of the arches. We used colour in the same way as it was used in the village houses of San Miguel de Allende. According to our plan, the mural would be polychromed in

accordance with the general composition, and in keeping with this we also decided to polychrome the floor with coloured cement, using the process of coloured artificial mosaic. I cannot say any more about the use of colour, because colour

is an intensely personal thing and you can no more theorise about colour than you can tell a person how to draw. BUILDING

THE

SECOND

DISMANTLED

EASILY:

IF THE

TOTAL

SCAFFOLD, REAL WORK

A

MURAL CAN

MOVABLE PAINTING

BE VIEWED

ONE

THAT

IS ONLY AT

ALL

CAN

BE

POSSIBLE

TIMES

I will now refer to the scaffolding from which the actual painting is done.

It must

be movable

and easy to dismantle.

Why?

Because, as we have seen before, in modern mural painting it is necessary to be able to have an uninterrupted view of the whole

of the surface to be painted. In this type of painting you must always leave free that part of the floor along which the spectator is expected to walk. How can we do this? We must realise that

once again we have very little previous knowledge to go on (it should not be forgotten that the scaffold the mural painter uses today is quite simply that used by a builder or painter) and so we

had a kind of competition among all the members ofthe team to design what we needed. Those who came from a highly industrialised and mechanically minded country found an excellent solution quite easily. They built four towers or trolleys on wheels, which could be screwed together, and were of sucha

height that it was possible to work on the walls and the arches simultaneously. They could also be pushed right across the room very easily by one man, and taken apart in less than ten

How to Paint a Mural

135

minutes. You might think that this solution was so obvious that it does not need a separate chapter. In fact, it was something that anyone could have thought of, but it is so intimately linked to the problem of spatial composition that it was necessary to call attention to it. I have said before that both with respect to the scaffolding and to every other aspect of the material techniques of painting, we are still painting the way the Egyptians ploughed. What sort of scaffold will be used in the future? We have some inkling of this in the cinematographer’s moving trolley, with its extensible arm. We should have something like this for mural painting, but with several arms. What a difference it would make to mural painting if we could view its development constantly and systematically from a modern piece of apparatus instead of our own wooden towers! Once again, I must underline the importance oftools in all the physical arts. There is no doubt that the development of metallurgy and metal wind instruments made an enormous difference to the orchestra. I would say to those abstractionists who look for poetry outside matter: it is matter which gives rise to poetry, in painting as in all the arts and in the largest and smallest manifestations of the cosmos. To sum up: even the scaffolding is important to the painting. SUPERVISING THE PHOTOGENIC

QUALITY

OF THE

WORK

Photography was useful in analysing the geometrical structure of the room we were to decorate, it helped us with the visual

deformations and with all the other stages of our work, so why should it not serve to analyse the whole finished work? In all the murals I have painted since 1932 I have followed this procedure before finishing. Of course the lack of money has sometimes stopped me from doing this to my entire satisfaction. On the principle that our work is a public form of art, we must

see that it reaches as many people as possible. We can therefore say (begging the pardon of those who believe in the mystique of aesthetics)

that,

in the last resort,

mural

painting

must

be

photogenic, i.e. easily photographed in black and white, so that it is not limited to the physical place where it is painted and can

136

Art and Revolution

be circulated to a wider public. And only in this way will it be really public. Although originally this was impossible, it is becoming more and more easy. In the past (and only in the later period of the Renaissance) prints and engravings were made of murals. Through these, the Spaniards were able to appreciate some of the finest work of the Italian Renaissance, which later

influenced their own work. There was no the Mexican painters in colonial times anything of the Italian Renaissance which greatly. If the artists of the Renaissance and

other way by which could have known influenced them so later were able to do

this, surely we, with all the means at our disposal, can do much

. more. A question arises here. Do wejust want to reproduce any kind of painting? Not at all. But our paintings should have the ultimate artistic objective of being multiply reproduced. Since we have not yet finished the mural at San Miguel de Allende, I shall have to refer to previous experiences with my own murals. Firstly, the mural of the Mexican Syndicate of

Electricians. Many photographers, both Mexican and foreign have photographed this, including photographers from the Museum of Modern Art in New York. I drew the following conclusions from this first experience. A mural which has been planned and painted with a sense of space (not that of an easel painting or a mural panel) must be planned in terms of several points from which it can be viewed. If this has not been done, the

photograph will not reveal the pictorial truth of the mural, its visual magic. Many photographers find this hard to understand, because in photographing works of art they, like most painters, have the routine concept of the static rectangle. They provide us with photographs of objects divorced from their surroundings. It was alright to photograph isolated parts of preRenaissance and Renaissance murals and those ofthe miserable academic period which followed—because they were really a series of separate pictures joined together. In the future,

cinematography will be of the utmost importance in photographing murals. The cine camera can reproduce visual truth,

and that is the pictorial truth of mural painting; because of its power to move, it can reconstruct in a given architectonic

How to Paint a Mural

137

photograph the normal active process of the spectator, which was the basis of the painting's composition; itcan reproduce the path of the spectator from the furthermost corner right up to the picture and thus pick out differences in texture. If the film is made in colour (and there is no doubt that black and white will disappear just as the silent cinema has done) then the mural will have been totally reproduced for circulation to the people.

I have still to mention something which I think will be of importance to what we might call the Poly-Art of the future. Something which follows logically after my remarks about filming mural paintings. Everyone knows the animated cartoon film which resulted from a combination of drawing, colour and the cinema; Walt Disney was the most famous producer of these cartoons. The cartoon makes me wonder whether it would be possible to arrive at a relationship between formal mural

painting and the cinema. Would it come to the point where a finished work of art would actually be the colour film made of it? It has always been difficult for me to understand why modern

painters, having seen these cartoons, have not looked for the relationship between polychromed abstract forms. Now we can understand that they failed to do so because they were not up to date in their material technique, and their so-called modernity

was in fact archaeological. But what these ““chi-chi” painters have failed to do, could be done by the neo-realists. Can the

sensitive

reader

duction

in colours

imagine

it—a real cinematographic

of a mural

with a sense

repro-

of movement

and space and deep thematic significance? What would the masters of the Renaissance say if they could see their murals,

which although public could not be moved from the walls they were painted on, reproduced and sent all over the world so that everyone could see almost the same thing as the visitors to the

original murals

can see? Painting and the cinema

wonderful things together.

can do

HS, Towards Arts

Realism in the Plastic

(Lecture delivered in the Manuel

M. Ponce Room of the Palace of Fine

Arts, Mexico City, July 2nd, 1954)

Tonight I shall talk about nineteen points and hope to make a methodical contribution to this series of discussions organised by the architect, Alberto T. Arsi. 1. Fortunately, these discussions on architecture and plastic

integration are conducted in a more direct, democratic way than they used to be in the old academist élitist days. It would be only fair to acknowledge that this is due in no small part to what some

architects refer to as “the rough dialectic of the painters who have been attacking the distinguished tribune of the House of the Architect”. As Architect Pedro Ramirez Vazquez said during the lecture he delivered on this very platform, “the ordinary man whom we

are trying to serve, has the right to give his opinion about architecture”. 2. By “realism” we should understand (while giving the word all the conventional meaning it has acquired in usage): logic, common sense, devotion to proven facts and, with regard to the plastic arts, the discovery of physical determinants

(geographical, climatological, etc.), and also of the determinants of subject, form and style, when we mean figurative, plastic arts.

When referring to the plastic arts we must understand realism to mean the suppression of all a priori impulses and all arbitrary invention.

Realism in the Plastic Arts

139

3. By integral art—what Mexican painters have called unitary art since 1922—we should understand the phenomenon of simultaneously created architecture, sculpture, painting, illumination, etc. A compound but indivisible phenomenon, which the ancients simply called architecture, since they could not

conceive of architecture being anything but integral, because it was always the political or politico-religious effect of a state undertaking. It was always ideological. Their architecture and plastic integration were the expressions of a theocracy, under the yoke of an élite. The official art of its time. Non-state architecture, separate from painting and sculpture, was a product of what we might call the liberal or modern world. 4. Mexican architecture was great when it was essentially realistic, in accordance with the political, physical and technical

determinants I mentioned earlier. I refer to pre- Hispanic and to a lesser degree colonial architecture. In any case, they are both

extraordinary examples ofintegral art: magnificent examples of political realism—religious political realism, of course—in integral art. 5. The architecture produced in independent Mexico, before the regime of Porfirio Diaz, was a non-realistic architecture and therefore alien to the idea of plastic integration. It was an

architecture which reflected the taste of an élite, although there were individuals with talent, like Francisco Tresguerras. It was

an architecture which did not contribute anything to the world of architecture. It was déclassé in the sense that it was not the historical, social expression of a particular class, unlike its pre-

Hispanic and colonial predecessors. This was doubtless due to the political instability of Mexico at that time. 6. The architectures of the Porfirio Diaz period was even worse. It is an example of the worst kind of anti-realism that

man has created, and what little plastic integration there was, was dreadful. It was the expression ofan imperialistic oligarchy.

It was the work of an incipient bourgeoisie which did not achieve either power or economic independence. 7. The architecture of the “revolutionary period”, which was

built about 1910, towards the end of the government of General Cardenas, was still as anti-realistic as its immediate predecessor,

140

Art and Revolution

although it moved a little nearer to integrating with the arts and the country by copying the Californian style called Mexican Colonial. This architecture was the expression cf the nouveau riche bourgeoisie, with their newly embezzled riches and

increasing submission

to the imperialists

who

gave them

muralist

movement,

economic support. 8.

Our

contemporaneous

Mexican

which dates from 1922, although its first theoretical antecedents stretch back to 1906 and 1911, was the most important movement towards plastic integration and realism in the whole world, although at the time it was still infantile. To return to architecture, even for purely romantic reasons, is

a step in the direction of plastic integration and also towards a conscious premeditated effort to arrive at complete realism. There is no doubt that Mexican muralism is the expression of a

sincerely anti-imperialist section of the people and belongs to the anti-feudal Revolution.

revolution

which

we

call

the

Mexican

9. Modern architecture based on the doctrines of “modern

European established

and Yankee

architecture

in our country from

of the vanguard”

the second

decade

was

of the

century, twenty years behind our muralism, and its magnitude is

undoubtedly symbolic of Mexico’s great potential to create its own national architecture. This can already be seen, mainly in

the great private buildings in the centre ofour capital and in the

University City; but it would be ridiculous to claim that these

buildings show evidence of autonomous national creativity and are an important contribution to world architecture. Although

they are the work of talented and audacious architects, without a doubt the best Mexico has had since her independence, the style is still a borrowed one and therefore essentially anti-realist. Their architecture is not inspired by affection for the social,

geographical and technical reality of our country. Although

they make a greater impact, they are still merely replicas of the hybrid cosmopolitan architecture which is monotonously produced all over the world. It is anti-realist and theatrical and

more than anything else it is like the commercial architecture of the United States, the worst cultural source in the whole world.

Realism in the Plastic Arts

141

This architecture and the arts integrated with it are the natural fruit of the capitalist tree. 10. When compared with the cosmopolitan trend I have just mentioned, the nationalist trend in Mexican architecture, which

we could call indigenous, is preferable because theoretically it wishes to build (or says that it wishes to build) a realistic Mexican architecture. However it loses itself in superficial, decorative

solutions which leave the underlying cosmopolitan structures virtually intact. These architects would

like to believe that a

foreigner becomes naturalised when he wears native dress—a typically tourist costume. Because this type of architecture

is based

on anti-realist

ideologies it is contrary to any important degree of plastic integration. It is the work of amateur revolutionaries, without a truly realistic sense of political revolution. It is not the work of revolutionary militants. It is only personal talent which makes its plastic realism potentially superior to the lamentable work of the architects and sculptors who built the monument to Cuauhtemoc in the Paseo de la Reforma, or those who built the pyramidal monument to the Race. This is an architectural offshoot of formalism and anti-realism.

11. Nevertheless, in spite of the lack of originality of the hybrid

cosmopolitans

and

the

false

nationality

of

the

indigenous exponents offolk art, Mexico is the scene of the most important effort in the world to integrate the arts. And although anti-realism is the cause of many errors, we still have a head start over all the other countries in the world, even those considered the most advanced in Europe. We can see the truth of this when we observe the international panorama.

12. One

of the greatest obstacles in the way of plastic

integration in Mexico is the imbalance between mural painting and

architecture.

This

exists

on

both

a technical

and

an

ideological level. Independently ofour detailed differences, our realistic pictorial objectives and our attempts to put them into practice are thwarted by the anti-realism of the architecture which is to be their organic base. The work of Carlos Merida, for

instance, would undeniably look right on the interior and exterior walls of these buildings, because of his hybrid style and

Art and Revolution

142

reactionary politics. For the same reasons, the work of realistic

painters would not. 13. Although this imbalance is detrimental to plastic integration, it is quite possible to produce pictures that will coordinate with given types ofarchitecture, up to a point. Proof of this can be found in all the murals painted on the walls of colonial buildings, and others built during the oligarchic Calles regime, both of which are totally alien in form and style to our painting. And of course, much pre-Renaissance painting was done on the walls of Roman and Romanic temples, and Renaissance pictures were painted on the walls of Byzantine and Gothic churches. Our great objective is to integrate realistic painting and sculpture with realistic architecture. And if this is not possible, we must paint realistic pictures without abandoning the struggle for plastic integration. 14. And when I talk of realistic painting being an integral part of realistic architecture,

I do not mean

naturalism,

nor

primitive descriptive painting, which are both anti-realistic; these may however sometimes be unavoidable and therefore fulfil an ideological purpose which cannot and must not be postponed. In any case, realistic architecture as part of a realistic artistic whole, should have its own theme and style, not the primitive

styles of today with their use of mosaic in the pre-Christian and Byzantine manner. 15. Of course architecture can only be realistically integrated with the plastic arts in a realistic political regime. A regime which is governed by the needs of the country and the people,

just as the arts are governed by history, geography and technique. A government cannot

produce

which

realistic

capitulates to the imperialists

architecture,

nor

can

the arts

be

integrated in the service of the people. Integrated art must be public art in the widest sense of the term. 16. Anti-popular

regimes

foster

spectacular,

demagogic

public art, which is impractical and expensive. The regime of President

Miguel

Aleman

fostered

architecture in the commercial Yankee

an

oligarchic

type

of

pattern, and this also

Realism in the Plastic Arts

143

applied to some artists. If the Aleman political trend continues

to grow it will ruin our national culture to an extent which cannot be imagined and we shall go back to the type of culture produced under Porfirio Diaz. 17. As you can see, there is an intimate connection between

political reality and realism in the integrated arts. Because of this,

the

most

important

achievements

of

architectural

integration have always been state enterprises and in the future will have to be the work ofthe new state. Private architecture and

integrated arts can only show us the general panorama of the capitalist world; an architecture born of business speculation is

governed by the economic interests ofits exploiters, rather than the needs ofthe people. If our country abandons its traditional role in the forefront of

the Latin-American

struggle against the imperialism of the

United States, the most immediate enemy of our economic and

cultural development, then our plastic integration will be nothing but a poor fiction, a formalistic facade produced by professionals with no feelings for humanity. Our cities will be transformed into litle copies of Dallas or Houston in Texas. The cultural roots of our country which were first discovered by the Mexican Revolution and the international workers

movement, through our muralist movement, will once again be buried.

18. No one with the slightest national political conscience would deny that the cultural development of Guatemala will be

suppressed by the State Department’s aggression against its sovereignty, just as Mexican cultural development would have been suppressed if the usurper General Victoriano Huerta had stayed in power. For Guatemala, for Mexico, for every oppressed country in the world, the political victory of the people is vitally necessary if they are to be able to rediscover the sources oftheir national artistic creativity. Lea popular regime in Mexico, because of its very nature,

must lead to an integration ofthe arts in terms of Mexican social and geographical reality, and also in terms of an ever improving technology. A government of this type would foster the development of Mexican art for Mexico, realistic in the broadest

144

Art and Revolution

sense of the word, and as such it would have universal values.

Can any conscientious intellectual, in defence of his own rights as a creative person, be neutral in the inevitable battle in politics and aesthetics?

20 The Salutary Presence of Mexican Artin Paris (Comments on an article by Philippe Soupault, in a lecture delivered on

August 26th, 1954, at the Palace of Fine Arts, Mexico City)

In 1943, when I was director of the Department of Fine Arts in the Ministry of Education, the poet Carlos Pellicer and the head of the department of Plastic Arts, the painter Roberto

Montenegro,

in collaboration

with the historian

Salvador

Toscano, the expert Victor M. Reyes and other members of the

department, began to prepare for a Mexican art exhibition to be shown first at home and then in Europe. We discussed the need

of our people, including both intellectuals and artists, to find their national cultural roots, to discover how our art is related to pre-Hispanic art, colonial art and popular art.

We wanted to take the exhibition to Europe in order to find

out what the European critics thought of us. We began preparing for the exhibition, but were stopped by bureaucratic complications and changes of staff. At that time (1943, 1944,

1945) what was the situation of

Mexican painting in the United States? This is an important point in the development of our subject. Ana Brenner, Francis Toor, Alma Reed, MacKinley Helm and many other writers and

art critics were giving our work much favourable publicity. Mexican

painting

had

been

and

still was

extraordinarily

popular in the States, but notin Europe. There had already been

a very important exhibition in the States, organised by Migtel Covarrubias and entitled ““Twenty Years of Mexican Art”. Ithad been a great success. Jose Clemente Orozco, Diego Rivera,

146

Art and Revolution

Covarrubias himself, Luis Arenal, myself and others had painted murals in the States, murals with our usual ideological

content. American painters were also producing murals under our influence. Roosevelt’s government fostered the painting of murals in many public places in the States, and there was some

discrimination against our painting, partial attacks which worried us, as we found our work being politically queried. Nevertheless, we had very good publicity in the States, although very little was known about us in Europe. I shall now speak about the exhibition which we sent to Paris and the very important article which Philippe Soupault wrote about it. As you may recall, our first contact with Europe was in the XXV Biennale of Venice. Orozco, Rivera, Tamayo and myself exhibited on that occasion; exhibition was by invitation onl

and no other Mexican painters were invited to exhibit by the organisers. My work received an important prize, the second in economic importance. Each of us took approximately thirty

pictures, and this gave a fairly wide panorama of contemporary Mexican painting. The Biennale was

of enormous

importance

to us.

Our

exhibition caused a sensation and much comment by the critics,

although no one made any mention ofthe ideological character of our painting. All the newspapers, of every political tendency, almost without exception, praised our work. The Italian critics

spoke intelligently of its monumental qualities, its figurativeness and its modern realism. The Trotskyists made a few political attacks on us, mainly against myself. In fact, great liberality was shown in all the critical appreciations of our movement. I have about ninety Italian press cuttings. The French were also full of praise for our work and Mexican painting in general. Many agreed that we had been the real sensation of the great event. As could be expected, the proformalists and the abstractionists made no attempt to hide their preferences, and neither did the

supporters of figurative art and social realism. The weekly magazine Ars published a very responsible article about my

work. However, later on, when things had changed, so did its

Mexican Art in Paris

147

author. But on the whole it is fair to say that opinions were honest and not spoilt by sectarianism or preconceived ideas. In Stockholm, London, Brussels and practically all the European capitals articles were written about our presence in Venice.

Why? Because at the time of the exhibition a congress of art critics was also being held in Venice, with representatives from nearly every country in the world. These critics saw our work, formed their own opinions and gave our Mexican pictorial movement magnificent international publicity.

In 1951 we again started to discuss the idea of taking an exhibition of Mexican art to Europe. After all the publicity we

had had, the National

Institute of Fine Arts was receiving

invitations to present an exhibition of Mexican art in museums in Paris, Rome, Brussels, London, Amsterdam and Stockholm,

while some governments, for example Poland, also sent invitations. It appeared at that time that the ideological nature of Mexican painting did not constitute an obstacle to international cultural exchange. The National Institute of Fine Arts has extensive documentation which proves the importance of our European exhibition.

At the beginning of 1952, a grave attack against democracy was perpetrated in Mexico in the Palace of Fine Arts; a political event which I am bound to mention here if I am to present a

true and complete account of my part in this affair. Until then,

the

ideology

of the

Mexican

painters

belonging

to

the

contemporary Mexican art movement had been respected. There had been no interference with our ideology and we were never even asked to submit previous sketches of our wall

paintings. In that sense, Mexico was an example to the world. Then

the mural

which

Rivera

had painted for the Mexican

exhibition in Paris and which was called “Nightmare of war and dream of peace”, and which had been ordered by the Mexican Government and was already half paid for, was cut from its

«frame one night and stolen. We were given to understand unofficially that this had been the work of a secret police, which maintained its own prisons and operated outside the control of the government, and that their action had not been undertaken on government orders. This was a direct attack on the ideology

148

_ Art and Revolution

of the artist, and a warning that murals which did not respond to a certain ideology would be destroyed. We believed then, and we still do, that this was not a Mexican idea. We declared: “‘It is our sincere belief that this attitude was forced on the Mexican

government by foreign powers.” Which foreign powers? There was great artistic solidarity on this occasion; some of the artists, for instance Xavier Guerrero and myself, withdrew the work which had been commissioned by the Institute of Fine

Arts specially for the Exhibition, and eighty per cent of Mexican artists condemned what had happened. Furthermore, the mutilation and confiscation of Rivera’s peace painting provoked world-wide reaction, an international scandal, and

the attention of the world was called to the ideological nature of our work, the revolutionary content of our painting. It was both said and written that Mexican artists were not artists in the common sense of the word, they were also citizens who felt it was

their right to express violent social opinions in their works of art; they had earned the right to say what they thought and that right should be respected. Of course the reactionaries were against us and said so. The exhibition of Mexican art from pre-Columbian times to the present day was presented at the Museum of Modern Art in Paris from May to June, 1952. It opened in a very tense political

atmosphere. The small Trotskyist groups in Paris were in the front ranks of the reactionaries and opened the attack. André

Breton and his band printed a leaflet against the Museum and myself and handed it out to people inside the exhibition. It said that my “hands were stained with blood’’. This was the hypocritical blether of intolerant surrealists. At the same time, Benjamin Peret, a well-known Trotskyist

who had lived with Trotsky in Mexico, published a whole page in Ars-Spectacle, the Paris weekly, in which he called me “an assassin who stains the Mexican Art Exhibition with blood by his very presence”, and he called Rivera a “painter whose Stalinism has, caused him to degenerate’. He did not comment on Orozco or other

contemporary

Mexican

painters.

His

analysis

was

pedantic and full of false erudition about prehistoric and popular art in Mexico. This was typical of the French critics.

Mexican Art in Paris

On

the

occasion

149

of the

XXV

Biennale

in Venice,

this

magazine, Ars-Spectacle, had published an article byJean Bouret, its staff critic, in which he said that the greatest successes of the Biennale had been the Belgians and the Mexicans. “The

Mexican consignment had without a doubt been the revelation of the Biennale. We expected an art which would be violent both

in form and colour, but we were far from realising that the Mexicans had achieved such greatness and such nobility in the power of their construction. Their flame, the flame of the four

artists, is the sign of extraordinary confidence in the future ofart in their country.” After the Breton-Peret campaign, a curious metamorphosis occurred. What happened to Jean Bouret after the violent

political campaign against contemporary Mexican painting?

He kept absolutely quiet about our Paris exhibition, although “the flame”

of the four painters had produced many more

paintings than were seen in Venice. How to explain this sudden change? Had the sinister hand of Yankee imperialism been at work? What had happened was that the magazine had changed hands; certain people from a certain country had bought it and

naturally its policy had changed. In Paris there was a political struggle around our exhibition. As was

to be expected we were

revolutionaries

and

applauded

the progressives,

and

by the left, the

attacked

by the

reactionaries. It is only fair to point out that the reactionaries attacked us mainly from a political point of view, and made no attempt to deny the plastic values of our work and its historical importance. To be absolutely sincere, I should also say that the praise we received from the left was a little too emphatic, not

well argued, and did not analyse the real historical importance of our movement. It was applause, passionate, fervent applause,

but nothing else. They did not define the meaning of our movement, nor its antithesis to the School of Paris. If by any chance they did, they were not very clear about it.

What was there in our exhibition which could so disgust the right-wing reactionaries? Rivera’s political picture was not exhibited, since after it was found the government of Mexico,

under President Miguel Aleman, had not wished it to be sent to

Art and Revolution

150

Paris. Other political pictures painted by Xavier Guerrero, myself and others, had also not been sent. What was the political content of the exhibition, then? Merely that some of the painters were members of the Mexican Communist Party, others were friends of the Party and most of the artists were

progressives.

This

was

the only political

content

of the

exhibition, but it greatly influenced the European critics and every picture with a They considered newspapermen. humanistic content to be communist; to paint unhappy women

with starving children was subversive and politically revolutionary;

to paint Indians,

Mexican

Indians,

who

form

the

greater part of our population, was also a communist act of subversion. The popular themes, the manifestations of our folk art, were interpreted by these critics and newspapermen as

revealing the revolutionary thoughts of communists. The comments made about our exhibition were typical of the whole situation of European culture. In the two years from 1950 to 1952, from the Venice Biennale to our Paris Exhibition, there had been a profound change. Our presence in the Biennale had

moved the critics to talk of our enormous humanitarian feeling of the

profoundly

national

character

of our

work;

they

emphasised that our painting had its own racial and geographical characteristics and was neither anodyne nor amorphous. But in Paris there was an extraordinary change. In September 1952, the Mexican Exhibition opened in Stockholm. Many people came from all over Scandinavia. Our ambassador in Stockholm, Professor Gilberto Bosques, with

surprising efficiency for a diplomat,

handed

out extensive

information about the exhibition which was published in many

Mexican

papers.

It is only fair to recognise

that these

publications show that Scandinavia had not been so contaminated by the snobbish affectations of the School ofParis, and their art critics were less biased and sectarian. Perhaps the State department had had no time to do its work there, because the Swedes and other Scandinavians showed themselves much more independent in their opinions. In March and April, 1953, our exhibition was presented in London at the Tate Gallery, and the result was similar to

Mexican Art in Paris

151

Stockholm. There was passionate discussion, almost a fight; but reactionary hysteria did not reach the French level by a long way. As in Italy, they all praised the exhibition as a whole, and spoke most favourably about the works they had liked most. How to explain this equanimity? Was it that the intrinsic value of the work was greater than its political content? Perhaps this is

true, as the FBI also operates in England. While we were in London, the Metropolitan Museum of New York asked us to send the exhibition to them. This was natural. We had exhibited in Venice, Paris, Stockholm, and London; we

were invited to Rome and other capitals; it was logical for New York to invite us as well. The Mexican Government began to discuss this invitation with the Americans, and I know they were

agreeable to sending it. But the Metropolitan Museum

then

said: “We want the exhibition, but we don’t want the political contemporary pictures. We only want the pre-Hispanic, colonial and popular art.” The Director of the National Institute of Fine Arts, the writer Andres Iduarte, answered with

dignity: “Everything or nothing.” This was one of the most flagrant acts of cultural political discrimination that we have

seen. The exhibition did not go to New York, because the American panorama had changed considerably. We were no longer the favourite child of the American critics, we were no longer the discoverers of a new world in the field of the plastic

arts; we were no longer the healthiest, most youthful and most powerful force in the art world. Our work could no longer be shown in the Metropolitan Museum. We received no explanations, but without a doubt the culprit was the American

State Department which had stirred up the reactionary forces of

Europe against the dangerous influence of our social art. In 1954, we brought our Exhibition of Mexican Art back to Mexico. It had always been the intention of both organisers

and artists that it should finally go on show in Mexico, so that Mexicans could see what the Europeans had seen and form their own conclusions about all the favourable and unfavourable criticism. International criticism is always important and in this

case it would give us'a means of evaluating contribution and the magnitude of our effort.

our

own

152

Art and Revolution

Unfortunately—and I say this very sincerely—many mistakes

were made in bringing this exhibition back to Mexico, and the first one was to dismiss Fernando

Gamboa

who had been so

efficiently in charge of our European tour. He had acquired a lot of experience and there was no solid reason for dispensing with his services. There was no proper appraisal of the situation, it

was just one of those bureaucratic games which are typical of Mexican life, and where the art field is subject to the same kind

of manipulations as the town hall: the new boss takes the badge away from the old police chief’s friend and gives it to his own friend.

At the beginning of 1954, after a long chain of complications and the possibility of political repercussions had been eliminated, the Mexican Art Exhibition opened in Mexico City.

But it was no longer the same exhibition which had travelled to Paris, Stockholm and London; it did not even include all the pictures which had been sent to the Venice Biennale. Most of the

pieces which belonged to museums and private collections in the States had been returned.

As a consequence

of this, the

works of Orozco, Rivera, Tamayo and myself had been greatly reduced. Why had the American works been returned? We all knew that the American museums were in no hurry to receive

their pictures back, because they were not going to display them. The pieces belonging to the Museum of Modern Art of New York, and that of Philadelphia, could surely have been retained. The Mexican people were certainly not able to see what the Europeans had seen ofthe work ofRivera, Tamayo, Orozco and myself.

More paintings of the newer generation of painters were brought in, but not in the right proportions. The work of the young painters should have been shown in greater quantity. This both could and should have been done in Mexico. And if this would have made the Exhibition too big for the Palace of Fine Arts it could have been housed in several buildings. There was no proper catalogue, the official publicity was weak and almost non-existent. Some of the journalists, for example

Margarita Ponce of Excelsior, criticised the absence of publicity.

And

so in Mexico

this exhibition did not enjoy the popular

Mexican Art in Paris

MOS

success it had enjoyed in Europe, it did not reach such a wide public. There was marvellous pre- Hispanic art, with some of the most extraordinary sculptures ever seen; there was our colonial art, without a doubt the best in Latin America; there was a collection of popular art the equal of which it would have been hard to find in any country in the world, and there was the young art movement, healthy, perhaps not yet fully developed, but

with a fast growing importance. Then why was it so ignored? Where were the art critics? Little press notices, mostly very insubstantial, a few reports—but where were the critical studies which an exhibition like this deserved? It was the ideal opportunity to answer many

fundamental questions. What is Mexican painting? Why has it been so violently attacked and at the same time so violently defended? Why has it moved the whole world? What is

happening to this painting? It was the moment to express honest and courageous opinions, it was an opportunity for the supporters of the School of Paris to say: “Mexican painting is totally valueless”; they could have said it quite frankly-and directly and explained their point of view to the public in short

articles. Why did they not take advantage of this occasion to do so and to tell the public that they thought our movement was provincial and still had a lot to learn from Europe, and nothing to teach it? And why did none of those who defend our painting produce a serious study of it? Some did make a start—but they

took too long.

Both the people and the artists of Mexico are waiting for a broad, serious critical review of this exhibition. The poet Carlos Pellicer has come to save the situation, but it may be too late.

However, we must congratulate him, he has understood that our painting must be discussed, so that we can understand its various

trends and the tendencies

of its artists. What is the

relationship between this painting and the Mexican revolution? What is its connection with the social movement of our country

today? What is the relationship between Mexican painting and the philosophical and political thoughts which agitate the world today? A lot of these questions could have been clarified. And so

I want to be very frank today, and give you my point of view in

154

Art and Revolution

detail, without pulling my punches, without hiding behind an insincere, pseudo-democratic liberalism. By hiding and not publishing all the European criticisms, whether favourable or not, there was a boycott. And this is why I think itis a good idea to refer to an article by the French writer Philippe Soupault,

whom I know personally and who belonged for a time to the Surrealist movement. I was very surprised when I read his article, and it was Dr. Alvar Carillo Gil who said to me: “In a

very expensive magazine, which costs twelve dollars a copy, there is an article by Philippe Soupault which

I found very

interesting.” The odd fact is that the magazine in question is one which deals principally with non-figurative European art, and is very much in favour of Surrealism; it appears every six months. The article by Philippe Soupault, which deals with the contrast

between the contemporary Mexican School and the School of Paris appeared in a magazine which is published for an élite (and

perhaps for an intellectually and culturally degraded élite). But since we would like Soupault's article to reach millions of people we shall print a popular edition in France of many thousands of copies so that it can reach as many Frenchmen.

It is not that Soupault says anything in his article which has not been said before, because many have said the same thing. What is important in his case is that he is a neutral author, who cannot be considered a man of the left, or a pro-communist; this is evident from the cut of his article and his mystical analysis

of pre-Hispanic art. In spite of this it is the most categorical article to come out of France, the most courageous and clear, and very useful to us, because he shows that there is a Mexican

movement of painting and that the internal struggle between the members of that movement is only to find out “who is most able to serve the cause of the people”.

Did it occur to Soupault to tell us to stop being so provincial, like all the Mexican supporters of the School of Paris do? And do those Mexican critics think we could stop being provincial? Would they like us to imitate the School of Paris, or do as artists did in the time of Porfirio Diaz, when Mexican culture had no

Mexican Art in Paris

155

national identity and our nationality and race made no contribution to world culture? Philippe Soupault confirms that our movement is more important than any other in Europe at the moment; that in Europe, art is mean and private, while our art is public and monumental; that compared with the

geometrical, decorative dehumanisation of the School of Paris our movement reaflirms for the benefit of Mexico and all other

countries

subjected to capitalism, a figurative art which

is

realistic and frankly modern in intention. What Philippe Soupault unfortunately does not know is that our movement has already passed into its second historical stage, characterised by murals on exterior walls, and active architectonic surfaces; that our formal research is neither one-sided nor limited, but is

carried out in the field of integral art, which includes all the creative problems to be found in the area of the plastic arts. Soupault also tells us that while the School of Paris is stuck in its inevitable historical impasse, our movement has a splendid

future before it, a road which it has hardly begun to traverse, and

our

experience

will be the salvation

of international

painting in the near future. Soupault places great importance on the collective effort. But haven’t the critics favourable to the

School

of Paris

been

saying

that

there

is no

collective

movement? As a proof of the fact that our movement does not exist, they cite the tremendous differences between the styles of Orozco and Rivera and myself and the other Mexican painters? They also say that we have no ideological unity, that there are

contradictions among us. When they say this they think they are denying the existence of our movement, a movement which is the cultural expression of the Mexican revolution, a culture based on our wonderful pre-Hispanic traditions, and our marvellous colonial and popular art. But this movement would not have arisen without the Mexican revolution. And the proof ofthis is that in other Latin American countries with similar preHispanic, colonial and popular art traditions, just as wonderful as our own, no movement has arisen. This is the case of Peru,

Ecuador

and

Colombia.

Why

did

not

contemporary

art

movement appear in those countries? Because they did not go

through a politcal upheaval as Mexico did, because there has

Art and Revolution

156

been no national shake-up to awaken in their artists a desire to

find national and racial expression. Soupault speaks of “conditions adequate to the development of art”; these conditions were found in the Mexican revolution,

and

to be frank, many

of us found

them

by joining the

Communist Party; this gave us international sentiments which

we might not have had, and put us in the vanguard of the art movement just as it put us in the vanguard of the working class and the proletarian masses. The ideology of the bourgeoisdemocratic Mexican Revolution alone, would have led us into

chauvinistic,

pseudo-nationalistic,

folkloric

ideological

confusion typical of those intellectuals who remain faithful to

the platform of the petty bourgeoisie and the new oligarchy. No, those who

say there is no contemporary

Mexican

art

movement are wrong, there is such a movement and its painters have much in common. Some people have deserted our movement and moved away from its fundamental characteristics. What are these characteristics? Does Philippe Soupault mention them in his article? In as much as he refers to the monumental, heroic characteristics of mural painting, he does; he points out that our movement is based on the mural and the print and that we reject art which is produced for private

galleries.

Soupault

has

begun

to understand,

and

other

intelligent people in Paris will eventually understand, that an art movement oriented exclusively towards gallery art, can only

lead to the errors of abstract art, the limitations of formalism, the absurdity of pure art and to decadence and the death of powerful human expression. The serious problem which all of us have before us is State Art. At all periods of history, State Art has been of supreme importance, and Soupault understands this when he speaks of the need for great, monumental, heroic art; art that is “larger than man”; art for the masses. Reading between the lines, we

can see that Paris is beginning to criticise the one-sidedness of contemporary, European painting. Our movement is different, we search for an integrated complete art, with all its attributes. We shall not achieve it yet, nor in the near future; we are the primitives ofa new period in which art will not be limited to one

Mexican Art in Paris

157

part or facet of a problem, to the first three or four letters of the artistic alphabet, but to the whole alphabet, an alphabet greatly expanded by the new letters we shall add to it. We know that impressionism was based exclusively on the vibration of light, that fauvism concentrated on colour, surrealism on the unconscious, futurism fundamentally on movement, and expressionism on emotions. But each of these elements are parts of art which should not be amputated and separated from the whole. How can you base a whole cultural

movement

on

the problem

of light or

the problem

of

movement? Did Cubism do anything but cultivate a one-sided aspect of the structure of form, in a way which was extremely

interesting but really nothing

more

than an exercise,

an

unfinished exercise? We must understand that all contemporary art is incomplete and thus inferior to the art of the great periods. Why do the painters of the School ofParis despise

Renaissance painting? Not long ago, my friend and political comrade, Fernand Leger, said to me: “Italian painting is only good from Giotto backwards. The rest is rubbish.” What an error! From Soupault’s article it appears that cultural circles in

Europe are beginning to understand

that one of the most

important contributions of our movement is that it will connect

art once again with the most valuable elements of the Italian Renaissance, which have been systematically underestimated by

the so-called painters of the vanguard in the western world, on account

of the taste for primitive and archaic art which

is

characteristic oftheir aesthetic perception. We are vindicating to the world the transcendence and importance ofthe Renaissance. It is an absurdity to say that only the work of Giotto and his

predecessors was good. What about Ucello, Masaccio, Michelangelo and the Venetians? They all made important contributions and enriched art; they did not limit themselves to

a single facet or a specific problem, they included every aspect. What does Soupault repeat from the other important French critics who understand the importance of our movement? That we are academic and old fashioned because we persist in

figurative art, in an art which does not try to erase the image of man and his surroundings? That we are academics because we

158

Art and Revolution

vindicate the human figure which the Abstracts have excluded ? People who understand this subject, know that from the time of Odilon Redon there was talk in France of “art for art’s sake”, of

pure art, which would totally eliminate from art the image of both man and things. They said: “In order to express emotions, there is no need for man to appear; we must exclude him.” This

was the beginning of an art which was purely geometrical, a play of forms and colours, a simple organisation of shades; anything that might explain man’s existence and his problems was excluded. It was logical that they next declared: “Art has no connection with social problems.” Everyone remembers the declarations of Carlos Marida against committed art, art witha purpose. I would like to ask, when has art not been committed ?

Was Christian art not committed? The Christians expressed their ideology in their art with enormous fervour, ata time when

there was a response to that fervour. And was Greek mythology not the fundamental subject matter of all the great artists and sculptors of Greece? There is a lot of speculation today about what people call the abstract forms of pre-Hispanic art in Mexico. There is nothing abstract anywhere in Meso-American art. The ancient Mexicans used their art to create a specific language, hieroglyphics. What we today see as abstract forms were letters for them, letters with a brilliant plastic quality, but they were letters, slogans, prayers, historical facts, scientific

explanations. There is not a single thing in the whole of preHispanic painting and sculpture either in Mexico or the whole of America, which is exclusively decorative or purely abstract. Many artists of today, borrow elements from pre- Hispanic arts; but they only take the shell, they cannot take the kernel, and they forget that the shell was

the result of the kernel, i.e. of the

ideological function which art had at that time.

We are in favour of figurative art and we shall fight against those who wish to withdraw from the figurative trend in Mexican art. What right have they to snatch away from us our need to depict our people, to produce the images ofour history, to express the colour and thoughts of the members of our race? Those we fight against say that we are trying to impose a doctrine; but that is not true, we are not trying to impose

Mexican Art in Paris

159

anything. We are defending what we think it is right to defend. The Mexican painting we are defending is being defended all over the world by many intellectuals and also by workers and peasants, by men of the people. In many parts of the world there

is applause for the return to a human art which does not despise

the human form; while here a group ofcultural playboys say we are taking the wrong direction, that we are miserable provincials and rustics. They are wrong, they are the provincial rustics who merely reflect the opinion of others, whose

mentality is still

colonial, who do not feel the urge to make their own contribution to the contemporary world as a people and as a nation. Even if all we had was this urge, it would be important,

because it would mean that we were on the right road and that some day we would be able to produce an authentic national expression. We believe in figurative art and we know that figurative art and realism go together. But what is figurative art? Is it just a reproduction of the human figure and other objects? Or does it have another meaning of perfection for us today, because it resumes all the historical contributions made towards realism? We do not say that we should not learn from Europe. We say that we should not learn from those who are degrading and disorienting Europe’s important art. How can we not learn from Giotto, Ucello and Masaccio? How can we stop learning from the Venetians and all the great French masters? What we are doing this to vindicate a tradition which belongs to us all, and those in France who are conscious of this are doing the same. We want to produce a more realistic realism; but I must make

some points clear. It is often said that the members

of the

Mexican art movement argue about fundamental differences in the matter

of art. This is untrue,

because we agree on the

fundamentals. We argue about the best way to serve the people, and in discussing the best way to a new realism we bear in mind

the function ofour art. This is the gist of the arguments between Orozco

and Rivera and between Rivera and myself, and the

arguments we have with the painters of the second generation who are still with us. Our discussions aim at perfecting realism

160

Art and Revolution

and achieving greater eloquence in our art which depicts man and the objects and landscape of the earth. But we are agreed on the fundamental points that our art must be limited to the mural and the print, because if we begin to produce art for the galleries, for the private market, we shall find ourselves in the same boat as those other countries where art has become abstract, puerile, a bluff, a formal lie, a fraud anda publicity trick. We will not take that road, we are united on the

fundamentals today more than ever, and we shall fight against those who

move

away,

either partially or totally, from

the

figurative and realistic tendency of Mexican art and yet want to be considered as an integral part of the Mexican art movement. The Mexican art movement is not necessarily art produced by Mexicans inside or outside of Mexico. The art of the Mexican art movement is art which sprung from a national impulse of international,

historical importance,

an art which

offers the

world its own local discoveries whenever they are of international interest and utility. It would be extremely ingenuous or malevolent to qualify as Mexican art anything which merely uses supposedly local or native elements to clothe the structure or body of an imported trend. Philippe Soupault defends our movement, and he defends even what he calls its gigantism. In Europe it is in bad taste to paint a figure that is larger than life. Many critics forget that we are mainly mural painters, and they find it difficult to realise that

some of our works are studies for murals. Even here we have sometimes had arguments. Some of the comrades ask whyI call something which is really an easel painting a study for a mural,

and although they might be thought right, it is not so because the scale of these works does not correspond to an easel painting, they are not works to be hung on small walls, in rooms with low ceilings and illumination which is right for small pictures. Most of the work of our group is of amural character.

There is very little sensuousness in our work, which is perhaps why the Europeans find it hard and bitter, and sometimes weak

in craftsmanship. The fact is that we have not concentrated on the refinements and subtleties of the easel painting because

Mexican Art in Paris

161

almost all of us paint pictures on a large scale; this is one of the things that have been criticised in Europe. Soupault and many other European critics, not all of them

revolutionaries, recognise that one ofthe positive characteristics of our work is its social purpose. Would it be possible for us to

abandon

that position? Can you imagine what sort of an

impression we would make if all we did was to mess about with

little tricks like a group ofsnobs fed by a degenerate or primitive bourgeoisie, ina country like ours, a country in formation, with

an enormous proportion ofilliterates, where the general level of culture is undeniably very low and where poverty reigns? Not even our millionaires, with their ill-gotten riches, are interested

in that type of art. The truth is that in Mexico we either paint for

the people from the platform of a progressive state, or from the underground against a power which has capitulated, or we do not paint for anybody.

I welcome the galleries, and am glad that there are so many and that new ones are opening, although I think it is crazy to open new ones. At this moment the economic position of all artists, but particularly the young ones, is very bad, although Mexico is one of the countries which has a proportionately better art market than others. The proof of this is that at this

time you can find all kinds of painting exhibited in Mexico; European painters, Spanish painters who live in Spain, Dutch painters, painters who live and work in Paris, and LatinAmerican painters, from Venezuela for example. The Paris

artists are selling pictures in Mexico, they are trying to find a new market because international conditions are terrible. What are

the possibilities of developing a market in Mexico? There is already a private market, but this is not going to resolve the economic problems of the Mexican artists; not only this, it is

also going to destroy the quality of their painting; itis going to create groups of painters who will manufacture useless objects and will detract from the interest in mural painting and the print. It will destroy the essence of our movement without

resolving the economic problems of our artists. Ask

the

gallery

owners—a

lot

of whom

are

present

162

Art and Revolution

today—what the economic situation is, and they will answer that

the situation of the galleries is very bad. Go and speak to the

young painters and find out what their situation is. In Mexico, as in the rest of the world, painters are having to live by teaching painting, something which is, to a certain extent, useless. The

pedagogical method they use destroys the master and does not

allow the pupil to develop at all. For the only real way to learn is

by being involved in the production of something logical, something with a function. So it is not surprising that in New

York the works of American and European painters are sold toa very small élite, an élite which has no interest in its own country nor its own people, and lives on the profits it sucks from the other countries of the world. American painters—and some of you here today know that

this is true—mostly live on the art classes they are forced to give because they cannot sell their work.

With this panorama before us, what do they suggest, these painters who favour abstract art over figurative art? We are no longer discussing the value of the different techniques, we are discussing the market. Do they suggest that Mexico should become a miniature New York? Do they suggest that we should edit magazines here, like the French ones, which cost twelve dollars? Should we do that in Mexico, for no one to read?

Everything we have done and are doing is implacably attacked by people who prefer easel painting destined to adorn the homes of the rich in a country of semi-barbarian rich; they prefer an art without ideological content in a country where it is

fundamentally important to provide ideological education for the people. This is what they want. And perhaps we should also

adopt certain sexual habits, which are becoming common; and we should adopt them because morals are intimately involved with all of this.

The young painters should understand that in this battle, no matter what happens, victory is impossible. There are no historical perspectives in Mexico which permit us to suppose that, in our actual economic system, an art fomented by the hysteria of the wealthy classes for the most selfish of purposes could ever flourish.

Mexican Art in Paris

163

Let us see what the situation is in the United States, which fora

long time was our best market. In the past we were able to paint murals in the States, but this is no longer so. No one of our movement can paint a mural there, although others can, and we

shall soon see why. For about the last fifteen years no American museums have bought any Mexican painting. Some tourists who have bought pictures in Mexico

have donated

them to museums,

but the

museums themselves have bought nothing. The publicity in favour of Mexican painting made by Ana Brenner, Francis Toor and so many others has been silenced. Our art has been completely sabotaged in the United States. This is the consequence of political events. Perhaps many critics will still speak

of

our

work,

but

they

also

will

be

affected

by

McCarthyism. McCarthyism in the Metropolitan Museum which asked for the exclusion of contemporary Mexican painters, McCarthyism in the Carnegie Foundation which, for its international exhibition, drew up a list of Mexican painters

which excluded all the artists with social tendencies. Pictures are no longer painted of Jefferson, Lincoln or Payne; they no longer paint those who gave them the progressive laws which are now being destroyed. Now they paint cubes, spectres of men instead of men, spectres of dogs and not dogs, and they withdraw from their own problems, their own people and their own nationality to become intellectually colonial, as we in the countries which

suffer their capitalist politically colonial.

exploitation

are

economically

and

Ofcourse a painter with no ideology, with no resources, with no will to fight, cannot defend himself, he loses his direction and

changes to another in the hope of economic salvation. All he wants is enough to eat, and however indelicate you may think this is, it is logically and realistically very important. There is no doubt that the tremendous campaign against our painting in the States is political, and we have documentary proof. It must be taken into account, though, that this campaign comes at the precise moment when our painting is beginning to make the intellectuals and people in Europe think again. The

first evidence of this was an article in the Mexican magazine

164

Art and Revolution

Novedades in which a friend of Mr. O’ Dwyer, a Yankee journalist

called Henry English, wrote a series of articles in which he maintained that a stop must be put to the activities of the communist,

revolutionary painters of Mexico:

they must be

destroyed because they have great influence with the masses and great prestige, because they paint revolutionary scenes on the walls of public buildings, because they produce engravings with left-wing subjects, because they are dangerous elements who must be persecuted. I said he was a friend of Mr. O’Dwyer, because a note once

appeared in the UPI saying that Ambassador O’Dwyer was not

returning to Mexico immediately because he was to attend the christening of the son of the famous writer Henry English. And it would also be opportune to note here the behaviour of Mrs. O’Dwyer who, as people in Mexican diplomatic circles know,

every time the name

of any Mexican

painter of the social

tendency, whether muralist or engraver, was mentioned would

start shouting, most undiplomatically, against all Mexican government officials, even the most important, who were favouring revolutionary art. This was the beginning, but how did it continue?

Not only

were we given no more commissions to paint murals in the States, neither were we invited to give lectures at their universities, although in the past many of us had been made honorary members; not only did they stop buying our pictures

for their museums but from 1943 onwards they would not give any of us entry permits. Now their Inquisition, the State Department, moves into our country. And they make use of our comrades in the field of culture, just as they do ofthe politicians.

Everything that is happening in the field of culture today is serious and painful. The artist is not usually a cad; it is unusual

to find an artist who will not fight to defend his point of view and his ideology; it is unusual to find an artist who will serve as an

enemy agent. But something terrible is happening in Mexico, something which covers some of our old comrades with dishonour.

A campaign is being waged against us in the States and it utilises the words of our own colleagues, those who have

Mexican Art in Paris

165

seceded from our movement and unjustly accused us of being monopolists, although they have seen how the groups and teams

of painters working

colleagues against us, have in my this artist, innocence anxious to

on

murals

have grown.

These

are allowing themselves to be used in a campaign and one of the worst examples is Rufino Tamayo. I possession some documents about the behaviour of which would shame a police agent. Was this or conscious betrayal by an opportunist who is receive the international publicity which the Yankees

can give him?

In Excelsior of September gth, 1951, a letter

appeared from his wife addressed to “the very esteemed editor”,

in which she said: “First let me say that this is not a letter written for publication but written to you, a great Mexican and defender of our great country.” Later on she adds: “It is unnecessary to tell you the political affiliation of the Mexican painters who are unleashing such a savage campaign against Tamayo and all the other artists and critics who do not agree with their party. . . . These are all details which would not seem to have anything to do with Mexico, nevertheless they have had great repercussion here, because this is a country where several communist painters of great renown enjoy official protection, paradoxical though this may sound.” Mrs. Tamayo, in her role of informer, then denounced the writer MacGregor as a member of the Communist Party. Was this letter the act of a wife, surreptitiously unfaithful to the ideology ofher husband? As we shall see later, it was certainly not. In the New York Times magazine, on October 18th, 1952, the

following appeared on a full page, with a large picture of the artist:

“Mexican

counter-revolutionary.

The

artist Tamayo,

who is painting murals for the government in Mexico City, boasts of having obtained a resounding victory against the social art school.” Tamayo violently proclaimed himself an anticommunist. Recently, in conversations with journalists, Tamyo declared that he was an anti-imperialist, as much against red

imperialism as against green imperialism; a good abstract painter, he invents colours for abstract imperialisms and gives no further identification. Carlos Merida has also spoken against our movement; but it

Art and Revolution

166

must be pointed out that there is a big difference between Merida

and

Tamayo.

makes

Merida

criticisms

without

intending to provoke or betray. (Someone wrote the word

“informer” on the poster which announced this lecture; I suppose that from now onwards we should call those people “informers” who inform on what has already been informed. Isn’t it a little bit ingenuous to inform that someone is a communist, when everyone knows he is, when everyone has seen

him uphold his ideological beliefs openly and frankly?) Carlos

Merida is an abstract artist who sincerely believes that is the right road for art, and who does not really know what our movement is. He was one of the founders of our movement, but he then left

it completely and declared himself against it. Some people maintain that we should be doing now what Diego Rivera was doing when I first met him in Paris in 1919, and that our movement would be saved if we would paint the abstract art which I also tried my hand at in my youthful years in

Paris. They say we have made a grave mistake and that we should go back and erase what we are doing now because it is absurd. In view ofthis, we should say to M. Soupault: “What a fool you are, my friend! What fools they are, all those who have praised our

work and hope to see the resurgence of apowerful movement all over the world!”’

But to go back to the New York Times and Tamayo’s interview with Flora Lewis. In the third paragraph, the painter declares: “Strange

as

it may

seem,

our

government

(the

Mexican

Government) has always supported these politically communist

artists, although we have never had a communist government.” The enemy ofart with a social message, passionate supporter of the “apolitical art” of the School

of Paris, looks for help from

Washington. The support he gets at home from, as everyone knows, “foreign guests”, is not enough for him. And finally, I pass over many other incidents because I do not have the documents to hand—their time will come. Let us see what the Los Angeles Time says: “The Mexican artist Tamayo. .

militant enemy of communism, recounts his fight with Siqueiros over the position ofthe Reds.”’ A few lines further on, we find the

following: “In our country, the Communist Party is very small

Mexican Art in Paris

167

... but it has an influence on many things, among them my colleagues Siqueiros and Diego Rivera. Rivera is not a member of the party at this moment, because he was thrown out... however, he follows the party line.” As you can see, the informer must do his job, that is to say he must confirm what is already known and inform on what may be unknown: Rivera is not a member of the party, but he deserves to be attacked by you as

though he were. Why do they attack our movement in the States? What do they

want? Do they only combat things with a political meaning? If there were no political content, would it still be attacked? Today

the Americans content

are attacking everything with a humanistic

(I refer to American

capitalists, to the monopolists),

because they know that in dealing with humanity it is impossible to

avoid,

either

directly

or

indirectly,

social

and

political

problems. This is why they no longer commission any murals, because a mural cannot express vague ideas or be merely decorative. You must say something in a mural, and they know that the painter will inevitably put something of himself into what he says.

The fight against our movement is part of their general policy, and in consequence they give overwhelming support to the Mexican formalists. The Yankee campaign against Mexican painting, social in content and realist in form, goes even further: the University of Los Angeles, no less, acted on the decision of

the Municipal Art Commission in July, 1954, and expelled from

its art gallery the work of the “Bolshevist’’ Jose Clemente Orozco. The Rector and professors of this educational body were not deceived by the reactionary declarations of our late

colleague. They know that the essence of his work is more powerful than his words, and that his work was, definitely and integrally, part of our pictorial movement, monumental,

figurative and with incisive social criticism, in spite of his frequent nihilistic explosions.

And while they discriminate against the work of Orozco, they give enormous importance to the work of every Mexican abstract

painter who

denies

Mexican

painting, just as they

welcome every Mexican citizen who denies the anti-imperialist

Art and Revolution

168

struggle which has been the backbone of Mexican history. Their press provides the deserters with good publicity. Our country is becoming contaminated by this corruption, and this is a very ‘serious thing. In Los Angeles they expel Orozco, as we have seen, and in Mexico they suspend Andres Iduarte and remove

him from the direction of the National Institute of Fine Arts. Who suspended Andres Iduarte? Was he suspended from his duties for not violating the constitution, for not forbidding a sector of the Mexican people to express itself ideologically, and for respecting the last will of agreat artist who had just died? Why was he suspended because he kept the law? If Andres Iduarte had said: “In the Palace of Fine Arts, we cannot have the

coffin of acommunist lying in state, however great the artist may have been”, that would have been breaking the law. There is no article in the constitution which would have permitted him to do that. In the vestibule of the Palace of Fine Arts the bodies of many illustrious artists of every ideology have lain in state, and when the deceased was a Catholic, like the famous actress

Virginia Fabregas, a great crucifix was placed in front of the coffin; when the dead or his mourners have expressed a wish to have the funeral prayers read, this has been done. It would have

been sectarian to do otherwise. Why should Andres Iduarte

object to the lying in state of the body of Frida Kahlo, that great Mexican

painter, and why should

her coffin not have been

covered with the flag of the party to which she belonged?

Frida

Kahlo had the right, both legal and moral, to have her coffin

covered with her party’s flag, the more so since her party is a legal party. Four or five days before she died, Excelsior published an interview with her, in which she said: “If I die, I want the

party's flag to cover my coffin.” And if she wanted it, why not? Then who suspended Andres Iduarte? No good Mexican would have done so; we Mexicans are not capable of doing a thing like that on our own. We Mexicans have a characteristically strong sense ofnational dignity; we have a national sense of shame. No, a Mexican would not have done that of his own free will, he

received the order from abroad and it was part of a general campaign against Mexico. Iduarte’s suspension is closely connected with some recent negative aspects of government. I

Mexican Art in Paris

169

do not mean to say that the government has totally surrendered to Yankee imperialism. No, it would be a mistake to say that and it would not help us to defend ourselves. It is not for us to

undermine our government, but we must point out who the reactionary imperialist enemy is. We must say that we do not

approve of these things and that the Americans have no right to give orders in our house, but only in their own. We can see from this how American imperialism not only combats our movement in its own country but also in ours; it corrupts important painters like Tamayo and many others, and turns them into informers and servants to their cause; and it

interferes in other things too. A similar case is that of the great composer, Carlos Chavez, to whom Mexican music owes so much both as composer and conductor. But the pressure is so great, so persistent, so cruel and so inquisitorial, and makes such cynical use of visas and threats to take away important sources of income, that it makes many lose their probity both as intellectuals and as citizens. This is the case of Carlos Chavez, a man known for his energy —sometimes excessive—a man of intellectual probity who has been forced to recant, and has been forced to publish a shameful jeremiad so that he will be admitted to the United States, now the best artistic market in the world. He has been forced to stammer out an explanation, and say that he helped everyone, both Siqueiros and Tamayo, both the communists

and the non-communists, which is equivalent to saying: 1 helped your agents as well, my fine American gentlemen, not only your enemies. In this jeremiad, which was published in all

the Mexican papers last August 16th, he was forced to join the ranks of those who call the communists “traitors to their country”, because in part of his letter he says that there is no

doubt that the communists owe allegiance to another power. But, my friends, a traitor should not receive help, and if Chavez knew we communists were traitors to our country he should not have helped us, because he is a patriot. Chavez must understand how badly he has behaved. He wrote: “The accusation of communism implies, tacitly or explicitly, more or less direct subservience to a foreign power.”

Art and Revolution

170

Carlos Chavez knows quite well that it is our social art which is

being attacked, our art which speaks directly to the people without intermediaries, the art which Philippe Soupault praised

so highly. And Carlos Chavez knows well that Mexican music, his own music, developed in the warmth of our contemporary art movement. Tamayo and Chavez are not the only ones, unfortunately. The

painters Raul Anguiano and Carlos Orozco Romero, and the architect Alberto T. Arai, have been contaminated by the political panic which the imperialists make use of to corrupt the cultural sector of our country. They also totally denied any communist militancy, quite rightly, since they are not and never have been communists. But they did it in obedience to tacit demands and put nearly a hundred of their intellectual

colleagues in a very difficult position. “Ah, those who do not reply are communists’, said the paid servants of the American embassy, who compiled the list, who wanted the communists

identified so that they could be persecuted and who thought every liberal was a communist.

This all goes to show how the Yankees have invaded our culture and our art movement.

You may be asking yourselves

why I speak of all these problems during a lecture on art. And I would ask you: “Can we separate these problems from art?” Can anyone say to me: “Siqueiros, you can talk of these problems but leave the political aspect out of it.” I would have

to answer that it would not be possible, because the war against Mexican painting on a national and international scale is a political war because of the very nature of Mexican painting. Our movement must be defended on a political aesthetic basis,

both on formal grounds and ideological grounds. We must wage a political battle. We must say to the Mexican government: “You must have a cultural policy, just as you have an agrarian policy,

a labour

policy and

a social

security policy; your

ideologists speak of the Mexican revolution, so why do you punish the most important cultural manifestation of that revolution? Why do you help to destroy it? Why do you give

support to the machinations of the Yankee imperialists against us?” The State must have a position and a doctrine. There is

Mexican Art in Paris

17%

much talk nowadays of neutrality. But what kind of neutrality? Neutrality towards those who defend the constitutional expression of Mexican art, and also towards those who attack it? Is this kind of neutrality possible?

Our Mexican art movement,

whose prestige in Europe is

rising, as can be seen from Philippe Soupault’s article, is eminently political, and could hardly be otherwise, because it is

a collective experience which has been fighting for the interests

of the people and of the nation for the last thirty years. Whether we want to or not, we must wage a battle to defend it, this is the only guarantee we have of its continuing development. The

State cannot remain neutral in this struggle, nor in any other,

nor can it be selective. Can the State remain equidistant between the decadent formalist trends of Paris and our own movement? Of course, one should not forbid the decadent painter to paint, nor put him in prison. But from the point of view of its

pedagogical doctrine, and of education in the State schools of Fine Art, the State must adopt a point of view, an ideological position, a doctrine.

The struggle in the Mexican art movement runs parallel to the agrarian struggle. If tomorrow everything popular and progressive, fruit of the Mexican Revolution, were to be implacably crushed, the Mexican art movement would be destroyed. If McCarthyism invades our country, a painter who depicts certain subjects would be condemned to death as a

painter;

his activity would

treacherous.

This is what

be regarded the Yankees

as subversive

would

and

like to do in

Mexico. They are not only corrupting our movement, not only would they like to destroy it and persecute it in every possible

way; they are also persecuting and destroying everything in other countries that may have been influenced by the Mexican art movement, especially in Latin America. Let us take the case of Brazil, where under the influence of the Mexican movement the architect Oscar Niemeyer and the painters Portinari and

Cavalcanti, among others, began a muralist movement. It was an important movement, which its supporters considered an offshoot of the Mexican movement, and said so both in speeches

and articles. But they were attacked, as we have been attacked,

We

Art and Revolution

and now in Brazil as in most other Latin American countries

Mexican painting has lost ground to European formalism. All the modern art museums in Brazil, both in San Pabloand Rio de Janeiro, are in the hands ofpeople who think and behave exactly like the directors of theMuseum of Modern Art in New York, or the Museums of Modern Art in Europe which are in the hands of the formalists. And yet there are still people in Mexico who dare to call our art “official art”. The only official art in the occidental world at this time is formalism, which has become the new academic art. All the directors of Museums of Modern Art are enemies of

figurative art, of the pictorial image of man,

and of the

landscapes of our countries; this is the bureaucratic attitude of their directors. I have spoken in Brazil and I feel I must touch on an incident which moves the whole world today: the suicide of President Getulio Vargas. This is the most dramatic instance of aman who submitted to the Americans in the hope that he could

manipulate them and attain a series of democratic advantages for his people. The day arrived, however, when he realised that

only the State Department would derive any advantage from the alliance. He found his law on minimum wages held up in the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate; he found

Parliament

would

not

approve

his

laws

the Brazilian

regarding

the

nationalisation of petroleum and the petroleum industry, his

law regarding parasitic capital was to be stopped; the State Department of the United States government fixed the price of coffee and forced him to devaluate the Brazilian currency. Getulio Vargas said all this in the letter he left; he said it quite clearly; and it is an enormity that he killed himself because he

would not fulfil his role as an agent of imperialism. This is the story of Getulio Vargas, but the same thing will happen here

unless we modify our attitude. The painters of the contemporary Mexican art movement call the attention of the public to this problem and we say: the Mexican people can only

reap disaster from our friendship with the great American monopolies and the United States government; it will stifle our national culture.

Mexican Art in Paris

ES

The only way to save the progress of our agrarian programme, to maintain the advantages the workers have won,

and to gain further advantages, to widen the benefits of social security, to make our country truly independent, is to fight. It is not true that they are all-powerful, it is not true that they can do everything they want to do, even order the suspension of a director of the National Institute of Fine Arts over the telephone. If we were organised they would not be able to do that. The Mexican painters speaking from this platform tell the people: we must urgently organise a national league against imperialism; an organisation of patriots, communists, catholics, protestants and men without party or ideology. This is

the only way to prevent the surrender of our country. There must be a change in the correlation of forces; we cannot say to

the president: “Stop making concessions” unless we mobilise and give our government support against the government which

demands the concessions. We must organise in every aspect of our lives, both political and artistic. Every Mexican patriot who

today feels ashamed of being Mexican; every one who blushes to see men

from

another

country,

foreign politicians, making

decisions on our problems or taking absolute charge of them; we must unite to defend many things, and among them Mexican painting. If all you are interested in is art, you must do it for the sake

of art;

if you

are

interested

in Mexican

painting

independent of all political activity, you will not be able to halt

its destruction unless you defend it politically. If anyone sees these problems as exclusively political, and has no interest in or understanding of aesthetics he must try to understand from my words tonight that imperialism has penetrated the art world and is active there. I would also like to say something about the present situation of our art movement, which I should have said before but I forgot. It is frequently said that our movement is decadent, this is another of our enemy’s slogans. They say it is in decadence because

Orozco

is dead, Rivera is very old and Siqueiros is

getting on, while the others are all over forty. You can read this slogan in all the American magazines which circulate in our country (there are 200 American magazine to one Mexican, and

174

Art and Revolution

that one is pro-Yankee). Most of them are very superficial, but

the problem is that they are gradually dominating our thought and our taste. In this situation—I say—a second, very important

stage of our Mexican art movement is emerging: the step from interior mural painting to exterior mural painting. Neither Philippe Soupault nor the others know anything of this new stage. The Italian author and cinema producer, Cesare Zabattino, who visited our country, wrote a very good article about this. It is definitely a step forward. I would like to emphasise here that a movement in decadence whose founders have died and left no heirs could not make such a step. Only a

vital movement, formed by young painters who are trying to solve enormous problems, could do this. You all know that I have enormous differences of opinion with many of the painters who are doing this work. You all know what I think of the work of Juan O’Gorman and Jose Chavez Morado; but you must not take my opinions to imply a denial of

the immense value of their efforts and the magnitude of their work. Our differences and our polemics derive from a different

concept of formal problems, but they are doing important work.

If our movement runs the risk of dying out, it is for other reasons. For if it was dangerous to paint political murals in interiors you can imagine how much more dangerous they would be on exteriors. We are defending our movement so that it Can progress in this second stage, and we shall defend it tooth and nail. Art exercises as much influence in the Mexican State today as

does the political programme of the Revolution, and this must

be clearly understood. The only official art at the moment is formalism and the formalistic speculation of those snobs who support the School of Paris for commercial reasons. No one should think I have used the occasion of an intellectual lecture

to drag in politics. I don’t think anyone, in view of everything I

have just said, can have the least doubt of the political nature of

the reactionary-imperialist offensive against our movement,

nor of the help this offensive receives from many intellectuals,

some

of them

painters.

We

painters who

belong

to the

Mexican Art in Paris

TAS

ideological school of Mexican art, we painters of social realism, call the attention of the Mexican people to these problems in our national culture which are closely connected with our problems of national independence and autonomy.

We are defending the immediate interests of everyone in Mexico who produces, works and creates; we defend peace and

fight against all enemies of peace; we wish Mexico and all other nations to progress. This is what Mexican painting is doing, and this is why we call on all artists and intellectuals to join our movement, to defend what we have already achieved and to allow us to continue.

vat Open Letter to the Painters, Sculptors and Engravers of the Soviet Union (Read by Siqueiros when he was received by the Soviet Academy of Art, October 17th, 1955)

It was only twenty days ago that I wrote my “Open letter to the young Polish painters”. It was at their request and this is what I Said: “Tt is impossible for me to analyse the work of each one of you

after a single visit to your Exhibition at the Arsenal. The work of 111 painters, gg engravers and 45 sculptors cannot be judged from isolated examples oftheir work, without running the risk of great injustice and profound error. On this occasion, I will

limit myself to saying a few general words on what I have seen. It is impossible to judge the details, without first examining the whole. “I find evidence in your exhibition of a healthy reaction against the academism which until recently predominated in Poland. I refer to what I saw when I came here in November of 1951: a naturalism, frankly commercial in style, similar to the

realism of American advertising art at the beginning of the century. But at the same time I notice a manifest inclination towards the formalism of the School of Paris. This step in the direction ofan art intimately created by an artist for the intimacy of ahypothetical buyer, subject to the mercenary speculation of

Open Letter to Soviet Painters

NTT

the galleries (today regulated by New York) is not in keeping—neither in content, type or form—with these times of social transformation in your country. “But what I see in your work assures me that the day is not far away when you will find the road to a new, totally modern, realistic art, as modern as the situation demands. Your problem will not be solved by work in a private laboratory. The great periods of art history were mainly the fruit of collective convictions and you are fortunate to possess a national faith which many people in the world have not yet found.” What can I say to you, comrade artists of the Soviet Union, also in the form of an open letter? In the first place I would say that I have followed the

development of your work from the very beginning: I paid my first visit to the Soviet Union in 1927, ten years after the triumph

of the October revolution, and I saw something of your art. In 1951 I visited Warsaw and saw the General Exhibition of Soviet Painting which had just been shown at a festival in Berlin. A month ago I visited the Exhibition of Soviet Painting, again in Warsaw.

And

here

in the Soviet

Union,

since

the end

of

September, I have visited all the galleries of contemporary art in Moscow and Leningrad and also the studios of many painters, and I believe I have seen your most important monumental works.

I know that your art fulfils a political function of amagnitude unmatched in the history of the world. All your work is at the service of a social movement which has opened a new era for humanity, and you have the unlimited support of the first

proletarian State. It is quite evident that with your painting, sculpture, engraving, posters, illustrations, stage design, etc., ou have made the backward Russia of the Tsars into a country which leads in agriculture, industry, science, education, sport,

in-everything which makes men happy. There is no city great or small, no village, no factory, no railway station, recreational centre, school, theatre, where you have not expressed socialist

ideology, and eulogised your great men and your heroes in

Art and Revolution

178

work ofall sizes. Both in the public squares and on the walls and interiors of hundreds of thousands of blocks of flats you have

contributed to their ornamentation. You are repeating ina

free

society what others did in the condition of slavery; public art.

Your

art is an art of the state, ideologically committed,

eloquently purposeful, and for this reason realistic. It is a heroic art, an epic art. And this helps you to find technical solutions,

for example the varnished

tiles you are manufacturing.

course, there is still a lot more

Of

to be done and this is what I

would like to say something about. I have been a member of the Mexican Communist Party since 1924, and we communists never limit ourselves to the analysis of positive facts; we examine every aspect of a problem, and criticise each other and ourselves. And this is what I propose to do with you. In Mexico, where our painting is partly financed by the state,

it is ideologically committed, realistic and interested in new techniques. We have been contaminated by formalism which is the natural product of bourgeois economy and submission to imperialism. Your own art has not been affected by this leprosy

which has degraded the art of the capitalist world; but your art suffers from another form of cosmopolitanism: formalistic academism

and mechanical realism. Between French formalism and academism, we can find an element of and make it impersonal. School of Paris and the Academy of Rome are as

similarity: they both denationalise art The formalists in the manner of the academicians in the manner of the alike as two drops of water, whatever

their nationality. There is no difference between an Argentinian formalist and a Japanese formalist, nor between an academician

from Hungary and one from Guatemala. Theirs is a hybrid art because their style and form are not the result of afunction, but are put first, a priori.

Our

contemporary

Mexican

painting contains

formalist

elements and as a consequence of that formalism it suffers from primitivism, and archaeologism, which you of course do not;

but you have not yet learned to create something new from your own national teaching, you are still victims of the parti pri stylism

which I am talking about, you are victims of the dead laws of

Open Letter to Soviet Painters

179

an international academy which arose at the end of the Renaissance. Iam sure you will agree with me that realism cannot be a fixed formula,

an immutable

law; the whole of the history of art,

which shows the development of increasingly realistic forms, proves this. If we run quickly over the history of painting, from cave paintings, through Antiquity, the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, we shall find that this is absolutely true. We might agree with those who say that no work of art is superior to another work of art, and that therefore no period of art is superior to any other period of art, but this is not to deny the

uninterrupted process of ever enriched forms in the direction of a realistic idiom ever richer, more civilised and more eloquent.

Every period of art which has not been stifled by immovable formulas has striven to make its art more real. Realism can never be anything but a means of creation in constant progress.

Our Mexican painting, considered as a whole, has forgotten this principle, because of its formal speculations in the field of

archaeologism, which lead to the dead end of indigenous primitivism. This is so serious that it has caused many of our masters to stagnate in their original styles, the “infantile” styles of thirty years ago. (As you know, the Mexican contemporary movement started in 1922.) That you have forgotten this fact in the Soviet Union is evident in the perpetuation of old realistic styles which belong to the immediate past, rather like the realism of American commercial advertising at the beginning of the century; and I find this influence present also in the work of the Polish painters and in those of the other popular democracies. If we observe the process of your work over the last thirty-eight years, we shall find that your formal language has not progressed at all, you have merely improved your technique. But you must not forget that it is precisely the constant perfection of style in a limited, repetitious realistic area

of creation which has always led to decadence. The painters who came immediately after the Renaissance were much more skilful than their predecessors, but their work is infinitely inferior. Raphael was formidable, but the Raphaelists who came after

him were detestable—and this is just one example.

180

Art and Revolution

It is certainly not true that every exaltation ofform ts formalism, because in that case we should not be able to understand any of the great Venetian painters, nor Michelangelo, El Greco, Goya, Daumier, etc., or, in the case of Mexico, Orozco. Theformalists worship form for its own sake, ina purely plastic exercise, and

the true realists have always used form to achieve greater plastic

eloquence, to give greater eloquence to their subject; when all is said and done, the realist speaks in a plastic idiom. Were it not so, however true and beautiful the political content of our work, it would nevertheless be a poor artistic expression of which everyone would soon tire. A study of the history of art will show us that art has always

tended towards realism, while constantly perfecting its materials and tools. If we look at the four centuries ofgreat Italian art, itis easy to see that the artists of each period were never satisfied with the materials and tools of their predecessors; on the contrary,

they were always searching passionately for new processes. Their progress was not only parallel to the development of science, technique and industry, it was often ahead of them. They

perfected tempera and oils, were always finding new and better pigments and—why should we not say so?—broadening the

range of their professional “tricks” so as to perfect their work. In Mexico we have had people who did the same thing and others who resolutely opposed them, and this is the reason that

much of our painting uses age-old techniques, which renders it less politically eloquent. Painting, like all the plastic arts, is material and physical, and must therefore express itselfin terms of its vehicle. In your case, Soviet comrades, it is even more serious, because none of you are interested in finding new

material techniques, although you have a State more able than any other which has ever existed to provide you with the effective and moral means to achieve this transformation. While all the great painters, at every period of history, systematically enriched the principles of composition and perspective, the painters of the School of Paris have not only not

contributed anything in this sense but they have also lost all the discoveries of the previous twenty centuries. In our contemporary Mexican movement, although we were

Open Letter to Soviet Painters

systematically

opposed

by those who

181

clung to traditional

formulae, we have tried to find solutions to this problem, as can be seen in much of our work. Soviet painters, on the other hand, have remained dominated by the methods of composition and perspective used by academics all over the world. And this has happened in the only country in the world where science has

been placed at the service of the people and could give them enormous help. No, neither the forms of realism nor its material means are static. It would be absurd to think that the masters of the past knew all

there was to know about realism (they might have thought the same of their immediate predecessors), and it would be equally ridiculous to think that materials and tools discovered

thousands ofyears ago are the last word. Apart from the painting produced by the School of Paris (the greatest fiction in the bourgeois world of culture, because this type of art suppressed public art, denied ideological art and

excluded the image of man and his environment, in favour of pseudo-libertarian geometric forms), there are only two important art expressions in the world today: the Mexican experience,

today operating under increasingly adverse conditions, and the Soviet experience, operating under increasingly favourable conditions. There has recently been a collective move in the right direction in the popular democracies and in Italy and France, but this is still very new. These two tendencies, through criticism and self-criticism, could help each other to eliminate their negative aspects and

strengthen their positive ones. Mexico has a great tradition of painting and an artistically

gifted people; but Soviet painters are no less richly endowed in this respect, their tradition is magnificent and their painters very capable. Soviet painters have a professional discipline which we

lack and a faculty for expressing psychological phenomena which, in my opinion, is unequalled in the whole world. They

are producing really monumental art, their art is intimately integrated with their architecture, but they must shake off the routine forms which are tying them down. These words should be taken as the opinion of a comrade

182

Art and Revolution

with some experience in both politics and art.

A comrade who

has seen the Hermitage Museum grow from fifty rooms in 1927 to the three hundred or more which it has today and sees this as

the symbol of the scale of growth in every walk of Soviet life.

Le Plastic Arts and Revolution in Latin America, in the light of the experience of contemporary Mexican painting (Extracts from a lecture delivered on January 9th, 1960, in the Concert Hall of the Central University of Caracas, Venezuela. The transcription of the tape of this lecture, was edited by Editores y Distribuidores: Libreria Pensamiento Vivo, C.A. and with a few corrections made by Siqueiros himself was published in his book The Story of a Trap. Who are the Traitors? My Answer. Ediciones de Arte Publico, Mexico, 1960)

I am sure you have all heard of Diego Rivera’s conflict with the Hotel del Prado. He was commissioned to paint a mural in this tourist centre, and was asked to paint something connected with the Alameda Central of Mexico City. Perhaps the people who commissioned the painting thought that Rivera would paint them an abstract Alameda, or perhaps just leafy trees in flower.

But for Diego Rivera the Alameda,

the centre of Mexico's

capital, is a historic platform along which the political process of

his country has marched. The Alameda has witnessed patriotic fights, and it has seen the passage of traitors; the friends and

enemies of imperialism have passed along it, the reactionaries and the revolutionaries. So Rivera painted the history of Mexico, using the Alameda as a chronological platform. But the political situation has changed in Mexico; the revolution was in frank decline, displaced by a new oligarchy of nouveaux-riches, the victory of the “juniors”, the victory of the sons of those who

made money out of the Revolution. It was no longer the people,

184

Art and Revolution

nor the working class, not the workers nor the descendants of the strikers of Cananea and Rio Blanco, no longer the pioneer workers of the Revolution who became generals in the fight against the federal army, it was now a new, reactionary bourgeois class which governed the country. And although the Hotel del Prado belonged to the government, a group of reactionary students were inspired to go and damage the mural in an attempt to destroy it. Rivera had included in his painting the famous phrase of Ignacio Ramirez (“The Necromancer’’): “God does not exist; the universe is governed by its own laws”;

he also used religious phrases in connection with other people. But the cavemen could not bear that first phrase. When this happened, the muralist painters, with many supporters, went to

fight against the group of students who were profaning Rivera’s mural and called on the government to repair the damage that had been done. But the struggle went on. The Hotel del Prado was a hotel for Yankee tourists, and the mural could not stay.

One American ambassador after another requested its destruction; all the American government officials who came to visit Mexico insisted on its destruction. And whenever the wife of the reigning American ambassador met the President or any high government official, she would ask: “Why are Bolshevik

murals permitted on the walls of public buildings?’ So the mural was covered over and stayed that way for many long years. You can see the close relationship between a government’s political and cultural attitudes. The Mexican government is no longer interested in muralism. It does not want political art and has not done so for the last twenty years. The obviously counterrevolutionary governments of Mexico do not want their people to remember Zapata’s programme,

nor the programme of the

Ricardo Flores Magon group, who gave the Mexican Revolution what little doctrine it has. They preferred to silence our mural movement in the period of Porfirio Diaz. But it is no longer ideology ofthe State. The policy of the National Institute ofFine Arts has not favoured the development of mural painting for some time, but exactly the opposite. It does everything it can to prevent this type of artistic production, and its attitude is the

logical consequence of the government’s fundamental political

Plastic Arts and Revolution

185

line, both at home and abroad. The National Institute of Fine

Arts was created precisely to foment a popular programme, it was a state organisation designed to foster a popular trend in art and therefore

to oppose

the élitist characteristics of the art

movement in the period of Porfirio Diaz. But it is no longer interested in popular culture, which originates from and returns to the people. What has happened? Why has a law which intended art to serve the people been turned upside down? It is the result of adanger which is latent in Mexico and the whole of Latin America. When revolutions are not complete but stop halfway, they

later slide gently backwards, as they have done in Mexico; a situation which is very painful for those of us who fought so strongly for it in our youth. The imperialists have achieved this, but they have found many Mexican lackeys to help their cause. It is unbelievable that there should have been so many. My friends, artists, intellectuals and workers of Venezuela:

the Mexico you love is no longer what it was, it is not what the official pseudo-revolutionary propaganda of the last twenty years whould have you believe. I must say this clearly so that it

will be heard in Mexico itself. But I would not be telling you the whole truth if I did not tell you today that a new revolution is already on its way. The first one failed, and failed lamentably, leaving a million and a half dead in the battles of the revolution. But now, in these new conditions, what should we Mexican artists do, how can we contribute with our militancy and our

work? I would like each of you present to consult with your conscience. Perhaps you will answer me: “You have already painted enough revolutionary murals, it is time to stop. For too

long you have been painting things which express the problems

of the people; please do not do so any more. You must paint innocent subjects now, general subjects or, at the most, poetic subjects. Why do you still paint political pictures when, as you say yourselves, the country is not in a condition to accept them ?

Why paint murals when the government attacks them and even

destroys them 2”? And I would have to answer: “No, we cannot do that. We must continue our movement which was born ofthe Revolution; we must keep our art public and connected with the

Art and Revolution

186

problems of the people; and we must progress to the second stage which is already announcing itself on a political level.” The National Association of Actors asked me to paint a mural which Diego Rivera was unable to do before he died. They asked me to paint the history of the theatre and the cinema in Mexico. We discussed the subject and I said that I thought the subject was too generalized; I suggested that the subject should be scenic art in Mexico today, with the history of the theatre to be used as the

chronological framework.

They agreed. But what happened

afterwards? From the start I had made it quite clear that I, a pioneer and founder of the Mexican mural movement, would

have to use my painting to tell the actors, and indirectly the authors, that they should do in the theatre what we had done in

art. I could have chosen to paint something of a general, euphoric nature and I would then not have had the problems I have today, and which I shall refer to later. But to do that would have been to betray Orozco, Rivera, Dr. Atl, and all the other members of our movement, both dead and alive; it would also

have been a betrayal of everyone in this country who has

dedicated himself to serving it politically over the last fifty years. I had no other choice. What I did was to divide the mural into two; one part was the history of Mexican theatre in the past, and in the other I painted

what I thought the theatre, cinema and television should be in Mexico now and in the future. With the help of the writer Armando

de Maria

y Campos,

I made

a very

interesting

discovery about Mexican theatre. I found that Mexico had hada

wonderfully political theatre in the past, although most people knew nothing about it. For example, during the first years ofthe Revolution many playwrights, including Rodolfo Usigli, had written plays which were violently critical of the local caudillo system which was emerging among the federal and regional governors, and also among the agrarian and trade union leaders. The theatre severely criticised this new bourgeoisie, the

embryo of a new oligarchy. A play which immediately comes to mind is Rodolfo Usigli’s The Gesticulator, and there were many more. I discovered that during the dictatorship of General Diaz

there had been political theatre; and in fact that it was the only

Plastic Arts and Revolution

187

type of theatre which attracted audiences. Plays like Land and

Liberty by Ricardo Flores Magon were extremely effective in the struggle against despotism and in fomenting the agrarian revolution. The academics of Mexican literature would do very well to exhume this theatre and study it. At this time, theatre was often sarcastically subversive of the dictatorship. In the Reform period I found excellent satirical plays in which the liberals attacked their conservative enemies and at a later date the French intervention: Maximilian, Carlota and the attempt to re-incorporate Mexico into European colonialism. It moves me to think ofa little play called The Painter Chinaco, which was a kind of bawdy sarcastic pantomime which must have been most effective. There were so many of these little plays, badly printed, often clandestinely printed, which made fun of the

European coalition against Mexico (a kind of reactionary International Brigade). If we go further back to the colonial period we find Mexican theatre defending indigenous culture and the Indians; and by comparing the cultural manifestations of pre- Hispanic art with

those of the colonial period, they were in fact inciting the patriotic sentiments of the inhabitants of New Spain. In the

fourteen long years ofthe struggle for independence, from 1810 to 1824, a frankly subversive theatre travelled the country from

end to end, often playing in the smallest villages. Their theatre was a theatre of pantomime,

destined to raise the spirits of

Mexicans against the oppression ofthe colonialists and Spanish cruelty. I was unable to find out much about pre-Hispanic theatre in Mexico, but it may well have contained elements of social criticism. This is what I discovered and what I painted in my history of the Mexican theatre, and which helped me to form my opinion on what should be done in the future. In this state of mind, I said

to the Executive committee: You actors must take a good look at your country, and must help to change it; you must know that today, fifty years after the Mexican

Revolution,

the Indians

living at Mezquital (an arid zone less than a hundred kilometres from the capital) still give their babies pulque to drink because

Art and Revolution

188

spirits are cheaper than water. You must get to know your own people and your own country really well, and you must use your

art to change it. You must not produce provincial copies of the snobbish productions in the great capitals of the world. You must concentrate on the daily problems of your people and your

country; you must learn the artistic language of the country in which you work, and produce Mexican plays for the Mexican theatre. This year, 1960, will be important for all the peoples of the world, and most important to the peoples of Latin America; as far as Mexico is concerned, it is the fiftieth year of our

glorious revolution which has failed, of the rivers of blood shed almost in vain and now converted into the fiction of aGovernment which pretends to be democratic.

I had already started my mural, and painted from left to right the first themes: abstraction and realism in scenic art; the popular essence ofreal scenic art both now and in the future; the expressive simultaneity of theatre, cinema and television; the

historical progress of the Mexican indigenous masses in the process of becoming proletarian and the epic nature of this metamorphosis. I did this with the most enthusiastic support of my comrade-

patrons, and my next theme was: tragedy. This was the time when the Mexican government had just staged the worst aggression ever perpetrated by a “revolutionary” government against the organised workers of a country. More than five thousand had been imprisoned, among them of course, all the leaders.

Many railway workers had been tortured and some

killed; but the world was ignorant ofthis, since the foreign press

agencies and the local newspapers and magazines had been effectively gagged.

A communist

plot was invented,

and in

order to make this more believable two cultural attachés of the Soviet Embassy were expelled from the country without any official explanation. The terror was widespread, and even today affects almost all the intellectuals. The workers had fought in the streets, and the story of a communist plot was a crude lie invented by the police and their bosses. The object of the

struggle was higher wages, at a time when the people were starving.

Plastic Arts and Revolution

189

What could I do under these circumstances? I painted this

situation as a concrete example of tragedy. I painted the aggression of the police and the military against the Mexican workers movement. The aggression of soldiers and police blindly obeying

the orders

of their immediate

chiefs, who

were in essence obeying the orders of the American State Department, who received theirs from the great monopolies who oppressed the whole world, including Mexico and Latin America. And what happened? A minority of the executive committee, either under orders from the government, or simply

inspired by the current anti-working class atmosphere, decided that my mural was an act of aggression against the government.

I thought that the gentlemen who opposed Mexican mural painting had decided that political painting was historically useless, so why had they suddenly decided that my work was

dangerous? They said that crowds of subversives would flock to the Jorge Negrete Theatre to see my mural, that the students

might try to set fire to the theatre, that there would be fights between ideological groups, etc. They then ordered my mural to be covered, and later the case was taken to the courts. I know that you in Venezuela, like all other South Americans, are friends of my country; everyone tells me this, drivers, waiters, lift operators, and the unemployed I have met at public

meetings; your most important trade union officials have told me so. But, my dear friends, I cannot hide the lamentable truth.

Mexico is no longer what it was. It has changed, and from being in the vanguard of the anti-imperialist struggle it is now quite openly pro-imperialist. My country which was in the forefront of” revolution in Latin America has become a counterrevolutionary hypocrite and the accomplice of imperialism. I would say to you, Venezuelan artists: You must all of you, no

matter what your style of painting, you must support your own people and the people of Latin America. You do not have any immediate problems in Venezuela which can affect your artistic work, as we do in Mexico. Ofcourse, artists must be free to paint in whatever style they choose, and we in Mexico have been

gravely slandered in this respect and accused of persecuting abstract

painters.

This

is a

lie.

The

first

exhibition

of

190

Kandinsky’s

Art and Revolution

work

in Mexico

was

sponsored

by the mural

painters and the engravers. We have always explained how the vanguardist trends can serve the purpose of a new, modern realism, although we do not agree with these trends on political and historical grounds. We have always called for a true art of the vanguard but we have always said it should be in accordance with the conditions of its own country and that it should conform to the conditions and functional utility of its country of origin. I cannot say what form this art should take, and I should not attempt to do so. You must work this out for yourselves on your

own home ground. It must be a functional art, which responds to the Venezuelan revolution which you are working for. It must respond to your glorious past, to your political foresight and wonderful struggle. In the country of Bolivar, you cannot produce paintings without a social content. And you must express this social content in any way you please—you must

express it through formalism or through abstract art if that is how you want to do it. But you must express it, and if you do not

want to paint figurative pictures, then you must find another way in your own artistic ideology; you must try to express the

past history of your people and your idea of the future with the forms and symbols which you choose. You must raise monuments which the people can understand, even if they are

only understood emotionally. If your language is too difficult, then you must explain it to the people. No, my friends, I cannot say to you, in the name of Mexican artists, that you must only give your bodies, your work, your political militancy; nor can 1 tell you to give only your spirit,

your soul. We ask you to give both these things, to contribute

with your work and your artistic conscience to the problems of your country and the future of your people.

aS Precepts of David Alfaro Siqueiros (Selected by Raquel Tibol)

1924 (In the magazine El Machete, Nos. 4-5)

In times of decadence, a building is conceived in terms of style; in times when building is a flourishing art, it is conceived in terms of logic. Style is the final and invariable result of the means and materials in which the work is carried out. Beauty is the invariable and inescapable result of logic, solidity and balance. 1931 (Answer to a questionnaire presented by the French magazine

Transition directed by Eugene Jolas) Until our times art, both objectively and subjectively, has

been a political factor at the service ofthe ruling classes (and still is under the dictatorship of the proletariat), and in the best of

conditions has been a compulsory feast for these classes. Now that the traditional means of artistic expression have been displaced by new factors (the photograph, the cinema, etc.) with a wider political range, painting, sculpture and other artistic expressions pander to the degenerate tastes of the bourgeoisie. This is its fictitious freedom. 1932 (Letter to his friend William Spratling, American resident in Mexico. This letter was written from Los Angeles, California)

The authorities of your country have refused me a permit to stay here any longer. They want me to leave immediately,

Art and Revolution

192

although hundreds of important American intellectuals have

asked for my visa to be extended. I am really sorry to have to

leave the States, because I have been thinking about industrial areas like Pittsburgh and Saint Louis for some time. In any case, I believe I have done something ofinterest, because I believe I have initiated a drive to paint murals in the open, exposed to the sun and the rain. If you think this over, you will realise its importance, because it is something totally new in the world, and establishes the basis of future art, which must be public to

the highest degree. 1936 (Letter to his friend Maria Asunsolo, written from New York)

On April 15th an international exhibition of art and graphics against fascism and war will be inaugurated in the New School of Social Research. This is a wonderful opportunity for my experimental workshop and we have all started to work our

hardest to prepare work for this exhibition. 1 worked right through Saturday night and all day on Sunday, stopping only to eat a few of the tasteless sandwiches you get here. The works produced have been splendid, and I am not exaggerating. They amply confirm my long held theories about revolutionary art. Although they have not yet been exhibited, they have been talked about a lot and people are constantly coming to my studio to see them. I will describe to you the one I finished last

night, which is called “Birth of Fascism’’. It is painted with enamel

spray paint, but I have used a new

method

which

I

discovered. I make use of a painting accident, through which two or more colours are sprayed on and as they become absorbed into each other produce the most fantastic and

magical forms that can be imagined; it can only be compared to geological formations, to the multi-coloured and vari-shaped seams seen in mountains, to the cell-construction which can only be seen under a microscope. It synthetises the creation of life, the mysteries of life which obey deep and unwritten laws. These “absorptions” (as we call them in our artistic jargon) contain the most perfect forms imaginable, spirals whose infinite curls are perfectly modelled, shapes of fish and monsters that could never be created with traditional methods. And

Precepts

193

above all, a kind of tumultuous, stormy dynamism, a sort of

physical and social revolution, which is quite frightening. This new work of mine makes use of an infinite variety of techniques; I have used them all: the paint brush, the spray gun, shading,

scraping, all the tricks of the trade. And apart from my glorious

discovery of “‘absorptions”’, I must tell you that I have finally found the real way to use the spray gun, I “have the bull by the

horns’’, and I swear I won't let him go this time, now that Iknow

that this mechanical brush can create space and depth, that it

can make space concave and give convex volumes unsuspected strength. Furthermore it is invaluable in producing flat surfaces, you can never get such a smooth surface with an ordinary paint brush.

You

can also produce lines as fine as a hair. It can

produce shading which vibrates with emotion, and it has given me a lot more knowledge about depth in painting; formerly I limited this problem to a question of values. “The Birth of Fascism”” is also my best work politically, because it is free of the mysticism and passivity of my earlier work, it is more synthetic and more dynamic, it combines the objective with the subjective, “real” realism with mental realism; what you can actually see, with your thoughts, your memory and your

imagination which affect your actual vision; and I could also mention the ensemble of heterogenous political truths. My

picture

shows

a stormy

sea,

the stormiest

that

the

imagination of the world can conceive, with agitated forms, transparencies, dark inside and boiling on the outside with dazzling foam. In the middle of the picture, towards the right,

stands the Statue of Liberty but only its head shows above the water. On the left, a book floats, and it symbolises the religion, morals and philosophy of the bourgeoisie who have been

shipwrecked. In the background, on an enormous rock, in the midst of a hurricane of waves which break against its sides, the Soviet Union emerges, white and shining, without words or numbers, symbolised simply by metallic structures, chimneys and a flag which winds itself about them, like a red snake,

joining them together in an organisation to build socialism; in the foreground there is a life raft, made of planks of wood lashed

together with rope, and on the raft a terribly fat woman, old and

194

Art and Revolution

flaccid, who looks like an international prostitute, is giving birth to a three headed monster: Mussolini, Hitler and Hearst. The woman’s face shows both pain and happiness, because she

believes that her horrible offspring may be her long awaited salvation. Of course I have had to dissimulate the physical description of the birth a bit, because I wanted to avoid

undesirable psychological reactions on the part of middle-class viewers, so given to hypocritical Quakerism. I am happy to be working in the way and technique I tried so hard to find. And this is only the beginning of a wonderful future. I shall create living forms from nature itself. I shall investigate the science of my trade to the marrow ofits bones. It is wonderful to have such an objective in life. I shall use my best

voice, my best language to serve the revolution. You should help the comrades (whether they are individually clever or foolish);

they represent the most intelligent party in the world, which implies civilisation and beauty for the future of humanity. Help them! Help us! You know we are right, that justice is on our side, justice of the millions of poor Mexicans exploited like animals in the south of the United States, and treated as lepers

by the sadistic, ignorant rich. I have lived in California and visited

the

Imperial

Valley

where

I saw

how

our

poor

compatriots are cheated out of their wages and their property. The state of Texas has the most reactionary government in the United States today, equalled only by Colorado. They are real

slave

drivers,

with

the savagery

typical

of the

Southern

bourgeoisie, as cruel as the Spaniards in colonial Mexico, but without their culture, the culture which built our marvellous

churches. 1941 (Letter to the Spanish painter Jose Renau, then living in Mexico, who had collaborated with Siqueiros on the mural “Portrait of the Bourgeoisie”, painted in 1939 at the headquarters of the Mexican Electricians Syndicate. The letter was written from Chile, in the month of December) I am more convinced than ever of the need for team work in modern social art. It is physically impossible to cover 200 square metres without the help of people who have specialised in

Precepts

195

painting murals by mechanical means. At first I meant only to have the help of workers, without the “inspiration” in which today’s artists are immersed. But it turned out that they were

only good for kitchen work, they could only be servants; they were so primitive as to preclude the slightest creative contribution which one always gets from people who truly participate in this kind of work. You will understand m problem when I tell you that these workers called all dark

colours black, all light colours white, and the only colour identified as a colour, was red. I then thought I might get some help from two painters who were producing pots in this school. I approached the two who seemed to be the most inquiring and least satisfied with their Egyptian pottery technique, but once again I found myself in trouble; my new helpers collaborated, but everything they painted had to be re-done, which wasted a lot of time and materials, not to mention the wear and tear on my nervous system, the delicate nervous system which God provided us artists with. They were nice boys, but even more academical than Clave (no pun intended), the Catalan who came to Mexico towards the end of the nineteenth century and turned the Academy of San Carlos into a factory ofwell-crafted transfers. When the lads first saw the concave walls of the two lateral panels, they were panic-stricken, and they became really distressed by the problem of active forms. Of course they

recovered and one even went so far as to sign the picture I had asked him to paint. What do you think of that? What if each of us had signed the bits of the Electrical Syndicate mural he had

painted? It is hard to imagine a stronger manifestation ofeasel painting mentality than that, on these four walls, against which I have been banging my head for the last three months. Of course, the work is slowly being done, but it belongs more to my penultimate period and does not provide a logical continuation

ofthe political painting being done in Mexico today, such as our mural for the Electricians Syndicate. However, it is perhaps more important in some ways, its style is more homogenous, and the movement has been resolved more satisfactorily,

because the room is larger and I have been able to understand its geometry more satisfactorily.

Art and Revolution

196

1943 (Letter to the Cuban

art critic Jose Gomez

Sicre, written in

Havana) Amelia Pelaez is an outstanding example ofthe way in which a vigorous artist should approach the modern trends in Europe. She went to Paris and for a time was inspired by Juan Gris, Picasso and Derain, she then returned to her own country and saturated herself emotionally with what she found there, she

studied her own country as thoroughly as she studied modern painting in Paris, and for the last few years she had been providing the artists of Cuba with the foundations of their future development, when Cuban painting will begin to acquire internal values.

1944 (From the article “Centre ofModern Realist Art” published in the cultural supplement of El Nacional, July 2nd, 1944)

The

modern

Paris—and

as

an

painting

of France,

or

more

exactly

of

that of its best painter, Picasso—should be taken

important

antecedent

of rebellion

against

official

academism, as a movement which aims to restore to the arts the fundamental values that have been lost, and which seeks to find

or increase subjective elements. Picasso in his mural “Guernica” and his etchings “Dream and lie of Franco” found himself on

the threshold

of the social

art movement,

our

movement of public, ideological art, which began in Mexico with our mural painting, and threw overboard the concept of Art for Art’s Sake, with its apoliticism, which was characteristic

of the School of Paris, and which is still its most vigorous representative. 1945 (From a lecture delivered at the Institute of Mexican-Russian Cultural Interchange, Mexico City, October 15th, 1945)

We came to the conclusion that it was not enough just to paint walls, that our art should be circulated more widely, in other words that it should be printed, and that is how El Machete was

born. This magazine has played a wonderful role in Mexican political life. It was founded by painters who wrote the articles and did the graphics, and it was widely circulated both at home

Precepts

197

and abroad. What was the importance of this magazine, which was

nicknamed

“movable

walls’?

It introduced

us to the

Mexican people, it brought us closer to them. It was through

this magazine that we began to be invited to workers’ meetings, and that they wrote to us explaining why they were on strike and

what they were fighting for. Every day we got a greater insight into Mexican life. At that time, in 1924, Mayakovsky came to Mexico. We could easily understand his significance and, through his wonderful poetry recitals, through his monumental, heroic writings, he gave us some tacit advice about

artistic form.

He was not speaking with his own voice but

with the voice of the Soviet Union, with the voice of the proletarian revolution, which opened the doors ofthe world to a new order. Political life drew us into the workers’ movement, El Machete took us to the factories. Mexican painters became the workers’ leaders, some became leaders of the Communist Party

and organised the workers of Jalisco. We were directly and practically responsible for the success of the revolutionary workers’ movement and the strikes. We took part in the miners’ strike, the railway workers’ strike and we were in the forefront of the anti-fascist movement. There was hardly a trade union dispute between 1925 and 1930 in which we did not participate. What was the importance ofall this? The enormously important

fact was that the Revolution had given us a more human view of society and of our own country; the proletariat gave us a new critical sense, it gave us its socialist doctrine, which was personified by the Soviet Union, and when in 1930 we began to paint again, our formerly vague ideas had become categorical. Towards the end of 1930, Serge Eisenstein the Russian cinema producer, came to Mexico, and his theories and films acquired

great importance for us. Eisenstein applied the method

of

dialectics to the analysis of art; he was practically the first artist

to use Marxism in analysing the aesthetics ofsociety. I first heard from Eisenstein that the aesthetic perspective was false, and that

various voices should be superimposed from different angles. He was interested in movement, in chiaroscuro, in elements of

thesis and antithesis. Art is the conjugation of opposites, light exists because darkness exists, but neither of them exists on its

198

Art and Revolution

own; movement without a static corollary is not movement. And I understood from him that painting was fundamentally a matter of dialectics.

1945 (From an open letter to Spanish Republican painters, published in No. 250 of the magazine Asi, Mexico, October 6th, 1945)

What was the position of you Spanish Republican a whole towards our movement, and how did this work? Firstly, and inexplicably, you divided into two academics and the moderns (in the European sense,

Then you functioned

painters as affect your bands, the of course).

broke away from your aesthetic groups and as individuals. In general terms, you became

introverted artists, although your café existence persisted. You had nothing to do with the art movement of our country and no real personal contact with Mexican artists. You adopted an Olympian position and viewed our Mexican

art panorama from a negative, critical position. You criticised it in terms of taste, in spite of the fact that you were artists with a democratic political education; you behaved like bohemians of Montparnasse or traditional aesthetes, and your yardstick was

“beautiful” or “ugly”, or at best the falsely objective academical “well painted” or “badly painted”. You did not realise that your “taste” and your ““scholastic” critical methods were inadequate for the appreciation of this new artistic phenomenon temperamentally so different to your own preferences—which must be respected—nor

its different technique, of which you

had had absolutely no experience. Some of you even went so far

as to criticise the Mexican technique offresco painting. And you even criticised the way we composed our pictures, although you had no practical experience at all in this type of art. I know of

no

valid

criticism

of the many

negative

aspects

of our

production which consider it as a new artistic objective intimately connected with problems of ideology. You were not able to contribute usefully to an endeavour which was politically oriented in the same direction as yourselves. And because we Mexican painters greatly admire some of your work, it is

obvious that for many long years we waited for your support.

Precepts

199

Up to now I have only spoken of your criticism of our work. But what of your own work, historically parallel to that of the

Mexican painters who remain faithful to their original social

and technical objectives? I shall refer in the first place to the modernists.

Almost all of you have painted as individuals, with dangerous nostalgic elements in your work (such as your frequent essays in the style of Goya), or else you have taught both in official schools and privately. Your technique, your style and use ofmaterials is still exactly as it was when you came from Spain. As far as I know you have never become involved in our Mexican experiments, except in the case of the Mexican Electricians Syndicate. Our experiments have awoken interest in both the United States and France. None of you were at all interested in the Institute for the

Chemical

Investigation of Plastic Materials

applied to Art,

which the Ministry of Education set up through the National

Polytechnic Institute; it was as though you believed that your own knowledge was superior. You were equally uninterested in our research into surface activity in mural painting, nor have you shown any interest in mural painting or monumental art. Even when you were publicly invited by the Direction of Aesthetic Education to exhibit in the show “The Drama of War

in contemporary Mexican art’’, you contributed nothing (and only a few attended). Only a very few of you have contributed to philanthropic exhibitions, whereas most of you—for example

Renau—who were good at publicity have produced ninety-nine per cent commercial art (for example the Tampico restaurant,

and the Casino at Cuernavaca). Your greatest production has

been flattering portraits, and your greatest interest has been to make money. No public activity, no theorising, no interest in the

theory of our Mexican movement.

Your bodies are in Mexico, but your hearts and thoughts are in the Paris art world ofthe immediate past, a past which will be destroyed by the new social drive of the post-war world.

And nowI shall refer to those who belong to a tendency which is not modern. You believe that the Spanish period of the past known as the

“Alfonsino” period is still the living example of the best style

200

Art and Revolution

and artistic function of our times. You represent the ““tambourine” style of Spain (which is even worse than our Mexican “picturesque” style, as an antecedent). You have taken no notice of us, but conserve the false realism of this style, an insensitive proficiency, and you make commercial concessions to the least educated of those who buy your work, to the

wealthy parvenus. Your exhibition at the Circle of Fine Arts Palace—apart from the possible talent of some of the young painters who follow your style—has been a clear demonstration

that you have been untouched

by the magnificent cultural

traditions of this country; Greco, Velazquez and Goya would

most certainly not have remained unaffected as you have been. And you have complemented your work with the most commercialised, academic theorising, and believe that you are

filling a void by creating a Circle ofthe Fine Arts in Mexico, with all the old trappings, just like the Asturian Centre and the Galician Centre in Havana, and you believe you have created a new school of plastic arts which will save this country from its ignorance ofthe subject.

It is obvious to me that just as your modern colleagues have been unable to shake off their propensity for the “advanced”

techniques of Paris, you are still actually living here in Mexico an aesthetic past which the political upheaval in your country has destroyed forever. You are not in Spain, because what you see as Spain is something else, and you are not living in Mexico, because you live a life entirely isolated from the real Mexico. To sum up: Your experience in the Spanish Republic which

defended itself so heroically against Franco has not affected

your views on contemporary art. Nor have you been affected by the present and past of the country in which you now live.

You run the danger of returning to Spain—aesthetically speaking—with nothing new: you will take back an art produced

by the hysteria of an individual; an art destined to adorn the houses of the plutocrats; a speculative art destined for smart art

galleries; a graphic art destined to be printed in prohibitively

priced art magazines, etc. You would be taking back to Spain

something which

its people no longer want. The Spanish

people, with their political consciences, would want you to take

Precepts

201

back an improved version of our humble but transcendental Mexican experiment of art committed to the struggle of the people. An art which cannot be like the Academic art of feudal Spain, before the revolution, nor can it be the chic, dandy intellectual art of pre-war Paris. Spain will expect from you a theoretical and practical position based on the democratisation

of knowledge and culture.

1949 (From the article “The modern art movement needs to create an art criticism that will keep pace with it and avoid the deviations and confusions which exist today”. Published in the magazine Hoy, No. 664, Mexico, November 12th, 1949)

Degas used to say: “Art critics are gentlemen who try to explain to others something they don’t understand themselves.” If by this Degas meant that he was against art criticism, I do not agree with him. All artistic movements need criticism, scientific criticism which will give them daily support. But if criticism in Degas’ time (the beginnings of impressionism) was like it is today in Mexico, I heartily endorse Degas’ opinion. How can I explain what I want ofcriticism? I am trying to say that art criticism cannot be eclectic; to speak of neutrality in art criticism is nonsense, there can never be neutral criticism. In the

past criticism was based on the orthodoxy of amythology or on

the orthodoxy ofestablished dogma, but we do not know of any professional art criticism.

In the modern

world, the first art

criticism came from the artists themselves, in their struggle to free themselves from previous schools and routines. And almost

at the same time, great writers began to put their writing at the service of the new objectives and aesthetic programmes. This was true of Baudelaire and the impressionists, Zola and the school of Cézanne, Apollinaire with fauvism and cubism. These

writers took the whole movement under their wing, not the individual artists. Of course the clarity and doctrinal unity of these critics corresponded to that of the aritsts themselves. What has happened in Mexico? Our modern movement in

Mexico—which

is distinguished by the fact that it wages an

international battle for the development of public forms of art—suffers from the same defect as the Mexican Revolution, it

Art and Revolution

202

is too spontaneous, by which I mean

that it lacks an adequate

theoretical basis and sometimes it even lacks a programme. | have often said, and I believe I am right in saying this, that most of our artists “heard the call, but did not know where it came from”. Their contribution was instinctive and comparable to the contribution made by Francisco Villa and the other “caudillos” to the fighting and to politics.

Our great Mexican writers—perhaps our Baudelaires and our Zolas—behaved

no differently. The most they did was to

give us a literary or poetic “smile” from time to time. The modern art movement of Mexico must develop an art criticism which will provide it with support, otherwise it runs the

risk of catastrophe and deviations. This type of criticism must

begin by formulating a premise which will synthetise the true nature and historic importance of the movement. This premise

can only be as follows. Modern Mexican painting is not a colonial or semi-colonial prolongation of modern cosmopolitan painting which originated in Paris at the beginning of this century; neither is ita Mexican or American graft onto the great tree of the School of Paris; nor is it a movement which exclusively derives from Mexico’s great ancestral traditions which the Mexican Revolution brought to light again; far less is it the product of a few geniuses who function outside the scheme of historical facts; neither is it a

movement which was born overnight into full maturity. Modern Mexican painting is the first contemporary public manifestation of art in a world of private art. It is the first international experience of realism in both theory and practice, which now, thirty years later, is finding expression in Paris, Europe, the States and South America. The fact that it had contact with the modern art tendencies of Paris, both in its beginnings and at the present time, in no way contradicts what I have said, because the Mexican movement represents a transitional link between the decadent forms of capitalist culture and the cultural forms

which are emerging from the new socialist civilisation.

Precepts

203

1951 (From the article “Tamayo is a good painter but he has deserted

from the Mexican modern painting movement”, published in No. 760 of the magazine Hoy) It has been rumoured that we are saying that Tamayo is nota Mexican. This is a lie; we all know that Tamayo was born at Oaxaca, and that his work contains elements of Mexican

popular art. We all know that Picasso is a Spaniard, but would anyone be so rash as to say that his work was inspired by or forms part of any Spanish school? El Greco was Greek, but his

painting was undeniably Spanish. Tamayo is a good painter, perhaps even a magnificent painter, but he has deserted from

the Mexican art movement. Tamayo has gone over to the Paris trend but nevertheless he deludes himself that his work is really

Mexican and belongs to an international movement. Tamayo’s work belongs to a trend which is fundamentally opposed to our own movement which also forms part of an international trend, but another international trend, which has been directly or indirectly recognised by all the critics who saw our work at the Venice Biennale.

1952

(Reply to Vicente Lombardo Toledano, given to Rosa Castro in an interview for the magazine Hoy) Our comrade Lombardo Toledano begins his article by saying that he is going to point out “some minor errors”, but finishes by asking: “Why do the revolutionary artists avoid their responsibility? They can paint what they like on the easel, but

when they paint on the walls of buildings in a city which can be seen by thousands and thousands of Mexicans over several generations, they must neither contradict themselves nor bury the brilliant tradition they began some time ago.” If this were

true, it would

not be a minor

error but an

enormous and very serious error. Further on, referring to the on our years 1922-4 when our movement Started, he says their and brains their ability, painters make use of their manual

emotions to bring to flower what is new in Mexico and the

world. In this way, they began painting on the walls of the ancient schools of San Ildefonso and Ss. Peter and Paul, of the

Art and Revolution

204

Ministry of Education, The School of Agronomy at Chapingo

and many others.” It must be recalled that at that time the

Secretary for Public Education was Jose Vasconcelos, and the director

of the

Lombardo

National

Toledano

Preparatory

School

was

Vicente

(at the time the driving force of our

movement). At that time Vasconcelos was a radical who called

the bourgeoisie “the tired reactionary oxen”; today he is an

illustrious lawyer and a great novelist, but he has submitted to the yoke he formerly condemned. Lombardo Toledano, that

brilliant leader of the working classes both in Mexico and in Latin America, who achieved prominence in the international workers’ movement, has no bureaucratic influence in the University. Those days, it is important to Autonomous remember, were the days when the anti-feudal Mexican

revolution was in full swing, and Yankee imperialism was being fought, or at least its pressure was being resisted; today the revolution is running down and sometimes seems to have capitulated entirely, and as Lombardo himself has said, there is

the most absolute surrender to Yankee imperialist designs. As you can see, there is abyss between the two platforms, and we intellectuals are merely a superstructure. It is quite obvious that we cannot do today what we did in the past. Nor can we do what

we did in the times of the Obregon and Calles demagoguery, or during the progressive government of General Cardenas. Today for the first time in the history of our contemporary revolution, our government is able to discriminate, it can mutilate and seize a work of art which itself had commissioned to present at an exhaustive exhibition of Mexican art in Europe. The

government can even say without blushing that no picture with a political content will be included. What political benefit does

the government derive from this outrage? Public pressure had obliged the government to postpone a military pact with the American government. The Americans showed that they were annoyed and something had to be done. Although this may seem incredible, the American government found that it still had a card to play: it could publicly attack the Mexican art

movement,

premeditatingly stirring up the greatest possible

scandal. This problem was deeply political, and could only be

Precepts

205

solved by a change ofpolitical direction at home. And this is the point where I should like to ask myself and my colleagues a question. Can we continue to collaborate with the government as artists, without implicitly accepting their policies? Can we in fact paint in these circumstances pictures of “ardent Mexican reality”, as our comrade Lombardo Toledano would like us to

do?

Are

we

not

running

the danger

of providing

the

government with further opportunities to kowtow to American imperialism? Only a professional organisation, which we do not have today, could answer these questions adequately.

Both Comrade Lombardo Toledano and myself know perfectly well that the “burning reality of Mexico” today could be symbolised as follows: The government of Mexico on the backs of the people; the government of the United States on the back of the Mexican government, and over all three of them,

Wall Street. What other reality could we paint on the walls ofthe University City? But could we really paint this on the university walls? And in the next few years, what would happen to Mexican

mural painting, which has just entered a period of great technical progress? Perhaps the best thing that could happen would be for the painters and the friends of Mexican painting to wonder whether we have not arrived at another 1925, when we

had to leave the immovable walls of buildings and transfer our art to the movable walls which were the pages of our magazine El Machete. This would only mean changing one kind of public art for another, the only form possible under a regime ofterror. In my opinion this would be preferable to dressing up a counterrevolutionary period of history in red clothing. Let these words serve as a basis for discussion in these disordered and worrying times. 1953 (From the lecture “Bad architecture second to bad painting”. Society of Architects, October gth, 1953)

The building of the University City has been announced. We have been told that Mexican architects, engineers and builders will use Mexican materials to build a building of great architectural significance. What a wonderful opportunity! We painters, who have been talking about unitary art for the last

206

thirty years, now

Art and Revolution

have this wonderful

opportunity

in which

architects, painters and sculptors will all work together. When the work began we asked the managers to include mural painters in the team of architects and engineers who were going to do the work. But this was not to be. We might have con-

tributed our ideas, the ideas which matured throughout our political and artistic experience. The architects were just beginning to free themselves from the concepts of Le Corbusier. They were beginning to realise that architecture is not a machine, although they then came to think that if itwas not a machine it must be a piece of sculpture or a picture, which was equally wrong. They finally accepted that

there must be some painting inside the University City, but we were not permitted to participate in the planning stages. We wrote to the architect in charge of the building, Carlos Lazo,

and said that the muralists should be allowed to form part ofthe building commission. He took no notice of us, and the painters were contracted separately, so that we can justifiably wash our

hands of the results. We most certainly have no responsibility for whatever happens. I do not intend to run down the project of the University City, far from it. I believe it is one of the most

important architectural projects that have been carried out in Mexico, and one ofthe largest projects in the world. But it might be a good idea to analyse the University City in connection with many other buildings which are being put up all over our country. The University City is clearly influenced by European formalism. It is full of useless, expensive detail; different levels

which have only been built for the sake of beauty and not functionality; scenographic effects with no architectural function. The University City is evidence of the most negative type ofintellectual thought in our country today—that love for ancient things, for rusticity that seems so paradoxical in modern art. This love for antiquity disguised as revolutionary comes to us in part from Frank Lloyd Wright. In his wake, we find architects building walls in houses out of the stone used to fence pigsties, because of the “beauty” of the stone. A large quantity of useless materials are combined in what I consider a reflection

of cubism. The cubists used sand, pieces of iron, newspaper

Precepts

200

cuttings, razor blades; and Mexican artists are doing the same thing with expensive materials. Their interest in materials is pure sensuality and has no structural value, it is a defect of

pseudo-modern painting which has become incorporated into

contemporary architecture. The University City is full of concrete ornamentation, faced in stone, rather like the hollow columns of Californian architecture. Is it possible that we who

live in a country with a great pre-Hispanic architecture, can forget that stone walls were always painted? This was done, not only because form is formless unless it is coloured—the classics understood this perfectly—but also because the paint made the stone waterproof. Both engineers and architects should be aware of this. Why was all Mexican colonial architecture, which was frequently beautifully carved, also painted? One of the reasons was due to the materials used, which rendered the walls waterproof. Where the plaster has been removed, the walls have been eaten away. And they say to us: “How beautiful these old

peeling walls are!” That may be so, but their beauty has come with age, you cannot produce a patina like that artificially. Artis most certainly truth. We must wait and see how our modern

buildings

age,

but

the

pleasure

will

mot

be

for

our

contemporaries.

And what about landscaping? I believe the same type of mistake has been made here; by trying to imitate nature you cannot produce a good garden. A group of trees here, another group there; undoubtedly this is not good aesthetically and more especially so when combined with a monumental type of

architecture. Great terraces are destroyed by small groups of

plants, arranged in a kind of puerile “naturalism”, like prefabricated oases in Mexican colours. They say they are trying to Mexicanise our architecture. They should take a look at the terraces of Chichen Itza, and of Uxmal, clean, uncluttered and

surprisingly monumental.

What

is happening

is that the

architecture of the small private house is being transplanted to large-scale urbanistic architecture. This preoccupation with

antiques is killing the plastic arts all over the world. There are two visible tendencies in the University City: one is the style of Le Corbusier, which repeats the architectonic forms

Art and Revolution

208

which predominate all over the world, and the other wants to

these structures

Mexicanise

by dressing

them

up in little

Mexican kilts and shirts, like a typical American tourist who has visited Cuernavaca. The pediments were entrusted to an architect who may possibly be very talented, but in this case he imitated a piece of

pre- Hispanic liturgical architecture. What is it? Is itthe ruin ofa pyramid? It is obviously not a pyramid, because the pyramids were decorated and painted. Is it perhaps the walls of apyramid which has entirely lost its plaster, paint and bas-relief? No, sir! When you turn the corner you find it isa modern wall. They tell

us they are “Mexicanising” architecture. This is totally illogical. The pyramids were built to function as platforms for religious liturgical ceremonies, because in pre-Hispanic Mexico ceremonies were held in the open air. How can we utilise these truncated pyramids with their sides formed of steps as the outside walls of a hollow architecture? When the visitor comes

upon these inclined walls of bare stone, he might think they were solid stone walls at least; but the stone is only a facing. They may say

that

“they

are

tired

of the

cold

architecture

called

functionalism and are returning to artistic architecture’. What they are really saying is that they are returning to a kind of indigenous art of formalism, because architecture can only be beautified by the addition ofa picture or a piece ofsculpture. In architecture authentic beauty can only be derived from

authentic

functionality.

I agree

that architecture

must

be

something more than just “a machine to live in”; but it must not be transformed into a picture or a piece of sculpture.

Architecture is an expression ofintegral realism in which beauty derives from functionality. Reality cannot be subdivided or mutilated. Where will this Mexicanisation of style get us? What has remained of previous Mexican neo-Aztec or neo-colonial architecture?

Nothing; there is nothing we can defend at this

time. We can defend it historically by saying that it was a natural consequence

of a period, but we cannot admire it. The same

thing will happen with the indigenous trend in our architecture today. What we could take from our great pre-Hispanic tradition

iso its

monumentality,

its

functional

logic,

its

Precepts

209

constructive realism; but you will not learn from Chichen Itza

by copying the style of Chichen Itza. If the architects were to say that new universal types of construction will develop from the use of concrete, iron, glass, plastics and new concepts of

building, I would agree with them. Universal principles and experiences cannot be avoided. What is bad is to start at the

wrong end, by fixing the style a prior. Style comes as a final consequence of the process of art, not as the beginning. Many factors determine style, which cannot be anticipated. When style is anticipated, art falls into an academic, decadent routine.

Stylism marks the beginning of the end of an artistic period. Stylisation belongs to the virtuosi, who are craftsmen rather than artists. When man must have a new material in order to solvea new problem, he searches for it, he discovers it, he invents it, he

creates it. This is the manifestation of man’s creative strength, rather than a conformist acceptance oflimitations. wanted to move faster than the horse he invented when he wanted to fly he invented the airplane. Art in spite of those who believe the past is insuperable.

When man the car, and is the same, Because we

do not understand the importance of materials, we are making errors which were made before, during the time of Porfirio Diaz,

and in the first years of the Revolution: the mistake of thinking that you can make something national by dressing it in traditional Mexican clothes.

But one thing must be made very clear: there are great differences of opinion regarding realist art forms, between

myself and the Rivera-O’Gorman—Chavez Morado group; we use different technical processes in our search for realism; but we have no fundamental political differences, we are both fighting for social realism. This does not mean that we should

not argue passionately about our differences. That would be a grave mistake. 1953 (From the preface “Satish Gujral and contemporary Mexican painting”,

written for the catalogue

of this Hindu

painter’s

exhibition in Mexico, August-September 1953)

It is highly significant that Asian painters are showing an interest in our Mexican

movement

of social art, and this is

210

Art and Revolution

doubtless

due to the great political upheaval in Asia. The

following questions spring naturally to my mind. What and how should Indian painters paint, coming as they do from a country which was colonial until recently and is now valiantly fighting to free

itself from

semi-colonialist

oppression?

Should

they

continue to paint in the styles of their grandiose past, as so many other economically dependent countries did at the beginning of this century? Should they follow the intellectual norms of the ““supercivilised” snobbish art market ofthe School of Paris, like

most of the modern painters of Cuba, Argentina, Uruguay and other Latin American countries, although in India there is no

decadent bourgeoisie to provide a market for their work? Only a fool, ignorant of the most elemental problems of humanity,

could answer in the affirmative. I know that those who cling to their national traditions are inspired by a national feeling which is constructive, but if they persist in these styles they are bound to fall into another type of colonialism—the superficial tourist

type of mentality proper to a foreign visitor. The forms and styles of a grandiose past can only be a starting point, a national platform

from

which

we

can

attain

a universal

level. The

nations of today were born from-the nations of yesterday, but they are different, they have a different economy, different politics, different idiosyncrasies, which need their own cultural

stages of development. In India today, as in all the oppressed countries of Asia and Latin America, artists must join their work

and their lives to the struggle of the people, and this is why they can learn much from our Mexican movement, both from its mistakes and its achievements. Because we have the same type of economic, political and cultural problems, they will learn more from us than they would even from the Soviet Union and the Popular Democracies.

1956 (From the article: “My experience in painting murals in exteriors”, published in the paper Excelsior, in their supplement “Diorama de la cultura”, Sunday, March 25th, 1956) I hope to be able to answer questions that have arisen with regard to external murals, which the public have shown great

interest in. Before beginning, I would like to tell you what my

Precepts

2 Ia

criteria is in judging art, whether my own or that of others. The first thing to judge is whether a trend is good or bad. Unless this is done it is impossible to proceed logically. An old adage has it “that you cannot understand

the details without first under-

standing the whole”. You must then decide, still within the framework of the trend, whether the particular manifestation

being judged is adequate or otherwise. And finally you must evaluate the talent and ability ofa particular artist. This is the only system ofart criticism which has accompanied all the important movements in the history of art. A purely emotional appreciation of an individual act of artistic creation, considered independently of the social and economic back-

ground which determined it, is utterly useless. There are four panels in the mural I painted in the Rectory.

The technique used was the sculptural painting method of mosaic, and the subject was: “The people to the University, the University to the people; towards a universally valid national neo- humanism.” This was a new type of mural and our previous

experience

in painting

murals

partially of practical help. External muralism provides

inside

buildings

was

only

surfaces

that are

frequently

concave and convex, and foreshortening must frequently be used if primitive styles and forms are to be avoided. If Ihad been able to participate in the architectural plans for the Rectory

building I would have made various suggestions. The surface of the external mural cannot properly be left completely smooth, sculptural reliefs are necessary. When viewed from the outside, objectively flat forms lose their

strength when

they are forced to compete with the three-

dimensional forms of the trees, houses, etc., around them. This

has been understood by all the great artists of history. In view of this I developed my sculptural painting technique. Any shortcomings are due to the complete technical novelty of this process.

You

cannot

become

a sculptor-painter,

nor yet a

painter-sculptor, overnight. This is a new art technique and much time will be necessary to iron out the difficulties involved. Colourless sculpture has no place, either, in external muralism. Forms which are not completely coloured are, paradoxical

22

Art and Revolution

though this may sound, formless. This can also be proved by looking at the art of the past. In our case, contemporary artists were still using materials and methods which were thousands of

years old, and this in a world where scientific progress and industrial technique had made enormous advances. Our lack of modern materials drove us to try and solve this problem by ancestral methods, which were not adequate to modern, socially

realistic buildings. You can only find primitive solutions when you use primitive materials. There is no doubt that, in spite of all my efforts, this is true of my Rectory mural. Perhaps electrolytic

processes will be able to improve the colouring in the future. One of our achievements has been that the government has set up two institutes to research into this problem. The external mural is frequently seen by a motorised spectator, and this has provided new problems of composition.

The visual radius of such a spectator is infinitely greater and more

complicated

than

that

of an

indoor

spectator.

A

multiangular organisation is required, because the spectator

will be seeing the work from the most extreme angles. I worked on this principle, and I believe I have been partially successful. The sculptural reliefs on this type of mural cannot be statically conceived as they were in the past, because that would be contrary to the objective of the new composition in terms of an active spectator, and also contrary to their function of

heightening

sculptured

the tri-dimensional

forms

will

have

to

effect of the mural.

The

be

and

both

lengthened

shortened, like the painting, and although this has not been

totally achieved it is perhaps the most novel element in my work. The practicalities of external construction requires that the sculpture be carried out in a rust-proof metal. I believe that in the future they will be made of static aluminium soldered together, and not the reinforced cement I used in the Rectory mural. It is a known fact that the iron used to reinforce concrete

tends to rust and this cracks the cement, which is quite a serious problem in artistic shapes with a precise contexture. Our backwardness in industrial development and our economic problems prevented me from finding a solution to this problem, and this is why the reliefs on my mural are imperfect.

Precepts

213

I would not advise anyone to use mosaic in external murals, not even in the way I have done in the Rectory mural, because it is an archaic material with all the inherent defects of such a type

of material. It is in fact a graphic process in which the colour

merely “illuminates”. I have often said that in using mosaic you

call up the ghost of Byzantine art, whether you want to or not. In external mural painting colour does not play the same role that it does in easel painting, nor in internal murals. The direct

light of the sun, which is infinitely variable in intensity, Causes a doubly complex problem. For example: in an internal mural pure white accentuates luminosity, in the open air its relationship to the other colours make it appear to retreat and produce the visual effect of holes or perforations. I was unable

to correct this because I was working in mosaic, which did not permit me to do so. In external murals

even

more

than in internal ones,

the

tracings and definite shapes are indispensable and so are the passages from straight lines to curves without intermediary breaks or undulations. This causes it to be extremely schematic which, I need hardly tell you, is not conducive to realism and

frequently obscures the ideological content. This does not mean that we cannot

find a solution, but it will only come

from

practical experience. The public will also have to change its viewing habits, because this is a different type of art. One of the most acute problems of external murals is the

problem of scale, and this has given rise to much discussion. Some people felt that the greater size of the figures, the objects and

even

the space

reduced

the monumental

scale of the

building itself. This is false. It is quite the contrary. The use of large-scale figures, which is inevitable if they are to be seen from a distance, contributes powerfully to the grandiose scale of the building on which they are painted, by direct comparison with the size of the human spectator. I am today more than ever

convinced that I am right in this. External muralism, a historical outcome of our Mexican muralist movement, is the most positive expression of artistic theory and practice today. No country in the world has ever

produced

work

of the

size

that

we

are

producing.

The

Art and Revolution

214

sculptural-painting which some European artists have been theorising about is actually taking shape in our country. It 1s undeniably new and the problems and difficulties involved are

infinite. All of us are involved in searching for solutions in this

vital new field of art, while the artists of the School of Paris and

the “vanguard” tendencies are still intellectualising in the field

of mutilated subjectivity, a subjectivity which has been divorced from its objective body.

1956 (Answers

to Raquel

Tibol in an interview published in the

supplement “Mexico en la cultura” of the paper Novedades, August 12th, 1956, under the title “Siqueiros formulates problems regarding realism”) Realism, by which I mean objectivity in painting, cannot be limited. It is, on the contrary, a dialectical system with infinite possibilities. And if it is remembered that those who apply it are men ofa socialist, i.e. scientific, turn of mind, it must be accepted

that it will necessarily go much deeper than it has in the past. In the past realism was conceived as a problem ofdirect objectivity; a primary intellectual effort which made the theory and practice

of realism much easier. In painting a portrait we were in the

position of imitating—we are not afraid of the word—the physical and psychological aspects of a given person. In such a case, the greater the exactitude of the replica, the greater the value of the work. A portrait must be a portrait in the widest

sense of the term: we must get rid of sophisms, such as that a portrait does not have to be a portrait but only the capricious artistic interpretation by the artist. What we want to know is whether a painter who has decided to be a realist can use in

certain given cases the solution of direct objectivity. Another specific problem refers to the indirect portrait, the

physical, psychological and sometimes political portrait of a person who is dead or absent, painted from more or less authentic documents or references. Because this is a totally different problem, the technique cannot be the same as that used in direct portraiture. The objective difficulties in this case cannot be solved as an artistic adventure; this must be the point ofview of all realist painters, particularly social-realists.

Precepts

os

I believe that the problem of non-imitative mental objectivity

in landscape painting is a totally new problem. In all types of painting, even the most imaginatively fantastic, landscapes have always been expressed in elements which might have been seen; therefore they have always been imitatively objective. But we

cannot deny that there exist in nature things which we cannot perceive, although our intelligence can conceive oftheir existing and, therefore, being depicted. For example, geographical regions which are so inaccessible that even the strongest telescope would not be able to see them. I do not think that it is possible

to

be

quite

as

lyrical,

quite

as

romantic,

about

landscapes in the age of the airplane as men were before they had dominated space. This need for a cosmic landscape is part ofour new nature. Mental objectivity is a solution for more than landscapes which are beyond our field ofvision; many problems of volume can be better solved mentally than visually. It can be

deduced from this that the mental understanding of problems modifies the concept of objectivity, which in the plastic arts has been of a primary, simplistic mechanical kind. The cubists wanted to solve this problem, but they limited themselves to understanding fruit dishes, bottles, guitars, coffee mills, etc. In

representing these objects they used logical objective and visual perception. But in depicting landscapes they merely observed what could be seen from a real or imaginary window. Some artists have been led, by an idea of realism which was too superficial, to exclude all the elements offantasy. The realist

imagines because he needs greater objectivity; his fantasy attempts to foresee things which he may have to deal with. Leonardo

da Vinci painted or drew his fantasies which were

based on certain scientific principles. The progress of physics and biology allow us to produce more far-reaching fantasies, and we must neither reject nor ignore this possibility. This future objectivity, to coin a term, is both constructive and of evident utility in political action. Here is a way in which the realist field of operations, today so provincially shut in, could be widely increased.

216

Art and Revolution

1957 (From the article “Defence ofMexican Public Art”, published in

the supplement “Diorama de la cultura”, Excelsior, February 24th, 1957)

of the newspaper

In the Soviet Union, over which I travelled widely in 1956, the problem of realism and, in particular, social realism is frequently under discussion. Proof of this is to be found in the statement made by the Minister of Culture, Mr. Nicolas Mikhailov, in answer to my question as to why my Open Letter

to the painters, sculptors and engravers of the Soviet Union was never published. His words were textually as follows: “You well know—as do other artists from abroad -whose views and practices of social realism do not coincide with those of the members of the Soviet Union of Painters—that we ask you visitors to do more than just praise the positive side of our work, we also ask you to criticise, as emphatically as you can, the

negative side. I might also add that here in the Soviet Union we make use of self-criticism to a degree unknown in the capitalist world.” I found out afterwards that my criticism of the

academism of Soviet painters had given rise to much controversy, but had not been published in the magazine Sovietskaya Cultura because Alexander Gerasimov, who at that time was president of the Soviet Union of Painters, had been

against its publication. An article entitled “Art and Culture” written in Moscow by Ralph Parker and published in the Roman magazine I! Contemporaneo, on September 19th, 1956, said the

following: “Siqueiros” Open Letter to the Soviet artists, which he read during a session of the Soviet Art Academy, has aroused great interest in the artistic world of the U.S.S.R.” And it could hardly be otherwise in a country where opinions are always

being re-examined and where the government has been in favour of public art for more than thirty years; our Mexican contemporary art movement provides it with a most useful source of experience.

In India I found a government under the leadership of Mr. Nehru, which had the most profound and widest knowledge of

our art movement, and through it had accepted all the solid

social achievements of our country. Forty-eight hours before I

Precepts

217

arrived to a tumultuous welcome, Prime Minister Nehru had

said: “The Government ofIndia is spending enormous sums on building and there is no reason why it should not spend a little more on public art. This would be of collective benefit and would contribute to the promotion of artistic interest in the people, and would also stimulate our artists. At this time, artists are not sufhciently motivated in our country. In Mexico the mural painters merit more respect than their political leaders. Why is this? Because in Mexico mural painters have established permanent contact with the people. Works of art are not limited

to art galleries and thus shut off from the people; the inhabitants of even the smallest villages receive the content of their painting and know the fame of the artists. These paintings cannot be moved about from wall to wall; they are a spiritual part of the

building on which they are painted. Our great artistic tradition here in India shows us the intimate connection between architecture, sculpture and painting, ours is an art with a public mission and not produced for the exclusive and intimate solace

of our princes. Our tradition, in accordance with the ideological realities of the time, was to elevate the people. But this tradition was lost, and we now frequently see hybrid work about us. My most fervent desire is to use every means at my disposal to

foment a type of public art such as we had during the best periods of our history. I would like to take advantage of this occasion to announce the proximate arrival of a great Mexican mural painter, to our country, Mr. Siqueiros.” Could there be any clearer declaration that our Mexican art

movement is an outstanding example of artistic work during a time of social transformation? India, with its great old traditions, the cradle, together with Egypt, of world culture,

appreciates the significance of our theory of a new state art, in the superior democratic traditions of the future. Itis a country which, conscious of its past, and evolving towards its future,

maintains permanent workshops near its great monuments, in order to keep them in a good state of repair, so that the visitor who comes to the temples and palaces, finds everything complete, the sculptures and the cornices, the capitals and bases

of the columns, and even the polychroming is repaired as soon

Art and Revolution

218

as it has become faded by the sun. This is why I was affectionately applauded when I said that if the Venus of Milo had been discovered in India, it would have been easy to provide her with arms:

1960 (From a lecture delivered on January 9th, 1960, in the Central University of Caracas) In my case, I have never put theory before practice. I derive my theory from my painting. Theory emerges from what one is

actually doing. The proprietor of an art gallery, the Plaza Art Centre, a typical

bourgeois Yankee, took me to one side and said: “*I want you to paint a mural here, 30 yards long and

know

12 yards high; as you

my gallery is situated in the Mexican

sector of Los

Angeles, a city where halfa million Mexicans live, most of them

workers

or

office

employees.”

This

was

a

magnificent

opportunity for me. The proprietor then said: ““Of course, this is on condition that you accept the subject I have chosen, which is “Tropical America”.” Without hesitation, I asked him to draw

up the contract and I signed it. This gentleman, like the good Yankee capitalist that he was, had spent all night thinking up his subject. His idea of “Tropical America” was a continent of happy men surrounded by palm trees and parrots, where the

fruit dropped off the trees right into the mouths of the happy mortals who lived there. But I painted a man who had been crucified on a double cross, and perched proudly on top of the

cross was the eagle seen on American coins. Because ofthis I was expelled from the United States. But my mural had done itsjob. My mural was the mural of aMexican painter who had fought in the Revolution and who knew that his first duty was to his ideology. Ofcourse, I was not the only painter to take up this position. Orozco was asked by the Institute for Social Research of New York to paint on their walls the panorama ofthe contemporary social world. He painted Mahatma Gandhi, Lenin, Stalin,

Carrillo Puerto and crowds of starving Mexicans; his painting was a symbol of the international fight against imperialism. His work was respected for some time because it was painted on the

Precepts

219

walls of the Social Research Institute, (it was painted in 1933, at about the same time that I painted my murals in Los Angeles),

but later it was covered.

Anyone might ask: Why paint murals with such subject matter when the most important thing is to save the work ofart? And my answer is that it was more important to fulfil the objectives of our movement, our muralist movement which was directly concerned in the proletarian and popular battles of our era. If political conditions do not respond to the subject matter of our murals, then we must join the workers and all the people

of these countries and fight to achieve the right conditions. It would have been a simple matter for me to have painted a harmless mural in Los Angeles, a fantasy, a dream, or better

still, a nightmare. In that way, I would not have had any problems, because no matter how horrible my nightmare I would

not have been expelled from the United States on its

account, nor would I have had to go to the Argentine so urgently. For more than a year the Siqueiros Experimental Workshop

was a workshop at the service of the working class of the United States through the direct agency of the Communist Party. Our workshop

undertook

all

the

art

work

needed

for

propaganda put out by the revolutionary movements

the

in the

States. We even built the allegorical floats used in the mass demonstrations on May 1st. We once built an allegorical boat called Hearst-Hitler and were able to parade it before millions

of New Yorkers who were escaping from the heat of New York on the beaches of Coney Island. We did not feel that this type of

activity affected at all our “angelic” creative capacity as artists. We used the most advanced mechanical means at our disposal in

carrying out this propaganda art work. And I believe we were able to make important technical contributions, now used by

non-figurative artists who do not believe in social realism and who even try to destroy what they call the “demagoguery” ofthe Mexican movement. In our search for techniques we made prime use in our paintings ofthe artistic accident, which in our

search for new forms we transformed into figurative art with an intensive

realist purpose.

We

were

able to make

enormous

_

220

Art and Revolution

photographic enlargements, up to 36 feet high, thanks to the relative cheapness of American technique. These murals were

reproduced by the thousand and sent to workers’ organisations

all over the States. It still moves me to remember the applause

which greeted the portraits of American Communist leaders in Madison Square Garden. Each of these portraits covered 108

square metres, and were enlarged from an original photograph

which only measured 3 square metres. 1960 (From the lecture delivered on January

11th, 1960,

in the

Museum ofFine Arts, Caracas, Venezuela)

The interior mural is totally different from the easel painting,

and the exterior mural is even more different with regard to the interior mural. It is a totally different profession in which new specialists must be formed. It isa complex problem, because we

are faced with a new phenomenon of figurative art, from which it would be senseless to exclude man’s image. It might be possible to exclude the image of man from a small decorative work, the function of which was merely ornamental. Nonfigurative art has always existed, but in earlier times it has never been the final work, the work itself, but merely the frame of this work. This was the function of decorative borders in all ancient

sculpture, including that of the pre-Hispanic era. What did these ornamental

borders represent? They did not represent

anything, they were nothing more than artistic patterns. What else is the Baroque in both painting and sculpture but great forms

in movement

which

do

not

represent

any

concrete,

specific thing. There has always been a desire to ornament, to decorate, and this has a plastic value ofits own. Is there anyone unable to perceive the different nervous commotion set up by a wavy line and a broken line? In the same way black and yellow

set up a different pictorial sensation than we get from a combination of red and green. It cannot be denied that all this enables an artist to produce the most extraordinarily beautiful

things. But the question arises: is this the desideratum ofartistic creation particularly at a time like the present revolutionary moment in Latin America? As we developed our public art, with

our mural painting and our prints, people would ask us: “But

Precepts

22)

are you going to stay with figurative art for ever?”” And we used to answer: “Of course we are, unless we are stopped from doing so, in which case we shall stop painting.” After this we get the sectarian “the human figure should not be copied any more; it was done so well in the past that no one could improve on it”. When? Why? And on the other hand, the human figure has never been copied, nor has general reality. Nothing has ever been copied. No one can “copy” the human figure. And those who thought they could, have failed. Who says that reality can be transplanted? Reality cannot be transplanted because it depends on contact, on the feelings of every artist or every group of artists who identify with each other in a common cause. There is no need to insist and to bring proof of how reality has been recreated by artists during the great periods ofthe history of art. We found it necessary to use figurative art in order to say important things to the people. It would have been a simple matter for us to have forsaken figurative art in our murals. Why not? You will say to me: “And couldn't you have painted an important non-figurative work?” We could have done, but we

did not want to, we were not interested in doing so. Nonfigurative art would have been useless for our purpose. It would have been out of keeping with our inner selves and our long

experience

of political

life. Non-figurative

art as plastic

gymnastics, a unilateral exercise of the artistic impulse? Yes, that is something I quite often do; I do it whenever I feel like it, but it is not fundamental to my work; I often paint innocuous little pieces, but all this is by way of limbering up for my

important artistic work. And if you were to say to me: “You are

not to paint the human figure any more, we don’t want to see anything recognisable in any of your pictures,” I would simply say, no. And if it were a decree, an inviolable law, I would simply

give up painting and become a carpenter or something. Because we believe in the freedom of artistic expression, we have never tried to impose our artistic line on anyone else, and

whoever says the opposite is guilty of slander. Of course, we defend our art passionately, but that is very different from trying to impose it on others. It has been said that I have declared that “ours is the only way”. I have said that, and I believe that every

222

Art and Revolution

artist thinks this of his own art, and if he is not convinced ofthat

then he is in great trouble. There is no brutal fight between us. Our conceptual differences are not exclusive, in fact I believe we

could agree on many things. How to resolve this? The man who owns a hotel or bar should not really call on a figurative painter of the social realism school to decorate the elegant walls of his business; we all know that this is impossible. No one would call

on Jose Clemente Orozco to paint cruel scenes on the wall ofa hotel. The walls of a hotel need

something

decorative,

not

figurative. And on the other hand, the headmaster ofa school, the executive committee of a workers organisation, the ‘progressive’ or revolutionary governor of a state or province, would hardly call on an abstract painter to decorate the walls of a school, a trade union office or a governor’s palace. Genius and talent can never be ruled by decree. There are bad figurative painters just as there are bad non-figurative painters: the majority are bad. The vast majority of all painters are bad painters. One of the great novelties of our times is that 3,000 masterpieces

can be exhibited at the Venice Biennale, a city

where 400 years ago there painters. It is undeniable discoveries are being made, for art, charlatans abound.

may possibly have been five great that at every period when new and this goes for science as much as This is logical; where there is no

irrefutable proof, a charlatan is bound to appear. From this we

can deduce that most of the non-figurative painters are potentially charlatans. No one denies the importance of the private laboratory, why should they? But it is something else again, when I maintain the need for a collective laboratory for the plastic arts. I believe it would be pedagogically superior. Not more

than two years ago, the painter X said to me, in

Italy: “Come and see how I paint.” He said to me, with great

eloquence: “If science is reason, art is unreason, and the artist must rid himself of all logic, all common sense, he must allow

himself to be led by his emotions alone and he must let his unconscious govern his work; the artist must cease to analyse in his work, his organic impulse must take over.” He took me to his home, and hung an enormous canvas on one of the walls; his

wife then secretly arranged bowls of synthetic paint—a rapid

Precepts

ens

drying paint like the paint we Mexican muralists have been using for the last thirty years—the painter had no idea where any of the colours were. The light was turned off. He had previously explained to me that he was going to make use of different

materials

in producing

his

“accidents”,

such

as

sponges, rags, steel wool, etc. Certain noises I heard in the dark gave me to understand that he was throwing these things at the canvas. When the lights went on, we were both able to appreciate a great accident, not without beauty. And why should it not be beautiful? There are marvellous accidents which could move any ofus to say: “Don't touch it, leave it as itis.” He then

turned to me and told me it was my turn, and everything was set up again as before. He said to me: “Let us see what mysterious

marvel of creation you are going to produce, if you first put your hand in the green paint instead of the black.” I started throwing the sponges and things in the direction of the canvas. When the light was turned on, he said: “What a wonderful abstract painter you are! You are wasting your time in the most foolish ofways. Look at the difference between your picture and mine. Yours looks like a hurricane.”’ And I said to him: “The fact is that I was a pitcher when I was younger.” Joking apart, the fact is that I had thrown

the objects as hard as I possibly could, and this

produced a totally different effect. I had not only daubed the canvas, but the whole room. X the painter is a very gentle man,

and he threw things very tenderly so that the effect was quite different. We discussed it afterwards and both said at the same time: “This is really most interesting.” The tremendous question as to how anti-figurative art has been able to go to such extremes merits international investigation as soon as possible. It is perfectly acceptable that beautiful things can be produced by accident, involuntarily and unpremeditatedly,

valleys,

deserts

just as

and

rivers

incredibly

were

beautiful

produced

mountains,

by cosmogenic

accidents. But how is it possible to make a doctrine of this, a

brutal and sectarian doctrine? No one doubts that modern art has produced new shades, new fires, new brilliances. And these

new elements have doubtless been able to produce certain psychological effects, and unexpected aesthetic sensations. In

Art and Revolution

224

this sense, and in this sense alone, there has been some utility. But there is room in our work for all the daring experiments of the abstracts, and for lots more too, which the unilaterality of

their doctrine prevents them from finding. Of late the Mexican government, under pressure from ourselves, has been obliged to censure the use which the Organisation of American States, with its official seat in Washington, has made of the money which it receives from all the countries of America; it has used these funds to propagate the abstract trends in art and to combat the public art of the

Mexican art movement. What right has it to do this? If it were to use its money

to propagate

realist art, the Abstract painters

would have full rights to complain. The OAS has no right to interfere in our aesthetic affairs, or in our national politics. It is

very significant that at this time no figurative artist ofthe socialrevolutionary trend has been invited to exhibit his works in the United States. Is it not extraordinary that the Museum of

Modern Art in New York has seen fit to eliminate these painters from their publications? It is obvious that imperialism prefers an art which is deaf and dumb, an art which says nothing, hears

nothing, and even sees nothing. But this does not mean that we deny the right of any painter to experiment in any way he likes. He has the right to do this and the right to defend his principles and his point of view in public; but he does not have the right to

help the forces of reaction to drown out the voices of those ofus

who do want to say something with our painting, or to join those forces in shutting our mouths by taking away our liberties. What are we fighting for at the present time? Are the abstract

artists, the non-figurative artists, fighting for the freedom of expression? It is we, the figurative artists who have ideological

links with our people, who are fighting for this.

KING ALFRED'S COLLEGE

LIBRARY

>

' O

o

e

oo

re

Jacket design by Philippa Bramson

e o 2 Kao-1