DIEGO RIVERA’S DETROIT INDUSTRY AND ITS INFLUENCE IN THE AMERICAN ART OF THE FUTURE It was 21st April 1932 when Diego Rivera and his partner, Frida Kahlo, arrived in Detroit. The former was employed by Edsel Ford, who was president of the Ford Motor Company, to paint the Detroit Industry murals. In March 1933 the work was finished. Rivera considered them his finest paintings. In the first month, more than 86,000 people visited Ford’s industrial complex to see the murals (Hamill, 1999, p.162). It was a big success, despite the controversy that surrounded Rivera’s work. Moreover, he influenced the art of the New York School, as Detroit Industry was the starting point for The Works Progress Administration (W.P.A.), an initiative under the Public Works of Art Project of 1934. The US artists used his fresco technique and his monumental style for their works, as Rivera’s murals had a decisive influence on Jackson Pollock and many others of the New York School who worked on the project. How can a devoted communist like him, be accepted in the United States and affect the art of the next decades so crucially? How did his work manage to survive the control of the commissioner? And how much was Detroit Industry a proof of Rivera’s beliefs for art? This essay critically examines the historical background and the place of the artist’s most notable work in the social context of its time and its future influence. The Mexican revolution of 1911-­‐20 worked as a catalyst for the production of radical art. The ideas of a better future and social equality dominated mural painting. Diego Rivera, José Clemente Orozco and David Alfaro Siqueiros were los tres grandes, which means the ‘three great ones’. Their art inspired the masses and the term ‘Mexican Mural Renaissance’ 1 showed the importance it had in the society of the whole nation. The art press of New York set its sights in the southern borders, ready to embrace anything new that could lift the low spirit caused by the Wall Street Crash of October 1929, and The Great Depression’s effects that followed. Rivera’s art had the biggest impact. His impressively large style and the simplicity he used to approach his subject matter, made him very popular to public and artists alike. He used his native culture as a starting point towards an evolutionary process which would lead his work to be seen as an artistic construction of his mechanical age. His straightforwardness came in a period when the commissioning agencies in the States supported a realist approach to art, suitable for the needs of different social groups. Rivera did not practice socialist realism, but he put his work to the service of the social evolution. Moreover, with the presence of Depression, social relevance became a necessity. The artist George Biddle, a childhood friend of President Franklin D. Roosevelt wrote to him that Rivera proposed for the States to follow the example of Mexico and support the artists financially, so as to create a new form of US art. Consequently, the government presented the Public Works of Art Project in 1934 and started its commissions. A booklet which explained Rivera’s technique was also given to the artists that received the commissions (Fineberg, 2000, pp. 24-­‐27). Already a Trotskyist by 1929 (Carter, 2000, p. 167), Rivera put his communist identity in accordance with the wanted realism by the commissioning agencies in a way that followed Trotsky’s theory of the United Front, where the revolutionaries and the reformists are in common struggle. The American tendency for empiricism and realism, was conceived as deeply democratic. Rivera’s realism was in symmetry with those views installed in the American temperament, that considered democracy and realism inextricably associated to each other. It can be argued that the Mexican painter consciously received the commissions 2 in Detroit, San Francisco and New York’s Rockefeller Centre, so as to spread his revolutionary ideas to the masses in a Trotskyist perspective. His interaction with the state had the intention to promote the practice of mural painting as a tendency of ‘cultural democracy’. Furthermore, his works on public buildings encouraged the feeling of communal existence and the realisation of a national identity (Meecham, 2004, pp. 86-­‐87, pp. 89, 91). Rivera painted Detroit Industry (Fig. 1) at the peak of his career, between July 1932 to March 1933. (Fig. 1) His connection with two people was crucial; one was the Detroit Institute of Arts’ director William Valentiner. He dreamed of an institute and a city that would be the cultural leaders 3 in the States and strongly supported Rivera’s work. The other was Edsel Ford, who apart from his role at the company, he was president of the Arts Commission of the City of Detroit. He, like Rivera, was keen on industrial design. That ‘triangle’ between the three men and their mutual respect for each other, functioned as a catalyst for the Mexican painter, no matter how radical views he had, to receive the commission. However, it was not an easy task. Ford was positive, but the other members of the Arts Commission not. It took a successful exhibition of Rivera’s watercolors and drawings as an example of his work in The Detroit Institute of Arts, for the other members to be convinced (Downs, 1999, pp. 21-­‐29). Rivera wanted to depict the history of Detroit and the destined evolutionary process as a social necessity; his narrative begins in the east wall (Fig. 2). (Fig. 2) In the centre, there is an infant in the bulb of a plant. Also present, is the soil and the moldboard ploughshares that symbolise the unity of nature and agriculture. On the top left 4 and right, two female nudes are holding wheat and apples. Below them, the fruits and vegetables depicted symbolise the fertility of American land. The infant’s presence and its link with nature puts humanity in the epicentre of material world. Moreover, Rivera likened the Detroit Institute of Arts to the infant, as the central cultural institution of the community. The two female nudes derive from ancient Mexican art. They are similarly linked with nature, as they are holding the land’s products. It is obvious that Rivera’s style has different references: from his Mexican roots to the cubist influences from the time he lived in Paris, and from cubism to the grandeur of Renaissance frescoes that he encountered in Italy, Rivera used his life’s experiences as an ingredient of his art (Fineberg, 2000, p. 26). In the west wall (Fig. 3), the narrative continues with the progress of technology.
(Fig. 3) In the Aviation theme of the upper registers, the passenger and the war planes serve as a reminder of the different way technology can be used by humanity. The dove and the hawk symbolise the eternal contrast between peace and war. In the middle register, the theme of 5 Interdependence of North and South is about North and South America. Two regions with different characteristics interrelate with each other, the former having a strong industry and the latter a thriving agriculture. Finally, in the lower register, Steam and Electricity unveil Rivera’s ideology in a unique way: the steam and the worker on one side, the electricity and the manager on the other. It is clear class division. The two men are far and don’t look to each other. Rivera’s work in the west wall indicates how much he embraced the idea of the machine. The planes, the industrial work, the steam, the electricity are signs of evolution and progress. Unsurprisingly, he was enthusiastic about his new murals like he was ten years ago, when he was returning to Mexico (Hamill, 1999, pp. 155-­‐156). In the north (Fig. 4) and south (Fig. 5) walls, there are representations of the four races, the automobile, and the other minor industries of Detroit. (Fig. 4) 6 (Fig. 5) Rivera intended to give the four races a sense of balance and equality. As a result, there is a symmetry in the size of the north wall’s Red and Black Races and the south wall’s White and Yellow Races. He also wanted to emphasise the equality between the male and the female worker, so the female presence in south wall’s Pharmaceutics and Surgery and Production of Automobile Exterior and Final Assembly (top right), is evident. The division between the working class and the bourgeoisie is successfully given in the contrast between the worker – supervisor (down left) and the workers – spectators (down centre) of the same wall. The work of Rivera is monumental. The subject matter is accessible, and stylistically, it comprises different elements. The artist used his native roots and mixed them with the European influences of his artistic background. The result is a technical radicalism (Meecham, 2004, p. 91), which make Detroit Industry one of his best and most interesting moments. Furthermore, the social conditions under which the murals were painted and the intentions of Rivera in accordance with his ideology, construct one of the most interesting 7 and influential chapters in the histories of art. The next chapter of this essay deals with the above statements. There are two events that are closely related with Rivera’s Detroit Industry and the artist’s stance towards them. The Ford Hunger March is the first. It occurred on March 7, 1932. It was the reaction to the firing of 3,000 – 5,000 workers of Ford. A big crowd marched from the limits of the city to the company and met the opposition of firemen and the police. Tear gas and frigid water were thrown against them. The workers threw stones, and Ford’s guards and the police opened fire. This led to the killing of five people. Also, more than twenty were wounded. The criticism from the left was fierce. Edsel Ford, who was associated with the arts and the church, was in the epicentre of the events. The protest had to do with the working conditions in the company, as well. Ford wanted to build a new profile for the company and a radical artist like Rivera could help him achieve that. The latter wanted to be present at the worker’s march, but finally arrived in Detroit on the 21st April. (Downs, 1999, pp. 30-­‐31, p. 34). Consequently, did Rivera’s work help the proletariat to raise the pressure on the capitalist ownership or did it help the capitalist status quo building bridges with the oppressed class? To answer the question, it would be helpful to remember the relationship between the Mexican muralists and the post-­‐revolutionary governments in Mexico. The result of the Mexican Revolution of 1911 – 1920 was the emergence of a new elite who accumulated the power. The aristocracy of the past surrendered its hegemony to the middle class, who paved the way for capitalist forces to be established again in 1920 – 1924. Those forces, controlling the state could also control those who run it. ‘The system’, as Greek Marxist sociologist Nicos Poulantzas said, could use every individual who runs the state for its 8 purposes and the state could use certain people as propagandists of its own policies. Thus, the Mexican muralists alongside their patron, that is the state, no matter their radical rhetoric, served the capitalists. However, this approach tends to omit the fact that active struggle is constructed through modes that can alert the proletariat. Such as art. The Mexican muralists inspired the working class, and art coexisted with strikes and the struggle in the streets (Carter, 2000, pp. 165-­‐171). Returning to Detroit Industry, the claim that Edsel Ford tried to build a new, more social and friendly profile for his company with the help of Rivera’s art, can be challenged with the claim of the risk such a choice could have as an inspiration for the workers towards a more intense struggle. The painter dreamed of a future that the hegemony of the working class would change the whole world, and he tried to affect his present times with his art. He said that he wanted to use it as a weapon. Could Ford’s intentions overshadow Rivera’s will? The second event closely related with Detroit Industry, was the strike of fifteen thousand auto workers that happened in Detroit in January 1933. That followed by the collapse of the city’s banking system in February. The Depression’s appearance was ambiguous, but Rivera continued his work. That fact could lead to the assumption that he was convinced about how he could serve better his ideology. He considered the artist a worker, and mural art as the most significant form of art for the proletariat. Modern art was destined to have a revolutionary spirit (Rivera, 2003, pp. 421-­‐424). Moreover, his friend and biographer Bertram D. Wolfe, referring to Rivera’s relationship with Mexico’s post-­‐revolutionary government, wrote that the artist painted only for its more revolutionary departments. In the same way, it can be argued that he considered The Detroit Institute of Arts, the Institute’s director William Valentiner and the commissioner Edsel Ford, progressive enough to support his radical art. His Trotskyist perceptive and the 9 theory of a United Front allowed him to move flexibly through the social ranks and promote his revolutionary ideas. The Marxist art historian Meyer Schapiro asked about the criteria which define a work of art revolutionary and reflected on the intentions of the artist and the commissioner. He claimed that the audience and the way they are influenced by a work of art, defines the latter’s meaning. Also: …it would be necessary to analyse the conditions of its creation, its effect on popular sentiment, its place in the whole cultural and social movement of the time (Schapiro cited in Carter, 1937/2014, p. 289). It is interesting to bear in mind the controversy that Detroit Industry caused in the conservative social groups by the time of its completion. That would help us to understand better its radical nature. Moreover, the influence of Rivera’s work is doubtless. Its technical radicalism impressed young Jackson Pollock since he was a student and attended communist meetings. The Federal Art Project began under The Works Progress Administration (W.P.A.) in 1935, and one year later it employed 6,000 artists. The stipend was $23 weekly and the artists involved were the most prominent ambassadors of America’s art. The majority of them were based in New York and some of them like Jackson Pollock, Mark Rothko and Willem de Kooning were part of the New York School (Fineberg, 2000, pp. 27, 88). In conclusion, Rivera’s Detroit Industry is an artwork made in a simplified and monumental style. The artist embraced the mechanical age and wanted to capture the revolutionary spirit in modernity. He used his Mexican background and his European life experiences as ingredients of his mural painting. Despite his communist ideas, the cultural and social conditions of the time worked in his favour. 10 In the States, there was a need for new art that could lift the low spirit from the effects of The Great Depression. The cultural world supported a realist approach in art and Rivera was already an established painter. Valentiner and Ford, with their progressive views inside the establishment, encouraged Rivera’s commission. The latter, a Trotskyist, would use the given opportunity and would treat it as a helpful tool for the promotion of his ideology. He believed that an artist is also a worker and that mural art was the most helpful for the proletariat. Moreover, his art was used as an example for the recipients of the Public Works of Art Project. The W.P.A. and many artists that were attached to it, functioned under the influence of his murals and played a decisive role in the histories of art that followed. References Carter, W. (2000) ‘The Public (Mis)use of Art: Radical Artists, Reformist States, and the Politics of Mural Painting in 1930s and 1940s America and Mexico’, Oxford Art Journal, 23 (2), pp. 165-­‐171. Carter, W. (2014) ‘Painting the Revolution’, Third Text, 28 (3), pp. 282-­‐291. Downs, L. B. (1999) Diego Rivera: The Detroit Industry Murals. New York, London: Norton. Fineberg, J. (2000) ‘American Pragmatism and Social Relevance’ In Fineberg, J. (ed.) Art Since 1940: Strategies of Being. 2nd ed. London: Lawrence King, pp. 24-­‐26. 11 Fineberg, J. (2000) ‘The Depression and the Works Progress Administration (W.P.A.)’ In Fineberg, J. (ed.) Art Since 1940: Strategies of Being. 2nd ed. London: Lawrence King, pp. 26-­‐
27. Fineberg, J. (2000) ‘Pollock’s Early Life and Influences’ In Fineberg, J. (ed.) Art Since 1940: Strategies of Being. 2nd ed. London: Lawrence King, pp. 86-­‐89. Hamill, P. (1999) ‘The God of the Assembly Line’ In Hamill, P. (ed.) Diego Rivera. New York: Harry N. Abrams, pp. 155-­‐162. Meecham, P. (2004) ‘The Art and Politics of the 1930s: Art to Effect Social Change’ In Wood, P. (ed.) Varieties of Modernism. London, Milton Keynes: Yale, The Open University, pp. 84-­‐
88. Meecham, P. (2004) ‘Documenting the USA’ In Wood, P. (ed.) Varieties of Modernism. London, Milton Keynes: Yale, The Open University, pp. 89-­‐93. Rivera, D. (2003) ‘The Revolutionary Spirit in Modern Art’ In Harrison, C., Wood, P. (eds.) Art in Theory 1900-­‐2000: An Anthology of Changing Ideas. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, pp.421-­‐
424. Bibliography Downs, L. B. (1999) Diego Rivera: The Detroit Industry Murals. New York, London: Norton. 12 Fineberg, J. (2000) Art Since 1940: Strategies of Being. 2nd ed. London: Lawrence King. Hamill, P. (1999) Diego Rivera. New York: Harry N. Abrams. Harrison, C., Wood, P. (2003) Art in Theory 1900-­‐2000: An Anthology of Changing Ideas. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell. Newman Helms, C. (1986) Diego Rivera: A Retrospective. New York, London: Norton. Wood, P. (2004) Varieties of Modernism. London, Milton Keynes: Yale, The Open University. Illustration List Rivera, D. (1932-­‐1933) Detroit Industry, North Wall (detail), Fresco, Detroit Institute of Arts, Detroit. Rivera, D. (1932-­‐1933) Detroit Industry, East Wall, Fresco, Woman Holding Grain, 2.58 x 2.13m; Woman Holding Fruit, 2.58 x 2.13m; Michigan Fruits and Vegetables, .68 x 1.85m (both); Infant in the Bulb of a Plant, 1.33 x 7.96m, Detroit Institute of Arts, Detroit. Rivera, D. (1932-­‐1933) Detroit Industry, West Wall, Fresco, Aviation, left 2.58 x 2.13m, centre 2.58 x 7.96m, right 2.58 x 2.13m; Interdependence of North and South, 1.33 x 7.96m; The Peaceful Dove, .68 x 1.85m; The Predatory Hawk, .68 x 1.85m; Steam, 5.18 x 1.85m; Electricity, 5.18 x 1.85m, Detroit Institute of Arts, Detroit. 13 Rivera, D. (1932-­‐1933), Detroit Industry, North Wall, Fresco, The Red and Black Races, 2.69 x 13.72m; Geological Strata, 1.33 x 13.72m; Manufacture of Poisonous Gas Bombs, 2.58 x 2.13m; Vaccination, 2.58 x 2.13m; Cells Suffocated by Poisonous Gas, .68 x 1.85m; Healthy Human Embryo, .68 x 1.85m; Production and Manufacture of Engine and Transmission (Ford V-­‐8), 5.40 x 13.72m, Detroit Institute of Arts, Detroit. Rivera, D. (1932-­‐1933), Detroit Industry, South Wall, Fresco, The White and Yellow Races, 2.69 x 13.72m; Geological Strata, 1.33 x 13.72m; Pharmaceutics, 2.58 x 2.13m; Commercial Chemical Operations, 2.58 x 2.13m; Surgery, .68 x 1.85m; Crystals, .68 x 1.85m; Production of Automobile Exterior and Final Assembly, 5.40 x 13.72m, Detroit Institute of Arts, Detroit. 14