Murals
It is important to briefly define murals, the genre of both Guernica and Detroit Industrial. Mural comes from the Latin word murus, meaning wall. They became a major art form in the 1930’s that were and in the case of Diego Rivera and Picasso, explore the impact of industry and war on individuals. While everyday people and workers may have been exploited by factories or prejudices, murals allowed for these individuals to be depicted in ways that were human and complex. Murals throughout the United States were painted in areas with large numbers of individuals that faced similar difficult circumstances. (32) In the United States in the 1960’s, murals were developed to “celebrate ethnic pride” and challenge issues related to inequality, an example of this being the Mexican Muralist Movement. Another example of celebrating ethic pride is reflected in the piece, Wall of Respect. (33) Exploring each of these murals will allow for rich discussion among students.
Guernica by Pablo Picasso
Guernica by Pablo Picasso (34)
Guernica depicts the attack on a small village named Guernica on market day in northern Spain on April 26, 1937, during the Spanish Civil War. During the attack, aerial bombing from Hitler’s Condor Legion and Italian Fiat Fighters dropped 100,000 pounds of explosive incendiary bombs that destroyed the town, killing 1,654 and wounding 889 individuals in the village. (35) While Guernica represents the bombing, it is appealing to many individuals for different reasons. Some admire the extensive use of symbols and the artist’s style. Others like to look to it to consider how Picasso addresses the politics and society of the period. Many are drawn to it to think about it as a commentary on war; all of these elements have contributed to create a legacy for Guernica that has even driven tourism to the village today. (36) By understanding these key interests in the mural, teachers may be better able to determine their approach to facilitate discussion around the painting.
Guernica uses light, form, and symbols in interesting ways. The scene condenses many of the types of events that occurred during the bombing of the town. The stark use of black and white throughout the painting contributes to the creation of a chaotic environment within the piece. A light bulb hangs within the room, but it is hard to determine whether it is day or night, inside or outside, given the subject matter that is depicted. Contributing to the chaos is a mixture of starkly painted materials that are broken from the bombing; this carnage suggests that man, animal or object could not find safety in any setting. Guernica uses symbols in creative ways to capture the devastation of the bombing. At no point can the viewer of the mural see planes dropping bombs. The comingling of various human and animal figures shows the sudden nature of the attack. While it is evident that there are both human and animal forms, some of the other forms are suggestive of symbols that may signify other meanings. For example, critics have argued over the nature of the light or eye that is near the top of the mural; it suggests many messages. Equally ambiguous and suggestive is the bull figure. (37) For Picasso, the potential connotative meanings could be referring to Spain itself and the historical bull-fighting tradition with the provoking of the bull’s rage, or even his own artistic temperament.
Picasso chose to employ Cubism as a style in his creation of Guernica. By the time that the mural was created, Cubism as a genre had been explored by several artists for a few decades. Picasso was well-known at the time for being very innovative with the technique, and Guernica is a thoughtful creation that uses Cubism in a way that effectively shows the disorder of modern warfare. Some critics contend that the “fractured nature of Picasso’s cubist composition techniques” do a better job of depicting the events of the bombing than a composition that might have attempted to recreate a scene of destruction. (38) Picasso’s contortion of both dimensions and figures achieved through the use of a cubist style contributes to the confusion and chaos of the piece. By manipulating the lines and planes within the piece, Picasso captures the fear and disorientation that individuals must have felt as the bombing event unfolded. No direction leads to safety in the piece, as all of the figures within the piece are going in different directions with pained expressions.
Guernica interests many who like to think of issues related to politics and society. Picasso was commissioned at the start of 1937 to paint a mural for the Spanish Republic’s Pavilion at the Paris Exposition. Spain was engaged in civil war at the time; while not overtly political, Picasso’s fame as an artist and willingness to create a mural for the Republic demonstrated his political support. In taking the commission to create the mural, he had the opportunity to express his concern about the destruction that he saw happening, even before the bombing. (39) This initial thinking took on more urgency after the bombing of Guernica. Picasso began new sketches for his mural four days after the bombing. His new sketches were contained almost completely different characters, “a bull, a horse, and a light-bearing woman, plus some lines indicating other figures would fill certain spaces;” these changes suggested a “complete change of direction in content and meaning.” (40) These new characters all found their way into the final piece that Picasso worked on at a feverish pace to finish in time for the exposition. In thinking of the change of artistic direction taken by Picasso, it is also important to note that one of the first sketches for the mural contained “an upraised arm holding a hammer and a sickle.” (41) This communist symbol is no longer part of the final mural, suggesting that Picasso intended on making a political statement with the work all along, but that political statement changed given the attack on the town.
Given the seemingly direct influence of the bombing on his work, it is only natural that many have come to view Guernica as a commentary on war. War correspondents who arrived to cover the bombing of Guernica were immediately shocked by a new type of warfare that they covered in great detail:
Graphic and compelling images began to emerge from the warfront of terror-stricken and fleeing women and children; upturned faces, filled with dread; skies darkened with multitudes of enemy planes; homes and cities reduced to smoldering rubble; and casualties of all ages. (42)
This type of bombardment was new to the world; the airplane was a relatively new invention by 1937 and had not been used for mass bombing. The menacing nature of air bombardment and the terrible damage that it inflicted dominated news reports of the day. One correspondent entered the town of Guernica after midnight; the village was flaming with crumbling buildings, debris strewn throughout, and survivors searching for relatives and children. People that survived the bombing reported being shot at by German fighter pilots that shot at them as they tried to escape bombed out buildings. (43) This carnage was shocking to first-hand observers and shocked Picasso; Picasso’s rapid completion of the mural for the exposition was the direct product of this shock.
The relationship between Guernica and potential commentary on war has sparked some of the current thinking and interest in the piece. In addressing the International Council of New York’s Museum of Modern Art in 1998, Kofi Annan referred to Guernica as a “ .” (44) This was an interesting diction choice because the political nature of the work cannot be ignored. If the body that is responsible for ensuring world peace believes that Guernica is illustrative of the senselessness of war, then it is worthwhile to consider the message of the piece in light of more contemporary world events. In making his remarks, Annan considered the piece to be a “passionate protest against senseless violence.” It was slightly ironic that five years after Annan’s address that Guernica could be easily seen in footage (as a copy of it hangs in the corridor outside the Security Council chamber) while the US Ambassador to the UN was addressing the world’s media to advocate for war with Iraq based on the false suspicion that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. (45) The number of people that go to see the mural on display in Madrid and visit the namesake town suggest that Guernica connects with people on multiple levels and has the capacity to connect with students as well.
Detroit Industrial Mural by Diego Rivera
Detroit Industrial Mural by Diego Rivera (46) Note: There are multiple parts to this mural, see the link for access to the complete mural in the Appendix.
In 1932, Diego Rivera and his wife Frida Kahlo travelled to Detroit because Rivera was commissioned to paint a mural related to industry in the central courtyard of the Detroit Institute of Arts. He received this commission from the Ford family, and it was for a high sum of money, considering it was the start of the Great Depression: $21,000. (47) This commission was an interesting one for Diego to accept, because he considered himself to be a progressive figure, yet some of the actions of the Ford family would seem to directly oppose progressive beliefs. For example, Ford had been the first to publish the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in the United States; Hitler was fond of Ford’s anti-Semitism and recognized him in his book, Mein Kampf. (48) This makes one wonder about Rivera’s motives for accepting the commission. Was he interested in earning a living, despite his beliefs? Did he accept the commission hoping to subvert the system?
In the mural, 27 panels long, Rivera depicts a car factory in Detroit in the 1930’s. In some respects, it is narrative like the Bayeux Tapestry. Most of the elements can be read left-to-right and suggest a narrative about the American worker in factories. Each one of the panels focuses on a different labor process that is involved in producing a car:
In the two main panels of the north and south walls we see the major stages in the production of cars….These [panels] come together along the assembly line as we see a stream of components coming together to join the chassis being lowered onto the assembly line in the foreground…. it is people more than anything that occupy the space of the paintings…. men straining to move engine blocks, recognizable figures from the plant and the gallery at the time, and Rivera's self-portrait hidden among the mould-makers, the green of glass….Groups of workers in the foreground bump and grind body panels, they look away, down, or their faces are covered. In the center of the panel we see the final assembly line moving away from us towards the vanishing point. (49)
The process of making a car is detailed, but there is a subversive element. As the car gets developed in the mural, the workers themselves become more difficult to see. Rivera creates human figures that lose detail and become less complete as the cars they create become more complete. (50) It seems to suggest that the process of making the car in auto factories robs individuals of their humanity. This subversive message was identified early on and nearly resulted in the mural being destroyed.
Rivera thought that the spirit of Detroit was in its workers and factories and sought to depict that in the mural. In his autobiography, Rivera recalls the experience of planning for the mural. He went from factory to factory throughout Detroit sketching different industrial scenes. He focused on the men that worked in the factories and their interaction with all of the various machines. (51) This experience was important to Rivera. Based on viewing the mural, one is left to wonder what Rivera thought about the relationship between man and machine. An argument could be made that Rivera was trying to depict the ill-effects when man is forced to operate in a machine-like manner. Another argument could be made is that Rivera attempted to critique scenarios that seemed at odds with one another. For example, in one part of the mural, Rivera uses imagery of a scientist producing poison gas for war while juxtaposing scientists also producing vaccines. (52) Rivera seems to recognize the importance of technology for the future, but questions the impact that it could have on others.
People’s reaction to the new mural was mixed. Some thought it was powerful and did capture the essence of factory work in Detroit; some did not like it and thought it cast workers in a negative light, so much so that a sign was erected near the mural that states:
Rivera's politics and his publicity seeking are detestable. But let's get the record straight on what he did here. He came from Mexico to Detroit, thought our mass production industries and our technology wonderful and very exciting, and painted them as one of the great achievements of the twentieth century. This came after the debunking twenties when our artists and writers found nothing worthwhile in America and worst of all in America was the Middle West. Rivera saw and painted the significance of Detroit as a world city. If we are proud of this city's achievements, we should be proud of these paintings and not lose our heads over what Rivera is doing in Mexico today. (53)
This defense of Rivera’s art shows that some people took issue with the portrayal of workers and that the piece was controversial to some at its inception. The mural was controversial. Some people took issue with the portrayal of workers while others felt that Rivera’s political beliefs were questionable.
Comments: