I think that these two texts enlighten the relationship between State and popular culture. How does State infer in popular culture?
The first text focuses on the evolution of Mexican murals. The author particularly discusses the fact that these murals suffered from several onslaughts of the governments. He raises the issue that these murals are still considered as a symbol of public expression whereas it « is effaced by cyclical onslaughts of governments or electoral propaganda, is displaced in the colonization of urban space by commercial advertising and images, and suffers the more gradual erasure inflicted by the elements on work of art executed within the marginal economy of the unofficial » (p29). Moreover, he compares the murals as palimpsests. The palimpsests were the paper on which the people wrote in the Antiquity. They wrote new things on already used paper, and thus, they erased the previous thing they had written. This means that as the political situation of the country change, the murals as a form of popular culture evolves too. However, as it evolves, it also erases the previous murals.  In his text, Campbell shows how the Mexican governments used murals does as an object of power. For example, he explains that murals were used to increase the nationalism in Mexico. Most of the time, it depicts the people. Nevertheless, even if the government used Mexican murals, it seems that the murals had its own ideology. This explains why murals suffered from censorship.  However, now, murals are considered as « things of the past » because of the modernization, the urbanization and the rise of advertising. What does it mean? In their text, William Rowe and Vivian Schelling explain that the media, which convey popular culture, evolve but still be alive. Could we say the same thing for murals? Are the Mexicans murals and their ideology still alive?
Then, I do not clearly understand the second text. The style is complicated and the text is full of metaphors. State is compared with « a queen mountain ».  I think the author tries to explain how the imposition of the nation-state was difficult for other people (African slaves, Indians, ect.)  who were not used to living in a nation-state organisation. The acceptance of this model was followed by wars and violence. Today, the popular culture is also inspired by this reaction against the model of nation-state. Could this explain why states are so suspicious towards popular culture?