Month: March 2009

Okay, so I got home from school last night only to find that my internet wasn’t working. I swear! It won’t get fixed until Thursday now, so I’m submitting this from campus. A day late, but here it is:

The readings for this week are both very interesting, long, but interesting.

The text from Campbell was the easier to read, but still very dense and informative. The split between muralism and the state in post-revolutionary Mexico period seems like a logical development to me. Art is experience: “The murals make us remember our experiences together, how we built all of this ourselves, and all the troubles we had.” When your troubles are your leadership, your art is going to show that, and official sponsorship becomes official oppression. Campbell goes much deeper than this though. His analysis of the shift and its implications is complex, insightful, and extremely interesting. I wouldn’t have understood half this at the beginning of the semester. I couldn’t possibly write about the whole text (and I loved it all), so I’ll just make one interesting remark. We talked about resignification in class as a form of popular resistance to state or commercial culture. I thought it was interesting when Campbell shows how the state can also use resignification, best exemplified by some of the public images he presents at the very beginning of his introduction. As a result, he says, the mural form becomes “occupied territory.” An excellent way of putting it!

The second reading, by Taussig, took me some getting used to. But once I understood his writing style everything started making much more sense and the reading more enjoyable. I’ll be honest, though, I haven’t quite finished reading all of it; it will get done tonight. Taussig and Campbell’s writings are in many ways similar but in others very different. Taussig writes in a narrative, almost like a travel log or something. As a result, his goal is not so much an in-depth analysis of the processes involved in the creation of culture, but to paint a picture of a culture. The picture he paints, however, is not so unlike Campbell. The state, for instance, is ever-present and powerful. Also, there is a noticeable relationship between the folk and the state or the folk and modernity. Taussig frequently stresses a not so level interaction between the developed and the developing worlds. “Oil out. Cars, ammo, and videos in,” he repeats. He shows us world of remote villages and superstitious people linked to modern urban society by the “no-man’s land of the highway.” I like the writing and found the content engaging, but my ability to extract what I know is there is limited, so I’m looking forward to discussing this in class.

As Campbell shows in his text, muralism is an important element of the Mexican culture: murals belong to the Mexican cultural patrimony. Muralism belongs both to folk culture and modernity.It is a part of folk culture in its form: an artistic creation not produced for the market and produced by a collective of people. Murals tell the history of the Mexican nation and are like urban prints which could been viewed by generations from generations. Murals are a kind of national legacy. As Octavio Paz said, « Mural painting belongs to what might called the wax museum of Mexican nationalism ».

Moreover, they also belong to modernity because they have been painted in a specific political context. As Campbell mentions in his text, one could divide muralism in different eras: the hegemony of the Mexican School mural arts from the 1920’s until the 1960’s which opens a new era, and the crisis of the official public sphere with the end of the State support of muralism and the apparition of graffiti as a form of unofficial mural practice not supported by the State.

Modernity means a creation of a political space, separation between the private and the public sphere. The actors of the public sphere are the rulings but also the ruled.The « tres grandes » participated in the creation of an official public sphere in order to strengthen the construction of the nation, they « open » this public space to the people because murals were in public space so they were accessible to everybody and also because it was not a written but a visual language. It was an « art public » whom one of its goals was to democratize the public institutions and try to make the people participate in the public sphere. The murals gave a concrete, territorial dimension to the official public sphere and incarnated the political struggles. It was also an open space because people were represented so they could feel concerned, it was « public for art ». By being represented on the mural Mexican people became visible on the political scene but it does not mean that they were active.

Moreover, as Campbell emphasizes, « Latin American societies evolved without developing most of the strong sectors of civil society that emerged in other countries. » The « tres grandes » were quite constrained, bounded (ex: they were not to represent too much the indigenous people) in their creation and had to undergird the official discourse of the State so it was also a « closed » public sphere insofar as murals had to suit to the State’s standards and be in accordance with the official discourse which promoted one particular kind of ideology otherwise the walls were destroyed. State imposed official limits in the painting of the murals so the expression of the civil society was constrained, bridled. The painters, predominantly communist tried to put a political message across their paintings so they combined traditional aesthetic with modernity insofar as their murals represented the present and not the past of Mexico though.

I didn’t really get the text by Taussig. I guess it was about the construction, legitimation of the State: how could we legitimate something which doesn’t physically exist? Taussig speaks about all the symbolism created around the State so it may be a way to show that the magic used in the myths and legends is the same that the symbolism used to legitimate the State: all this is based on believes.

While I found both articles very interesting and insightful, they were long, and at points difficult to understand, so I admit that I did some skimming to get through them. With that said, I think that both articles were good representations of many of the themes we have discussed in class in action. Murals symbolically represent many of the elements that we have discussed in relation to popular culture, counter hegemonic discourse, relationships of power, high culture and low culture, and a contestation of public space. Murals in Mexico are both a literal and metaphorical canvasses of self and societal expression. In them are embedded complex notions of history, oppression, and marginalization, resistance, struggle, and solidarity. Interestingly, figures such as Diego Rivera, who painted murals to challenge status quo ideas in somewhat controversial ways have since become figures of Mexican culture and nationhood, and their art which at one time acted as a canvass of expression of celebrating the people (in the Evita Peron context of the word) has since been elevated to the status of high art.

This article brought up notions of public space; what is public space and whom exactly does this space belong to? There seems to be a contestation on who can have total access to this space, as much if it is sanctioned by the state and thus has limitations on the extent of self-expression deemed acceptable. Likewise, this article shows that when this expression goes too far, it can be in fact taken back by the state, and as a result, like much of popular culture exists within the context of struggle. According to Campbell, “The current public visibility of Mexican muralism is afflicted with a bewildering duality. On the one hand, mural art continues to be accorded great national prestige as a public cultural form. On the other, the great bulk of the country’s mural production…is destroyed (29)”. Mexican Muralism, much like popular culture in general, is often a representation of the current struggles of the time. The author points out that today, as neoliberalism and privatization ensues and causes further inequalities, many of these themes are reflected within the sphere of public art.

I thought that the idea of “colonization of urban space by commercial advertising,” was very interesting, as I have never really thought of it like this before. While here in North America we may not consider the state to be an instrument of blatant coercion or propaganda, at the same time, we have no choice in constantly being exposed to advertising everywhere we go. I suppose this advertising is a form of ideological indoctrination into the capitalist system. It is interesting to see how through taking over these spaces, public art acts as an arena for cultural contestation.

While reading this article, I kept thinking of my two trips to Oaxaca, one in June of 2006, and the other, last summer. During my first trip I unknowingly found myself in the midst of a very heated political conflict between the teachers of Oaxaca and the government. It was a time of a lot of chaos, violence, and police brutality, but was met with great organization of the people through huge rallies and public dissent. What started as a teachers strike was elevated as a reaction to state oppression to become a unified struggle between indigenous groups, activists, students, women, and many other supporters throughout Mexico against a political regime they perceived as corrupt and illegitimate. When I left Oaxaca the first time, the situation was very chaotic and much of the city was left in shambles. However, when I returned two years later, I was amazed at the amount of street art that seemed to blossom in the wake of this tense situation. The walls of the city seemed to become literal canvasses for cultural contestation, solidarity, and self-expression. Oaxaca is a very artistic city in general, but I was truly taken aback by the stories that were told in these walls. As the article mentioned, there were many layers of paint on these walls as many of the murals had been painted over by the state to be then taken back by the people, and so on and so forth. But in this contestation is a history of the struggle for power and self-expression; something that is very telling about popular culture in Latin America all together.

To begin, I feel I should say what a few other people have said in regards to the quantity of reading for this week; this was ENTIRELY too much reading for one week.  While I found both pieces extremely interesting and valuable, it was a struggle to complete both in the space of a week without really compromising the time I allot to read for other courses.  That said…

While I really enjoyed both readings, I found the Taussig piece to be particularly insightful and relevant to the course.  I feel that both articles heavily emphasized our previously stated course-themes of power struggle and the dynamics of power in shaping popular culture–these dynamics are most obvious in the Mexican murals discussed by Campbell which traditionally were meant to incorporate aspects of high and low culture and present them in a forum accessible to the general public (I found the mention of our good friend Vasconcelos’ role in mural painting to be very interesting…).  As Campbell explains, muralism has gradually become more of a medium of “the people” or the lower classes utilized as a form of expression to articulate power relations between themselves and the state.  This article immediately brought to mind the murals of the Zapatistas of Chiapas–a very popular form of public artistic expression which I was surprised he did not mention.  These murals are utilized not only to publicly define and portray the EZLN’s struggle against the Mexican state, but also to portray community values and the group’s history.  It is for this reason that many of these murals are painted on the walls of EZLN schools with the intent of inculcating students with a common history and set of values.  I’m glad that we covered Mexican muralism (despite the author’s omission of the Chiapan/Oaxacan murals) because it may be the most concrete example of contemporary Latin American “popular culture” we’ve covered in the course so far.

In regards to Taussig’s article, I found it extremely challenging initally, but some background reading about the author gave a little insight into what I feel may be his intent with the Spirit Queen.  According to a few blurbs I managed to come across, Taussig’s academic project is aimed to utilize Anthropology’s constant study of the fictionalized “other” to reflect upon Western culture and critique it.  It seems that Taussig regards ethnographic/anthropological study as a way of comparing Western culture to its alternatives and using this comparative study as a self-reflexive process for anthropologists (and perhaps all academics).  We can perhaps see traces of this in his piece “The Spirit Queen” in the constant refrain “Oil out, cars, ammo and videotapes in.”  This refrain reminds us of our own preconceptions about areas like Colombia as a location of the “Other”–a place distinctly separate and different from “North American” culture and a place with which we engage in political and cultural power struggles through trade, the media, etc.  So while this piece is full of a million diverse examples of power struggles within Colombia as well as many artefacts of “popular culture,” it also reminds us of our place within that cultural power struggle and how we contribute to the shaping of foreign cultures as well as our own.

The first reading we had this week was about Mexican murals. Campbell discusses the controversial messages of Mexican murals, their decided place in the history of art, and the ways in which governments and modernization try to erase or modify them. The article begins by describing four distinct public images, the first couple of which are political, talking about the way politicians use Mexican murals to encourage their popularity, nationalism. The next is about modernization and the controversy over it in Tepito. The last is the most local-feeling one, where women from a vecinidad talk about the importance of the murals in their communities. In the high times of Mexican murals, the images were used to represent the people (the working class and the campesinos) the “serial extremes of state and society”, nationalism, and other national social and political issues, like modernization and poverty. Mexican muralism is recognized as a cultural form, but art historians believe it is a thing of the past, unchanging with time. Muralism has “died” for various reasons, including the disparity between muralists’ ideologies and the government’s ideologies, and the increase of urbanization and the reach of mass advertizing. Modernization has infringed upon this expression of folk culture, through the replacement of old traditional housing (which are homes to many murals), by “modern” housing. I realized how important muralism was to Mexico when the author talks about Arnold Belkin in 1961, when he talks about how “Mexican nationalism was an inspiration for the rest of the world” and he is trying to encourage its revival. It’s disappointing that modernization and dominating ideologies could suppress such a compelling art form. I think Mexican muralism was and is an important cultural form, as it expresses a lot of the day-to-day struggles/issues of the people, as well as monumental events that shaped the local and national histories. I think that muralism, when unmodified by government ideologies, is a very honest and raw depiction of the people. I don’t know enough of Mexican muralism to say whether I think it’s “dead” or not. It could be that muralism gave way to graffiti, an art form that has not been acclaimed as skilled or particularly “high-brow”. I think as long as there is some kind of easily accessible, street-level art form that is produced and consumed by the people (of all social, economic, and political standings) and that expresses their political and social ideas, it is a legitimate art form.

I got really lost with the next readings by Taussig. The author talked about different characters, including the spirit queen, the Liberator, el negro primero and el indio. This week’s topic has to do with modernity and folk culture, so, I’m guessing that these characters have to do with these subjects. The more “folk” characters of el indio, el negro primero, and the spirit queen embody folk culture, while the Liberator is shown as more modernized.  The stories have a lot to do with spirits, possession, and the worship of these spirits. I hope that the discussion of these readings by Taussig help me understand them better!!

In the reading entitled “The Politics of Visibility” authored by Bruce Campbell talks about the stages in which murals have taken shape in throughout Mexico. I did not like the way in which he presented these stages at first, with his introduction and description of each painting individually, it was quite drab. Once Campbell gets into the ‘Politics’ of the murals it gets interesting. He shows how depending on the how the government wanted its cultural icons and symbols to be display in a certain fashion. This is especially prevalent according to the author in the case of education which has show us the power of manipulation in a place such as Mexico. Campbell talks about how nationalism became huge because of governmental pressure, to distinct itself from other Latin American countries. It does show an exertion of manipulation and culture creation at the same time. Certain paintings during times of revolution show just that, revolting. During times of catholic dominance, murals were made to display certain things, in order not to offend. I believe the other presents the new trend in murals has turned into graffiti.

The second article discusses the nation state and spirit possession. This was a somewhat difficult read as it was written in some sort of mix between native story telling techniques and plain English. The beginning passage talks of some sort of “Spirit Queen” in relation to nation state fetishism. I agreed with the majority of things said in this passage as I believe them to be true about nationalism and how people view themselves within a state. I also enjoyed the map on page eight about the colonialist powers exploitation of the country for its oil and its need for cars and videos. This is a such a simple drawing I could have done it myself but I holds within it a very power and insightful throught around neo-colonialist relations.

I found the first article an interesting read for about the first 40 pages or so, then I began to fade away. In his essay, Mexican Murals in times of crisis, Bruce Campbell gives a well rounded synopsis of both the creation and demise of Mexican Muralism. As he states, “Mural painting was a pre-Columbian practice (Pg. 13), with its roots in the Aztec and Mayan empires. Over the years Mexican Muralism grew to be an artistic method for telling a story or more importantly, displaying political defiance. After the Mexican Revolution ended in 1920, highlighted by the “tres Grande” (Diego Rivera, Alfaro Siqueiros, and Jose Clemente Orozco), Mexican Muralism became increasingly Political in an attempt to represent the working class or Campesinos. Throughout the article, Campbell discusses how over the next 60 years or so, Mexican Muralism has gone from a thriving powerful art form to being all but wiped out by the government. Campbell talks about the idea of public space and how it was contested for by activist Muralist and the government. For a number of years Murals were the primary platform for the working class to display their feelings about society and the government and they were heralded as masterful pieces of art, more than just graffiti. But almost all of the Murals have either been destroyed or painted over for advertising or political campaigns etc. Campbell describes these Murals as being a way for the people to convey Folk culture through Art within the public sphere. Overall it was an interesting read that gives a great deal of background info on Mexico and a great deal about the political evolution of the country over the past 100 years or so.

Both articles this week were full of ideas that really resonated with me. However, I found myself skimming over parts of both articles in search of what was really essential to the arguments being made.

In Mexican Murals in Times of Crisis, by Bruce Campbell, Murals provide a perfect example of what popular culture is in Latin America and shows how all the issues we’ve discussed to date regarding popular culture work together, culminating in the creation of a work of art. Murals in Mexico have gone through many shifts throughout time, responding to the shifts occurring in Mexican politics. This idea reinforces the rejection of the likening of popular culture to a coral reef in that it proves popular culture is forever changing and adapting to current events occurring in the economic, political or social realms of society. The ability for popular cultural forms to adapt to changing environments keeps it relevant.

Murals in Mexico also blend together notions of “high” culture and low or popular culture. Campbell mentions that the mural combines elements of “European high modernism (futurism, experssionism, cubism) with the ideological and cultural components of a Mexico in the process of institutional consolidation after a protracted and devastating revolutionary war.” (p. 14) The use of European high modernism would presumably be categorized as high culture. However, considering the context in which these murals were painted, the political, economic and social turmoil that Mexico was experiencing during this times would most likely appear as topics for these murals. This is a characteristic of popular culture.

There is another way in which murals blend together the ideas of high culture and popular culture. The mural form itself is associated with a certain amount of prestige, as it is considered an art form, thereby categorizing it as high culture. However, the topics and issues depicted in murals usually speak for the people marginalized and oppressed in society, thereby placing murals as a popular culture art form. As well, murals are normally painted in public spheres, accesisble by almost all, again categorizing murals as popular culture. A clash occurs between these two opposing representations of mural art.

Campbell mentions that “mural art continues to be accorded great national prestige as a public cultural form” (p. 29). However, at the same time mural art “is destroyed…[it] falls victim to censorious government officials uncomfortable with the content of images.” I find similarities between mural art and Native art in Canada. Mural art is used as a symbol of national identity in Mexico, as Native art is used as a symbol of Canadian National identity, particularly on the West Cost. However, mural art is not regarded well by government officials, while in Canada, Native art and the Native people are not regarded well by not only government officials, but society in general.

I found The Spirit Queen’s Court, by Michael Taussig, a difficult, but extremely interesting article to read. I had a bit of difficulty figuring out how the article ties into the topic for this week, folk culture and modernity.

I believe that the interaction between folk culture and modernity is seen with the spiritual encounters and portals used to house these spiritual encounters. The portals all tend to have 4 important figures: the spirit queen, el negro primero, el indio, and the Liberator. I believe these characters portray the interaction between folk culture and modernity. These figures have been given certain meanings by the people. Presumably, the spirit queen and perhaps the negro primero could symbolize folk culture while the Liberator symbolizes modernity. El indio is a bit more confusing. Indigenous-ness is often associated with folk culture, and therefore we might assume el indio to represent it. However, the article mentions that this country has practically no indigenous people, and the depiction of el indio is actually of a US Plains indian. Therefore, el indio is not really a representation of folk culture as it does not originate from the country.

In any case, these figures have been given certain meanings, important in bringing about these spiritual encounters. These rituals, seances, and spiritual awakenings have continued to be performed, despite colonial rule and the imposition of Christianity in Latin America.

Folk Culture and Modernity
In the first reading the author discusses the “evolution” of the different processes that the murals went thru in Mexico. I think that the author uses the concept of the “public sphere” to show how depending on the governments interests the artists painted their murals. In the 1920´s there was a revolutionary sprit so the murals had revolutionary ideas. I thought it was really interesting to see how the government exerts hegemony in this case thru art, as in the case of Diego Rivera that had to change his painting because it could offend Catholics. Then, I think that the author also suggests that nowadays mural representation is still present, but now in the form of graffiti. When reading that article I thought of the EZLN´s murals in Chiapas and how they also use their paintings to represent their fight and resistance to challenges that globalization creates. I thought this article was interesting and I liked that I already had some background from the “cosmic race” article of Vasconcelos so that when I read the part in this article I already knew where he was coming from.
For the second article I think the article writes about the spirit possession and the formation of the “nation-state”. In my opinion it was difficult to follow this reading, but at like the part at the beginning where it says that we have places soulstuff to the state. I think that is a very simple sentence but powerful at the same time because it is true we attribute human characteristics to the imaginary concept of “nations”. I also liked the map on page 8 where there is the representation of European control (colonialism) where oil is taken out of the country and videos and cars are imported. It is a very simple map that has also a powerful message.