I would like to apologize for doing this so late. I have to complete ~12 supplemental applications for graduate schools (which I’m still not done with) and there’s just so many essays to write, it’s hard to figure out what to prioritize and what can wait. Hopefully, this is the last time I’d be late though.

I liked the article by Campbell on murals. The murals, originally a form of artistic expression, gradually developed to be an artistic form of political and cultural resistance in the 20th century. As it became more and more politically charged, the government started to censor certain murals that it didn’t agree with, destroying them by painting over them, etc. The excerpt involving art critic Hijar and artist Ehrenberg was really interesting. Hijar accusing Ehrenberg’s group, H2O, as “neutrality at the service of the State” implied how Latin Americans EXPECT the murals in public spaces to be politically relevant and charged, and to express public woes against the political establishment. I never before saw the political/cultural factor as crucial when looking at murals. Additionally, the incident in April 1990 where the militants of PRI occupied the municipal building in the town Tlalpujahua was interesting. The government committed voter fraud, made a deal with the militants that they would let the mural in the building stay, but then cheated the people and destroyed the mural. I find it ridiculous how rampant the corruption is, and it somehow reminds me of the government in India. The pictures of the murals included in the text itself were really different and interesting though!

Coming to The Spirit Queen, I have now read that first chapter twice and I still don’t understand. Is he actually seeing the Spirit Queen, the cult Goddess/leader? Is it a figment of his imagination? Does he know he’s imagining? Or is it a pretended dialogue? The answer to this doesn’t bother me as much as the fact that in 11 pages the only time I understood what Taussig’s motive for writing the book/chapter was when I saw the image of “oil out videos tv ammo in”. So it was Latin Americans’ struggle for self-governance/freedom or against imperialism (I’m only guessing). The following words really resonated with me:

“Do not fear the sword that comes to avenge you and to sever the ties with which your executioners have bound you to their fate.”

Overall though, interesting writing, but if it weren’t for these bits of text, I probably would have no idea what the theme was (or would find it very vague).

I would like to apologize for doing this so late. I have to complete ~12 supplemental applications for graduate schools (which I’m still not done with) and there’s just so many essays to write, it’s hard to figure out what to prioritize and what can wait. Hopefully, this is the last time I’d be late though.

I liked the article by Campbell on murals. The murals, originally a form of artistic expression, gradually developed to be an artistic form of political and cultural resistance in the 20th century. As it became more and more politically charged, the government started to censor certain murals that it didn’t agree with, destroying them by painting over them, etc. The excerpt involving art critic Hijar and artist Ehrenberg was really interesting. Hijar accusing Ehrenberg’s group, H2O, as “neutrality at the service of the State” implied how Latin Americans EXPECT the murals in public spaces to be politically relevant and charged, and to express public woes against the political establishment. I never before saw the political/cultural factor as crucial when looking at murals. Additionally, the incident in April 1990 where the militants of PRI occupied the municipal building in the town Tlalpujahua was interesting. The government committed voter fraud, made a deal with the militants that they would let the mural in the building stay, but then cheated the people and destroyed the mural. I find it ridiculous how rampant the corruption is, and it somehow reminds me of the government in India. The pictures of the murals included in the text itself were really different and interesting though!

Coming to The Spirit Queen, I have now read that first chapter twice and I still don’t understand. Is he actually seeing the Spirit Queen, the cult Goddess/leader? Is it a figment of his imagination? Does he know he’s imagining? Or is it a pretended dialogue? The answer to this doesn’t bother me as much as the fact that in 11 pages the only time I understood what Taussig’s motive for writing the book/chapter was when I saw the image of “oil out videos tv ammo in”. So it was Latin Americans’ struggle for self-governance/freedom or against imperialism (I’m only guessing). The following words really resonated with me:

“Do not fear the sword that comes to avenge you and to sever the ties with which your executioners have bound you to their fate.”

Overall though, interesting writing, but if it weren’t for these bits of text, I probably would have no idea what the theme was (or would find it very vague).

Bruce Campbell’s Mexican Muralism and the Official Public Sphere is such a dense, comprehensive history of the link between politics and art in Mexico that I felt pretty lost at times, yet came away with a deep appreciation for the changing pressures and conditions under which Mexican muralists, specifically the big three, worked.

– At times I found myself wishing I had a timeline of Mexican regimes, who overthrew who when, who was assassinated, who was secretary under who. The article kept it pretty straight, there was just so much information there that sometimes dates were lost to me.

– It is so easy to perceive murals, especially Mexican murals, as prominent depictions of a national identity that remains consistent throughout time. This article directly refutes that. Although Diego Rivera might be painting with the same visual aesthetic, his message in 1924 (under Obregon and Vasconcelos) was decidedly less communist than his message in 1947 (under Aleman).

– I found Campbell’s discussion of the historical context of the murals much more interesting than his diegesis of the murals themselves. The Hijon-Ehrenberg and Rivera-Siqueros debates both discuss the relationship between murals and state power, but the subtle differences reflect the change in the popular. More next.

– Hijon-Ehrenberg discuss the role of murals as institutional (essentially state-sponsored propaganda) or oppositional (resistance-propoganda), and whether murals have to be one or the other. Rivera and Siqueros, however, debate on the assumption that murals are inherently political, and rather argue what voices oppositional muralism is meant to represent; who does Mexico’s true heart lie with?

– I would love to read more on the lives of Rivera and Siqueros to get more context on their constantly shifting methods during a revolutionary and counter-revolutionary first half of the century. It’s quite remarkable the impact that art can have on the people and politics of a country. And as true as that was in Mexico in the first half of the 20th century, I can see that being very true in the United States in the years to come. Art and propaganda in mexico became one and the same by the will of the state, yet the artists retained enough autonomy to, when it became necessary, operate against the state. History tends to repeat itself, and I see that becoming true here.

Taussig’s The Spirit Queen’s Court immediately reminded me of Wizard of the Four Winds, an anthropological account of the San Pedro cults of Northern Peru by Douglas Sharon. Not expecting the first person account, it took me a little bit to realize how Taussig was relating his experiences with The Spirit Queen.

– Once I got used to it, I really liked the writing style. For me its easier to follow first person accounts, and they can be just as informative as the denser academic writing of Bruce Campbell.

– Both Spirit Queen’s Court and Four Winds are anthropological accounts of outsiders experiencing the practices and culture of a region firsthand. While its important to keep in mind that these events might be told differently from the perspective of, say, the brujo or curandero that Taussig spent time with, they can offer insight into the practices and draw comparisons to things that other outsiders, such as myself, can understand.

– Repeated reference to oil out, cars, ammo, and videos in. I didn’t understand the context of this. It seems neo-colonial to me, how foreign interests impact resource-rich communities, but I don’t know specifically what it’s referring to.

– The person Taussig is talking to in part one draws parallels between body and state, something that we have been talking about, if indirectly, in class all year. Who are the people? What constitutes their body, if not the state. Magic, therefore, constantly seeks to redefine the body, just as political disputes seek to redefine the state.

– The ‘European Elsewhere’: another concept I though lacked context. Reference to the ne0-Europe created in the New World by Spanish colonizers? And why is this ideal compared to the Europe of the Old World? Mestizaje?

– Spirit possession does not bring the living out of a state of life, but rather brings death into life. An important distinction. With a western culture so saturated with Judeo-Christian concepts of afterlife and eternal retribution, I find it hard to imagine this same belief structure manifesting in the western world.

– Life and Death as metaphysical concepts are linked to post-colonialism: “the life-in-death of the dictatorships.” Helps to historically justify the formation of this belief system.

– Taussig finds this spirituality ‘popular.’ “Indeed as time went by I realized that it was often easiest to talk about her in these casual encounters between strangers passing through moments of controlled intimacy – as in the bus, or in a taxi, at a gas station.” This spirituality is not gated or restricted, not tied to any sort of national structure or institution. It is most purely and directly accessed through the people.

– Discussion of the racial identity of Maria Lionza (?) was really interesting. Members of each prominent race in Latin America offered a different explanation for her racial identity, but none of them, least of all the ‘lanky dark-skinned man’ try to lay any sort of racial claim to her.

I’ve seen many photographs of the murals painted by the ‘tres grandes’ but have never looked into the history and the political/ historical context as much as is explained in Campbell’s article. Such a complex and often conflicting background to these works. Beyond the messages and narratives themselves that are depicted in these murals, how they became incorporated in the mechanisms of Mexican nationalism espoused by the Mexican government, the relationships and feuds between the muralists (like the debate over artistic ideology between Rivera and Siqueiros), the sociopolitical context of their creation and destruction are equally contentious. Interesting too is that this very contention was often the aim behind what was depicted in the murals and where they were located. The efficacy of these murals lays in the fact that they displayed social realism in a highly charged environment with the intention of starting public debate and discussion (whether it be dissent or approval). Campbell attributes this not only to the revolutionary nature of Mexican muralism in its challenging of the Mexican oligarchy as well as European influence, but also states that the  “extra-artistic communicative practice of the muralist was required in order to make “circulate” an artwork that, almost by formal definition, did not circulate.” (55). In this way the message of these  murals could reach beyond the immediate vicinity of the actual walls on which they graced because they had reached the minds of the viewers, of the public, and reflected narratives that spoke to the reality of the viewer- whether this person agreed with the message and probably especially if they did not.

I read an article in another course I took at UBC about graffiti and ‘street art’ as an art form that embodies the artist and is embodied by the viewer and it really struck me as relevant with Mexican mural practice. The artist is physically interjecting his/her views and beliefs in a public space, a space where (for the most part) everyone has access to, imprinting their personhood on the exterior and public canvas, and therefore on the everyday lives of others. The viewer is then forced to interact with these images because of their location alone and respond to the messages and images. Add the highly politicized and polemic nature of Mexican murals and you have a powder keg of conflict waiting to happen. This is pretty evident in the fact that some of the Mexican muralists felt so threatened because of the messages they were painting on the walls of public spaces, that they carried guns for protection. Art really is a labour of love (and politics!).

Mexican Muralism-

A very interesting read! It is the most pure embodiment of ‘Popular Culture’ I have ever encountered,in the way that I now understand it to be. A mural (in the doctrinal sense of the Mexican Republic) is a totally unfiltered public platform for aesthetic expression, cultural storytelling and political discourse- so it must represent the public in totality right? In many ways the mural does serve it’s function and destroys the limitations and prestige of the gallery by creating tangible and universally accessible content- popular culture. This was not exactly news to me, like many people I have seen many beautiful photographs of said murals and understand them to be a fixture of Mexican cultural identity, and pride. Also, I am interested in Diego Rivera’s life (and even more interested his wife’s, duh) so am familiar with some of his particular work. That being said, a factor of this government-funded-public-artwork that I had not previously considered was just how much control the administration would have over the messages which are portrayed. Additionally I had not considered that of course, there are murals are held on the same pedestal I assume they intended initially to destroy. “The Mexican government has made muralist a national cult, and of course in all cults criticism is outlawed. Mural painting belongs to what might be called the wax museum of Mexican nationalism” (31) (Said by Octavio Paz in late 1970s)
The destruction of certain Murals and preservation and glorification of others can certainly be considered an act of control and censorship. Understanding these works as a reflection of the Mexican Gov’s revolutionary nationalism, one which is public but perhaps more importantly Official. That which is communicated on the elevated, institutional mural is no longer representative of individual expression on a popular level but is then Public State expression. He goes on to discern between two types of what is essentially understood as the same medium- the actual public mural which is often destroyed, and seen as oppositional to the official or administrative mural. This he coins the “Problem of Visibility.” “Even the destruction of murals by the authorities is often explained as incidental to a change in administration, a bureaucratic accident, or an alteration in the physical environment of a government office, rather than as a result of ideological differences.” (35) What set out to inspire the destruction of the hierarchal art world now is a direct reflection of only the ruling class or administration. In fact, in an act of rebelliousness a public mural was PAINTED OVER IN WHITE. The falsified voices in this mural which mimic the public disposition was (rather ironically) censored.

To relate this to my life like I always seem to do, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this mural culture has been completely exported and utilized here in Vancouver BC & all over the world! I live in East Vancouver and there are many a mural, most of which are clearly commissioned due to their intricacy and large scale extravagance. Most of which, in my neighbourhood in particular, seem to be attempting to depict only nature and beautiful women (ok I’m generalizing but this is pretty much all art, no?) Contrast this with the writings on bathroom stalls or scrawls on bus stop benches… not all flowers and sunshine a lot of disturbance, and anger etc. Not to mention the inhabitants of the neighbourhood are attempting to be encompassed in these murals or else benefit from these murals in some what but if you pay attention to what Everyone is saying/feeling, and not just to the select few who we would ideally LIKE to represent the whole it is clear this conundrum is inescapable, no matter where in the world you are.

ALSO i have read the Spirit Queen’s Counsel 3 times now and I am still unpacking everything… I will eventually organize my ideas but for now I will just say it is MY KIND OF WEIRD, MAN.

Mexican Muralism-

A very interesting read! It is the most pure embodiment of ‘Popular Culture’ I have ever encountered,in the way that I now understand it to be. A mural (in the doctrinal sense of the Mexican Republic) is a totally unfiltered public platform for aesthetic expression, cultural storytelling and political discourse- so it must represent the public in totality right? In many ways the mural does serve it’s function and destroys the limitations and prestige of the gallery by creating tangible and universally accessible content- popular culture. This was not exactly news to me, like many people I have seen many beautiful photographs of said murals and understand them to be a fixture of Mexican cultural identity, and pride. Also, I am interested in Diego Rivera’s life (and even more interested his wife’s, duh) so am familiar with some of his particular work. That being said, a factor of this government-funded-public-artwork that I had not previously considered was just how much control the administration would have over the messages which are portrayed. Additionally I had not considered that of course, there are murals are held on the same pedestal I assume they intended initially to destroy. “The Mexican government has made muralist a national cult, and of course in all cults criticism is outlawed. Mural painting belongs to what might be called the wax museum of Mexican nationalism” (31) (Said by Octavio Paz in late 1970s)
The destruction of certain Murals and preservation and glorification of others can certainly be considered an act of control and censorship. Understanding these works as a reflection of the Mexican Gov’s revolutionary nationalism, one which is public but perhaps more importantly Official. That which is communicated on the elevated, institutional mural is no longer representative of individual expression on a popular level but is then Public State expression. He goes on to discern between two types of what is essentially understood as the same medium- the actual public mural which is often destroyed, and seen as oppositional to the official or administrative mural. This he coins the “Problem of Visibility.” “Even the destruction of murals by the authorities is often explained as incidental to a change in administration, a bureaucratic accident, or an alteration in the physical environment of a government office, rather than as a result of ideological differences.” (35) What set out to inspire the destruction of the hierarchal art world now is a direct reflection of only the ruling class or administration. In fact, in an act of rebelliousness a public mural was PAINTED OVER IN WHITE. The falsified voices in this mural which mimic the public disposition was (rather ironically) censored.

To relate this to my life like I always seem to do, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this mural culture has been completely exported and utilized here in Vancouver BC & all over the world! I live in East Vancouver and there are many a mural, most of which are clearly commissioned due to their intricacy and large scale extravagance. Most of which, in my neighbourhood in particular, seem to be attempting to depict only nature and beautiful women (ok I’m generalizing but this is pretty much all art, no?) Contrast this with the writings on bathroom stalls or scrawls on bus stop benches… not all flowers and sunshine a lot of disturbance, and anger etc. Not to mention the inhabitants of the neighbourhood are attempting to be encompassed in these murals or else benefit from these murals in some what but if you pay attention to what Everyone is saying/feeling, and not just to the select few who we would ideally LIKE to represent the whole it is clear this conundrum is inescapable, no matter where in the world you are.

ALSO i have read the Spirit Queen’s Counsel 3 times now and I am still unpacking everything… I will eventually organize my ideas but for now I will just say it is MY KIND OF WEIRD, MAN.

Mexican Muralism and the Official Public Sphere:

The text begins with highlighting a duality in the presence of mural art, a recurring theme of culture and more specifically pop culture within Latin America. The author describes the palimsest-like qualities of muralism, or the ability to be painted over and reworked by way of either remediation or censorship. The author turns to art critic Alberto Hijar, to negotiate two tendencies within Mexican muralism, who sites both an “institutional muralism and an oppositional muralism” (33).  The author, in regards to understanding the contemporary framing of Mexican muralism, maintains that, “one must first turn away from the dominant officialized mural image of the the present and draw into view instead the prior practical constitution of Mexican muralism as an element of the Mexican public sphere, considering mural production in relation to official discourse and policy both as a publicly significant cultural practice and as an object of public administration” (40). The author goes on to say that , “national identity had been effectively linked to aesthetic form and practice, and consequently the mural image became a field of political contest” (47). Here the dualistic aspects of muralism become more explicitly clear, the space between policalization and aestheticization. We see the mural as both an art object and a mechanism, or tool used in the process of critique, dissent, and furthering of political movements. The positioning of muralism then, inherently becomes political. This is clear within the canon of the Mexican School, yielding the work of “los tres grandes:” Diego Rivera, José Clemente Orozco, and David Alfaro Siqueiros. These works contributed the catalyst for revolutionary imagery within mural discourse. The author states, conversely, that their monumentality, “contributed to the eclipse of later mural production in critical  and historiographical accounts of development in Mexican art” (31). This notion works two-fold to acknowledge the significance of the artists within the canon and culture, but also a sort of complicitness in a kind domination. “The question of post-Mexican School mural production is thus complicated precisely by the prior positioning of Mexican muralism within the official public sphere and subject to the formal dominance of Mexican visuality” (32). This text critically looks at the canon of Mexican muralism, the departures of oppositional and institutional muralism, and the instances where the two become frustrated, informed by the other, and perhaps even mutualistic. I will come back to analyzing the Spirit Queen’s Court. The style is quite a bit more cumbersome.