Reactions to Folk Culture and Modernity

It seemed that the general theme of this week’s readings was culture as a form of anti-establishment resistance. By first looking at Mexican Muralism and the Official Public Sphere one is introduced to the politicized nature of art—specifically how murals were used in Mexico to “fight the power”. The fact that muralists had to bring guns for protection illustrates the dangerous and controversial aspect of murals. It was a platform that instigated conversations and challenged the politicians and religious leaders, establishing new ways to interpret the actions of these two groups. Art became part of politics and culture and later became symbolic of Mexican culture, consequentially spreading to other parts of the world. This also meant that there was an incentive to continue the creation of murals.

Theoretically if the murals were painted to critique the political climate and those in power, then as soon the government and communities are supportive of muralists’ paintings they have lost their power. Also, it raises the question of whether muralism has become a commodity while potentially losing its controversial elements. As soon as Mexicans stop discussing the cultural relevance of murals, they take on a new meaning and purpose. By becoming something that is universally accepted into the culture, the mural becomes a selling tool to be used by people to make money and to trivialize the work done by muralists like Rivera—who wanted to question the power structures.

Then there is The Spirit Queen’s Court, which looks at this pagan-like religion that in one way challenges the Church and the Europeans who came to South America. This reading was interesting in that it looks at a hidden side of Columbia that does not seem to be as widely celebrated or discussed. From my limited knowledge of the religion it seems that it attracts people who want to believe in something new that did not have as twisted a history as Christianity. Maybe this was the way to pay tribute to the indigenous cultures that were attacked and trivialized by the arrival of the Europeans. In a way it works like Rivera worked in Mexico, raising questions about what constitutes culture and who has been left behind by modernization or development.


As governments look forward to what could be, they lose sight of what exists and who shapes the identity of these regions. Art and religion can be reminders of what is lost when people are always seeking the “new” or the “future”.

Reactions to Folk Culture and Modernity

It seemed that the general theme of this week’s readings was culture as a form of anti-establishment resistance. By first looking at Mexican Muralism and the Official Public Sphere one is introduced to the politicized nature of art—specifically how murals were used in Mexico to “fight the power”. The fact that muralists had to bring guns for protection illustrates the dangerous and controversial aspect of murals. It was a platform that instigated conversations and challenged the politicians and religious leaders, establishing new ways to interpret the actions of these two groups. Art became part of politics and culture and later became symbolic of Mexican culture, consequentially spreading to other parts of the world. This also meant that there was an incentive to continue the creation of murals.

Theoretically if the murals were painted to critique the political climate and those in power, then as soon the government and communities are supportive of muralists’ paintings they have lost their power. Also, it raises the question of whether muralism has become a commodity while potentially losing its controversial elements. As soon as Mexicans stop discussing the cultural relevance of murals, they take on a new meaning and purpose. By becoming something that is universally accepted into the culture, the mural becomes a selling tool to be used by people to make money and to trivialize the work done by muralists like Rivera—who wanted to question the power structures.

Then there is The Spirit Queen’s Court, which looks at this pagan-like religion that in one way challenges the Church and the Europeans who came to South America. This reading was interesting in that it looks at a hidden side of Columbia that does not seem to be as widely celebrated or discussed. From my limited knowledge of the religion it seems that it attracts people who want to believe in something new that did not have as twisted a history as Christianity. Maybe this was the way to pay tribute to the indigenous cultures that were attacked and trivialized by the arrival of the Europeans. In a way it works like Rivera worked in Mexico, raising questions about what constitutes culture and who has been left behind by modernization or development.


As governments look forward to what could be, they lose sight of what exists and who shapes the identity of these regions. Art and religion can be reminders of what is lost when people are always seeking the “new” or the “future”.

Campbell and Taussig Readings

I really liked the Campbell reading, especially how it broke down the murals in terms of their historic significance and their implicit symbolism.  The following are some of my thoughts I wrote down as I was reading the passage.

On pages 30-31, Campbell quotes Arnold Belkin lamenting the “fall” of Mexican muralism, saying, “If mural painting is being developed with increasing vigor in other countries, how can we allow it to die here?  Earlier in this century Mexican muralism was an inspiration for the rest of he world.  Now it is up to us to restore that inspiration.”  This idea of creating or restoring inspiration struck me as funny, since inspiration usually seems to me to be something organic and highly individualised.  Fabricating or forcing inspiration misses the point.

I was intrigued by the conflict between Hijar and Ehrenberg over the question of whether H20’s murals were “Mexican muralism”.  Hijar argued that Ehrenberg’s murals took a scientific direction, deviating from the Mexican muralism’s “two basic tendencies” of “institutional muralism and an oppositional muralism integrated to communities of struggle” (p. 32-33) and thus undermining the art form.  Ehrenberg responded by embracing this notion of deviation.  To me, the entire argument seems arbitrary, since it seems to me that murals painted in Mexico by Mexicans should logically be considered “Mexican muralism” regardless of whether they follow the Mexican school or not; getting caught up in the technicalities of defining art takes away from the art itself.

On p. 35 Campbell writes that the text on Diego Rivera “is enjoined mythically by the editors of the collection through a suppression of standard historical points of reference such as a bibliographical data or contextual information for the selected texts.  Hence the anthology positions Rivera and his muralism within the same timeless national cultural space as the archaeological digs and pre-Colombian pyramids on the tourist maps.”  This idea of authors working collectively to create build up an artist who transcends a time stamp is kind of cool but also makes you consider the influence of historical framing in the process of popularizing or highlighting certain aspects of culture.

The quote “there is a salient contradiction between the mural image as monument of an official national identity and that of tendentious re-motivations of national cultural patrimony,” (p.36) resonated a lot with me.  While I agree that there is this inherent contradiction in the government using a symbol of uprising as a unifying national image, the fact that there is conflict embedded in the national symbol of a nation ravaged by conflict is kind of perfect.  Furthermore, the fact that both the people and the government created and defaced one anothers’ murals adds to the perfection in my mind.

Lastly, Vasconcelos’ image of a post-racial society sounds less racist and more aesthetically pleasing the way it is framed in this reading.  When you remove yourself from the details of his writing, it does seem creative to combine the encouragement of the arts and nationalism into one project.  This is not to say, however, that I don’t still take issue with what he wrote in his paper.

Ran out of words/time for Taussig.  Looking forward to class discussion.

Readings #6

Okay so I have 3 midterms this week and only had time to read Mexican Muralism and the Offical Public Sphere so my blog will mainly focus on that. Before I get into the actual text, throughout the reading I found myself googling a lot of the art work of the artists mentioned and I found a really cool website that has most of these artists work compiled –  https://www.wikiart.org/en/artists-by-nation/mexican

All three of the main muralists have pretty much every mural uploaded in High Rez and i spent about an hour looking at artists from latin america.

Getting into the actual article I found it very interesting. I didn’t know too much regarding the history of muralism in mexico, but I was familiar with some of the murals and their themes. Primarily, I think the main takeaway from this article is that Muralism wasn’t an entirely natural artistic movement. What I mean to say by this is that the roots of Mexican Muralism were somewhat forced. This most obviously struck me when talking about Vasconcelos vision as education minister. The article denotes his plans for muralism and his intended effects of its institution in national identity. Most importantly there is one section where Vasconcelos expects the recreation of certain western classical literary themes in his commisioned murals. During this time the artists behind the creation of murals where instead focusing on indigenous mexican history. Another interesting part of this article was the Author defining a clear purpose of murals. Murals can so successfully transmit nationalist themes through their place in a community and can also offer easily understood political discourse to a less educated population. Throughout the article it struck me that the muralism of mexico was very anti-capitalist and the big 3 had murals that empowered the proletariat as well as depicted a communal sense of creation(the rich people, 1924, Orozco/ death of the capitalist, Rivera 1929/ death to the invader, Siquieros, 1941) The irony of the state sanctioned murals was their obvious stance against the state. Beyond from what I’ve said I had a hard time understanding a lot of the actual history but i think the main point was that the government played a heavy role in the politicization of these artworks and this resulted in the decline of the form as an artistic industry.

Campbell and Taussig Response

Finally getting to my readings at 9pm after (thankfully) being cut early from work instead of the usual time of 1am!!! Just wanted to share my elation with everyone.

I started with Campbell’s article on Mexican murals. Reading this excerpt, I immediately felt a strong sense of discord between the artist(s)/public and the government. With all the controversial issues happening lately, it’s come to my attention that so many things we hear and see are controlled by certain entities (news stations, the government, the elites, etc) and this article shows no difference. From what I understood, and I may be totally wrong, early murals created were at first commissioned by the government in order to construct this idea (mimicking Vasconcelos’ concepts) of a national identity. However, as time progressed, murals started becoming more of a public statement and government officials started to take issue with this developing form of art. I felt a strong sense of empathy towards the murals’ creators. Creating something in order to express yourself and then having it be censored must be a terrible feeling. This feeling of frustration must also resonate with the public who feel similarly. It kind of makes you question the concept of free speech and whether or not this is something that is valued in Mexico. It also raises an interesting point that maybe free speech isn’t really free after all, anywhere you go.

Moving on to Taussig’s piece… I have to say I was pretty confused. The writing is enchanting and story-like but I’m still a little bit unsure of what’s happening exactly. I gather that this Spirit Queen is a main part of the beliefs of this Venezuelan group but it’s a little unclear as to who she really is. Overall, this was a mystifying text and I definitely need to go over it to more readily grasp the storyline (but I reiterate – still an enchanting read even though I felt completely lost HAHA).

That’s it for my short sleep-deprived blurb of the week! Thanks for reading, friends. Stay rad.

Ideas concerning Campbell piece on Mexican Murals

Firstly, there was a lot of material covered in this article, and I did not manage to analyse it all; however, the material surrounding this article, and also the background research I did made it significantly more interesting and also made it more understandable, as I could relate it to a political and historical context of the main people in this discourse.

The article written by Campbell discusses the problems, and decline of Mexican muralism, and the culture surrounding it. It seems to focus on a few names, but one most important name, that of Siqueiros. His full name was David Alfaro Siqueiros . With the help of Rivera and Orozco, he is thought to have been one of the three founders of Mexican muralism. Being a Marxist, he often encountered struggles with the law, as the USA sought to stifle any traits of Communism during WWII/Cold War afterwards, during the time of when he was painting.

What interested me most about this, was how much of an issue politics could be in the production of art, and how political discourse, in the case of Mexican muralism, has dominated it for the last half-century or thereabouts. One of the things which interested me greatly was how many of the original Mexican murals were, albeit not strictly, constructed in the vision of Jose Vasconcelos, who was the Minister of Education in Mexico during the years 1921-21, President Alvaro Obregon. He was a revolutionary minister who initiated massive educational reforms in both school and university contexts. Equally importantly, he helped Mexican muralism to flourish for the next 5 decades.

The political significance of muralism is referenced multiple times during this article, for example on p31, where Octavio Paz noted that by the late 1970s Mexican mural painting belonged to what might be called the the wax museum of Mexican nationalism. Furthermore, on p39, the political significance of the mural is then re-emphasised, as the act of signing one specific mural causes outrage within the artistic community, and overall popular community. Also on p29, with the destruction of Mexican muralism; one feels like it is the centre point of urban Mexican culture and it’s almost like people aren’t even interested that it’s disappearing/lack of care for it?

I would argue that the paradox here is that muralism needed Mexican nationalism in order to dominate Mexican art culture, but simultaneously many people felt that this nationalism undermined and even restricted any possible counter-culture within the art form.

The decline of the ‘Mexican school’ after Siqueiros shows how important he was in Mexican muralism, but also perhaps how much of the culture revolved around him, and really relied on him – without Siqueiros, we might not be studying about muralism today!

 

 

 

 

Reaction to the readings about Mexican Murals and the Maria Lionza cult

(Same introduction as always) I explain in this blog my reaction to the readings of the week: a chapter from Mexican Murals in Time of Crisis by Bruce Campbell and the beginning of The Magic of the State by Michael Taussig.

The extract of Bruce Campbell’s work offers an overview of the history of Muralism in Mexico and an idea of why it is a complicated form of popular culture, with examples depicted. From what I understood, the first urban murals date from the 1920s and were commissioned by the new government to promote its ideals, like those of Vasconcelos. But progressively, muralists began to create more controversial pieces and three main figures appeared (“los Tres Grandes”). The 1930s-1940s were the golden age of the Mexican School of muralism. But since the death of the Tres Grandes, there seems to be a lack of successors. Art critics argue that remaining Mexican muralists are less ambitious and memorable. However, Campbell describes an episode when the creation and then destruction of a more recent mural had a clear social and political impact in a town near Mexico City. So Mexican murals, though they seem to have declined, can potentially be again an example of problematic popular culture (they are in public space but they can be offensive, especially for the government).

As for the text of Michael Taussig, we were told we would find it weird and indeed it is. But since I was already expecting it (unlike The Cosmic Race, in which the swift in tone caught me by surprise), I decided to look at what universe is implied by it rather than what the actual plot of the book. It seems to be a mixt of very romanticized autobiography (the narrator as the first chapters appears to be the writer), of fiction (without warning, the main character becomes a man called Mission) and of study of the Maria Lionza cult (even if this study is biased by the fact the writer follows this religion). I couldn’t really understand the actual plot: each chapter constantly changes focus, the main character changes,… But all in all, it offers an introduction to the bizarre world of this cult, where spirits roam Venezuela, sometimes possessing people. The main figure of this cult, the Spirit Queen, ruler of snakes and dragons, is quite unclear herself: the believers argue whether she was an indigenous or a mestizaje and what the conditions of her exile were, but they agree that she is now one with the mountain (even though she is able to interact humanly with the narrator). This text is strange, of course, but al least we now have an idea of the myths, rituals and beliefs of the followers of this Venezuelan cult.

LAST 201 Response to Readings

 

Finally! After six weeks, we finally get to the part where we talk about art and its relationship to culture. This was what I thought was culture the entire time… But clearly, I was wrong. In Bruce Campbell’s “Mexican Muralism and the Official Public Sphere”, there was a sentence that struck a chord within me. That sentence was “Mural art falls victim to censorious government officials uncomfortable with the content of images”. I drew parallels with this sentence because it reminded me of how China was and probably still is. I remember my mother telling me that during the Cultural Revolution, many temples, paintings, and books were destroyed. This destruction of culture was also brought forth by the censorious Chinese government.

On page 58, I found the measures taken by the Mexican government to be very similar to the United States. During the Great Depression, Franklin D. Roosevelt commissioned many artists to create public works of art. And in Mexico, the Mexican government commissioned mural art for public housing projects, hospitals, public work projects, and newly constructed buildings. From what I read so far (this may be wrong), I see a very strong tie between Mexico and its murals. Through the ages, as society changes, Mexican muralism also takes on a new public life. I never knew Mexico was that passionate about the arts but after reading this reading, it really opened my eyes. For example, with the SEP, they built 1,159 schools and 455 new libraries in a span of 2 years!! Furthermore, the minister told reporters of El Universal: “It is my conviction that many of our present and modest architectural endeavors will be remembered thanks to the painters who have decorated them. Architects should feel elated at their good fortune at working in the midst of an artistic renaissance.”

Theories of Mixture I

It has never occurred to me that Mestizos play such an important part in Latin America, which “make up the majority of the population in half of the countries of Latin America” (According to The World Factbook from Wikipedia). Such a large number of people can create a new culture after all, since it is almost impossible for an individual to embody two different cultures separately. They’ll definitely be influenced by Spanish or European culture and indigenous culture, but not merely become either of them. As Peter Wade argued that mestizaje is a lived process,”the relationship between inclusion and exclusion…can be understood as the interweaving of two processes, both of which have symbolic and structural reality. These, in turn, constitute a mosaic, at the level of the embodied person and the family as well as the nation”. And I think it would keep its status of dynamic change, especially in today’s trend of globalization. The inclusion and exclusion, particularly between the elite and the subaltern, the whiteness and the indigenousness and blackness, would remain a long time. But that’s maybe what this new culture looks like.



Vasconcelos mentioned Darwin’s doctrine of natural selection in his book, which preserves the fittest and dooms the weak, in order to interpret his future cosmic race. This reminded me of what I learnt in my history lessons. In late 19th century, Chinese ideologist Fu Yan wrote a book called 天演論, which was a translation of Thomas Henry Huxley’s Evolution and Ethics, in order to introduce Darwin’s ideas and arouse the people from ignorance to fight against the invasion of imperialism. The turn of the 19th and 20th century was a key point to Chinese people, since they had lost several wars with the imperialism and signed several unequal treaties. Then I wondered why Vaconcelos wrote this book. Later I found that he has been called the “cultural caudillo” of the Mexican Revolution. Maybe his purpose was similar with Fu Yan in some ways.

And I also thought about the situation in China, whether there are “Mestizos” in China. From Wikipedia, I found that “China officially recognizes 56 distinct ethnic groups, the largest of which are the Han Chinese, who constitute about 91.51% of the total population. And it is the world’s largest single ethnic group. Ethnic minorities account for about only 8.49% of the population of China, but still 118,880,332 according to the 2010 census. The 2010 census recorded a total of 593,832 foreign citizens living in China. The largest such groups were from South Korea (120,750), the United States (71,493) and Japan (66,159), but only 1,448 were Naturalized Citizen”.

According to the data and maybe the history, we will find the Han Chinese is an inclusive ethnic group which can hardly be assimilated. And more and more ethnic minorities are being assimilated, losing their own culture and becoming a “Han Chinese” thoroughly. That’s not a lived process of mixture, but a process of disappearance. And the people who stick to their culture and ethnic groups usually live a tough life in the rural areas. The people who leave for the cities usually have to behave like a “citizen”, just like two of my classmates who are of ethnic minorities, you are never likely to tell them from the Han Chinese unless they tell you personally. That’s really a complex problem.

But when the Han Chinese go abroad, the situation changes. Some of them are assimilated, others remain some elements of the Chinese culture, not the entire one. But these elements will be magnified. Just like the Chinese New Year Parade in Vancouver’s Chine town, you can hardly find such kind of activities in China’s big cities. (Unfortunately, I’m not familiar with the Chinese abroad, so can’t talk more.)

Recently I heard a piece of strange news, reported that some people in the South China, usually living close to the border, are buying brides from Southeast Asia, especially from Vietnam. Only ¥50,000(about CAD$ 10,000) can bring you back a girl to be your wife. And this has already formed a industry chain. That’s really a terrible story. I think the inequality of economic development can be a reason. The department concerned should take action because it is illegal.

What’s more, the casta paintings are interesting.

Theories of Mixture I

It has never occurred to me that Mestizos play such an important part in Latin America, which “make up the majority of the population in half of the countries of Latin America” (According to The World Factbook from Wikipedia). Such a large number of people can create a new culture after all, since it is almost impossible for an individual to embody two different cultures separately. They’ll definitely be influenced by Spanish or European culture and indigenous culture, but not merely become either of them. As Peter Wade argued that mestizaje is a lived process,”the relationship between inclusion and exclusion…can be understood as the interweaving of two processes, both of which have symbolic and structural reality. These, in turn, constitute a mosaic, at the level of the embodied person and the family as well as the nation”. And I think it would keep its status of dynamic change, especially in today’s trend of globalization. The inclusion and exclusion, particularly between the elite and the subaltern, the whiteness and the indigenousness and blackness, would remain a long time. But that’s maybe what this new culture looks like.



Vasconcelos mentioned Darwin’s doctrine of natural selection in his book, which preserves the fittest and dooms the weak, in order to interpret his future cosmic race. This reminded me of what I learnt in my history lessons. In late 19th century, Chinese ideologist Fu Yan wrote a book called 天演論, which was a translation of Thomas Henry Huxley’s Evolution and Ethics, in order to introduce Darwin’s ideas and arouse the people from ignorance to fight against the invasion of imperialism. The turn of the 19th and 20th century was a key point to Chinese people, since they had lost several wars with the imperialism and signed several unequal treaties. Then I wondered why Vaconcelos wrote this book. Later I found that he has been called the “cultural caudillo” of the Mexican Revolution. Maybe his purpose was similar with Fu Yan in some ways.

And I also thought about the situation in China, whether there are “Mestizos” in China. From Wikipedia, I found that “China officially recognizes 56 distinct ethnic groups, the largest of which are the Han Chinese, who constitute about 91.51% of the total population. And it is the world’s largest single ethnic group. Ethnic minorities account for about only 8.49% of the population of China, but still 118,880,332 according to the 2010 census. The 2010 census recorded a total of 593,832 foreign citizens living in China. The largest such groups were from South Korea (120,750), the United States (71,493) and Japan (66,159), but only 1,448 were Naturalized Citizen”.

According to the data and maybe the history, we will find the Han Chinese is an inclusive ethnic group which can hardly be assimilated. And more and more ethnic minorities are being assimilated, losing their own culture and becoming a “Han Chinese” thoroughly. That’s not a lived process of mixture, but a process of disappearance. And the people who stick to their culture and ethnic groups usually live a tough life in the rural areas. The people who leave for the cities usually have to behave like a “citizen”, just like two of my classmates who are of ethnic minorities, you are never likely to tell them from the Han Chinese unless they tell you personally. That’s really a complex problem.

But when the Han Chinese go abroad, the situation changes. Some of them are assimilated, others remain some elements of the Chinese culture, not the entire one. But these elements will be magnified. Just like the Chinese New Year Parade in Vancouver’s Chine town, you can hardly find such kind of activities in China’s big cities. (Unfortunately, I’m not familiar with the Chinese abroad, so can’t talk more.)

Recently I heard a piece of strange news, reported that some people in the South China, usually living close to the border, are buying brides from Southeast Asia, especially from Vietnam. Only ¥50,000(about CAD$ 10,000) can bring you back a girl to be your wife. And this has already formed a industry chain. That’s really a terrible story. I think the inequality of economic development can be a reason. The department concerned should take action because it is illegal.

What’s more, the casta paintings are interesting.