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.

“Defeat has brought us the confusion of values and concepts; the victor’s diplomacy deceives us after defeating us: commerce conquers us with it’s small advantages”(10) For me, this statement stood out and really resonated with me. I think it expresses the conundrum of the simultaneous horrors and conveniences which colonialism has introduced to “Latin American” countries. His Prologue was defiant and impassioned but his anecdotes about Eugenics and the end left a weird taste with me. This was my reception to most of this reading- being amazed by the clarity and beauty of a lot of his phrases and simultaneously a little disturbed by others.

The author seems to be torn between wanting to preserve what was great about the native cultures and wanting to embrace what is, although I think his pursuit for a celebration of the mestizorace he (intentionally or not) had to assert it’s greatness through diminishing other races. I think exploring the place the mestizo holds in Latin American culture is incredibly important, but a lot of his exploration is merely opinion based and somewhat troubling. He insists certain things are true about ENTIRE races of people (I’m sure a few black people in the world aren’t the embodiment of dance) which makes us all very squirmy in 2017.
“Race” is a fabricated social concept that humans invented, and not an inherit or finite thing as it is often spoken of (as with in this essay.) It is easy to see why humans have created it, and the function it serves- to describe physical differences in an attempt to categorize or group types or regions of people, and yet describes no actual THING (words do this, often to our own detriment.) That is not to deny that certain groups of people have been racialized, and that their race is a very much real part of their identity, I’m simply trying to stress how our entire notion of that word (to this day) asserts is that “whiteness” (no actual group of people…not real) is the ‘Norm’ and “others” (groups who do not fit the empirical requirements of “whiteness”) are not. Clearly this is not biological (we are all completely genetically unique) or inherit to our existence some guys literally just made it up. Our concept of race also involves a great deal of retroactive speculation with very little certainty. We can see this in our authors constant return to his imagined “atlantean” people. I understand that we are approaching this “cosmic race” from a Darwinist perspective and so there are certain conventions which go along with it but i thought it was worth pointing out (also this essay gives me mid 20th century vibes and so perhaps that is why some of the terms aren’t up to my stuffy pc standards.)

I think what is so (contemporarily) troubling about this essay, and the perspective of it’s author, is this particular breed of nationalism (or culturism??) mixed with nostalgia. A longing for the “golden age” of his people (which is not before colonialism??)….. (maybe we are so appalled by this because our bumbling orange puff of a president seems to cling to this idea as well in perhaps more harmful ways?) In fact, this retroactive glorification of one’s history is a rhetoric used by crazed leaders (and old men at rural pubs/bars) the world over. It seems as though when a particular group or nation undergoes a period of depression, oppression or unrest this naturalized racial superiority or”biological greatness” of their people is used to boost morale creating an “us” which always necessitates a “them”= POPULISM. Even at one point he credits the ‘superior spaniards’ as well as the christian religion from rescuing his people from “cannabalism.” I think dismissing his feelings (however uncomofortable they make me,) and overlooking the dynamic which has produced them would be a disservice to myself and to the text.He feels pride for both sides of his heritage and perhaps is reacting against scholarship released at the time that harkened back to pre-colonial times as somehow pure or better, he seeks to prove the mixed identity as not only better but the “cosmic race” or destiny of the world. There is some merit to this thought perhaps and I too believe one homogenous “mixed” identity to be the “cosmic race” of the world. I do take issue with him lowering the status of marginal races, along with other groups he resents, such as the “Anglo-saxon” people of the United Sates (because every person in the USA can trace 100% anglo-saxon lineage…right?) “They (anglo-saxon colonialists) and their masters did nothing else but spoil the work of Spanish genius in America” (14) His contemporary Latin American view of the USA as the belligerent, militant right-wing “paternal figure” (huge eye roll) is exactly what they were and so it is not hard to imagine why he assumes his “Spanishness” is the separation between the two cultures which makes his somehow better. Unfortunately crediting their modern political disposition to their pre-historic “Anglo-saxon” race really diminishes all of his other thoughts on the subject. Additionally, he seems almost to believe in cultural (or racial..?) determinism and that perhaps it was the destiny of the “Latin” and Anglo Saxon” people to conquer the Americas because of their racial greatness.

Still having to encounter this kind of thinking to this day may exhaust us but it is really important to not say “screw everyone who thinks like this evil racists, evil misogynists, evil trump supporters” etc the only way we can change this kind of thinking for good is understanding what built the perspective of the person, and how they are able to justify it to themselves.