Mexican art in New York Alejandro Ugalde

INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is d ep en d en t upon the quality of th e copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted.

Also, if unauthorized

copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.

ProQuest Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

NOTE TO USERS Copyrighted materials in this document have not been filmed at the request of the author. They are available for consultation at the author’s university library.

536-580 This reproduction is the best copy available.

UMI'

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

The Presence of Mexican Art in New York between the World Wars: Cultural Exchange and Art Diplomacy

Alejandro Ugalde

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2003

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er r ep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

UMI Number: 3088439

__®

UMI UMI Microform 3088439 Copyright 2003 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

ABSTRACT The Presence of Mexican Art in New York between the World Wars: Cultural Exchange and Art Diplomacy Alejandro Ugalde

In the 1920s and 1930s Mexican art was widely influential in New York due to a series of exhibitions, mural commissions, publications, and the immigration of Mexican artists themselves. In those decades New York became the place that congregated more diverse Mexican art expressions outside Mexico; it was also where the most comprehensive and determining Mexican exhibitions occurred duringat that period—including Mexico itself. A series of artistic, cultural, and political factors made possible that unique phenomenon. In the case of Mexico, those factors were related to the end of the 1910 Revolution, and the need of an emerging nationalist state to develop a broader base of relations with the United States, that included cultural and artistic exchanges. In the U.S. case, those factors were related to the end of World War I and the nation’s new leading position in the world, a situation that encouraged the search of a cultural identity autonomous from European traditions. The evolution of Mexican art was an appealing model because it represented the history of a nation that, as the United States, had been mostly dependent from European art canons, but which after its revolution, had succeeded in liberating itself from those patterns, becoming deeply connected with its own roots. Remarkably, all at once, the Mexican model had been able to re-create select concepts and forms of the international avant-garde, and by doing so Mexican art remained connected—but under new basis—to

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er r ep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

the Western art world. Thus, in the 1920s and 1930s Mexican art succeeded in what New York artists were searching for American art. Based on empirical evidence I argue that the successful presence of Mexican art in New York between the World Wars was the result of artistic and non-artistic factors, specifically the interplay between the modernist and internationalist quests of both Mexican and American artists, and—on the other hand—the political and economic interests of the Mexican state and particular U.S. sponsoring groups, individuals, and institutions.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

Contents List of Illustrations

Abbreviations

xii

Acknowledgements

xvi

Introduction

I. Cultural Propaganda and Art Diplomacy in the aftermath of the Mexican Revolution and World War 1 ,1917-1930

II. Marius de Zayas, Jose Juan Tablada, Miguel Covarrubias, and the Alleged Mexican Art Invasion, 1910s-1920s

III. Mexican Arts and Crafts at the Art Center and the Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1928-1930

154

IV. Diego Rivera and Mexican Art under Rockefeller Patronage, 1929-1934

214

V. Jose Clemente Orozco, David Alfaro Siqueiros, and Rufino Tamayo within the New York Modern Scene, 1927-1940

301

VI. Twenty Centuries o f Mexican Art at the Museum of Modern Art in the Context of the Mexican Oil Expropriation and World War II, 1939-1940

396

Conclusions and Epilogue

460

Appendix A. Solo Exhibitions of Mexican Artists in New York, 1910s-1940s

486

Appendix B. Group Exhibitions of Mexican Art in New York, 1910s-1940s

490

Bibliography

493

Illustrations

535

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

List of Illustrations

Chapter One 1.1 Exhibition o f Popular Arts to celebrate Centennial of Consummation of Independence, Mexico City, 1921-1922.

536

1.2 Traveling Mexican Popular Arts Exposition at MacDowell Club, Tajo Building, Los Angeles, Calif., 1922.

536

13 Detail of the Traveling Mexican Popular Arts Exposition. MacDowell Club. Tajo Building, Los Angeles, Calif., 1922.

536

1.4 Mexican Children at the Xochimilco Open-Air School of Painting, c l925.

537

1.5 Children of the Open-Air Schools of Painting at the exhibition of their works in 1925.

537

1.6 Minister of Public Education Puig Casauranc and Dr. Pierre Janet at the exhibition of the Open-Air Schools of painting in 925.

537

1.7 Open-Air School work: Julian Morales (13-year old boy), Tlacoapa, Oil.

538

1.8 Open-Air School work: Maria Rosete (15-year old girl), La casa chata, Watercolor.

538

1.9 Open-Air School work: Reinaldo Maya (14-year old boy), Alcanfores, Oil.

538

1.10

Open-Air School work: Jacoba Rojas (16-year old girl), Petrita, Oil.

538

1.11 Minister o f Public Education Puig Casauranc, Ambassador Dwight W. Morrow. President Calles, and Charles Lindbergh, Mexico City, 1927.

539

1.12

Ambassador Dwight W. Morrow purchasing Mexican crafts, c l928.

539

1.13 Diego Rivera, Elie Faure, Jean Chariot, Frida Kahlo, Frances Flynn Paine, at Palace of Cortes, cl 930.

539

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

Chapter Two 2.1 Alfred Stieglitz, Marius de Zayas at “291, ” 1913. Photograph.

540

2.2 Marius de Zayas. Agnes Meyer, c l908. Charcoal on paper, 24"* 18 7s".

540

2 3 Marius de Zayas. Les Boulevardiers, 1910, New York Times, I May 1910.

540

2.4 Marius de Zayas, Alfred Stieglitz, cl909. Charcoal on paper, 25" x 19".

541

2.5 Marius de Zayas, Alfred Stieglitz, 1912-13. Charcoal on paper, 24V*" * 185/*".

541

2.6 Marius de Zayas, Paul Haviland, c l909. Charcoal on paper, 223/g" x 16".

541

2.7 Marius de Zayas, Paul Haviland, 1913. Charcoal on paper, 24.8 * 20.1 cm.

541

2.8 The Modem Gallery, cl915.

542

2.9 Advertisements of exhibitions at the Modem Gallery, 1916.

542

2.10 Diego M. Rivera, Madame Marcoussis, cl915.

542

2.11

Diego M. Rivera, The Terrace o f the Cafe, cl915.

2.12 Jose Juan Tablada. cultural ambassador in South America, late 1910s. 2.13

Jose Juan Tablada’s Libreria de los Latinos. 1920.

542 543

543

2.14 Work from the Society of Independent Artists from the City of Mexico, 1923.

543

2.15 Manuel Martinez Pintao. El Santo Nino Jesus, Low relief on aguacatillo, 31 lA x 39 cm. Society of Independent Artists from the City of Mexico, 1923.

543

2.16

Miguel Covarrubias and Frank Crowninshield.

544

2.17

Miguel Covarrubias, Babe Ruth.

544

2.18

Miguel Covarrubias, George Gershwin.

544

2.19

Miguel Covarrubias, Charlie Chaplin.

544

iii

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n e r . F u rth er r ep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

Chapter Three 3.1 Mexican Art Renaissance: children, Indians, art,and landscape, mid1920s.

545

3.2 Popular retablo painting.

545

3 3 Pulqueria mural, Mexico City.

545

3.4 Cover catalogue Exhibition o f Mexican Art at the Art Center, 1928.

546

3.5 Cover catalogue for the presentation of Mexican Arts in Mexico City, 1930.

546

3.6 Rene d’Hamoncourt in 1930.

546

3.7 View of Mexican Arts at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, fall 1930.

546

3.8 Christ as Savior, feather mosaic, from Patzcuaro, 16th century.

547

3.9 Lacquered Batea (shallow wooden bowl), from Patzcuaro,17thcentury.

547

3.10

Lacquered Box, from Olinala, early 18th century.

547

3.11

Tinaja (pottery jar), from Tonala, 17th century.

548

3.12

Bedspread (embroidery), from Toluca, early 19th century.

548

3.13

Tiger Mask (painted wood), from Olinala, contemporary.

548

3.14 Incense Burner (polychromed pottery), from Guerrero, contemporary.

548

3.15

Miguel Covarrubias, School Teacher, Watercolor.

549

3.16

Abraham Angel, The Little Mule, cl923. Oil on board, 76 x 120 cm.

549

3.17

Carlos Merida, Watercolor.

549

3.18

Julio Castellanos, Two Women and Child, 1930. Oil.

549

3.19

Jose Clemente Orozco, Zapata, 1930. Oil on canvas, 70%" * 48%".

550

3.20

Diego Rivera, Market Scene, Portable fresco, 1930.

550

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

3.21

Luis Hidalgo, Pancho, Wax sculpture.

550

3.22

Mardonio Magafia, The President o f the Agrarians, Wood sculpture.

550

Chapter Four 4.1 Abby Aldrich Rockefeller and John D. Rockefeller Jr.

551

4.2 Advertisements of the Mexican Month exhibitions.

551

4.3 Diego Rivera, Wall Street Banquet (a.k.a. The Billionaires), 1926. Fresco panel at the Ministry of Public Education, Mexico City.

551

4.4 Diego Rivera, May Day Moscow, 1928. Watercolors, 10.3 * 16 cm. each.

551

4.5 Diego Rivera, Fiesta Tehuanas, 1928. Oil on canvas.

552

4.6 Diego Rivera, Tehuantepec Costume, 1929. Oil on canvas.

552

4.7 Diego Rivera Rivera completing Liberation o f the Peon, New York, 11 Dec. 1931.

553

4.8 Diego Rivera, Agrarian Leader Zapata, 1931. Portable fresco, variation of the Palace of Cortes mural series.

553

4.9 Diego Rivera, Sugar Cane, 1931. Portable fresco, variation of the Palace of Cortes mural series.

553

4.10 Cover catalogue o f Diego Rivera’s one-man show at the Museum of Modem Art, 1931-1932.

554

4.11

Diego Rivera, Portrait o f a Woman, 1918. Pencil.

554

4.12 Diego Rivera, Study o f Hands, 1922. Sanguine.

554

4.13 Diego Rivera, The Architect, 1914. Oil on canvas.

555

4.14 Diego Rivera, The Awakener 1914. Oil on canvas.

555

4.15

Diego Rivera, Electric Power, 1932. Portable fresco.

556

4.16

Diego Rivera, Pneumatic Drill, 1932. Portable fresco.

556

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

4.17

Diego Rivera, Frozen Assets, 1932. Portable fresco.

4.18 Diego Rivera, sketch for RCA mural, fall 1932. Pencil on paper, 3" x 71 lA".

556 557

Diego Rivera begins painting the RCA mural, Apr. 1933.

557

4.20 John D. Rockefeller Jr., John D. Rockefeller Sr., and Nelson A. Rockefeller and his son. c l933.

557

4.21 Diego Rivera, Man at the Crossroads, central section, RCA mural, May 1933. Fresco.

558

4.19

Diego Rivera, Lenin’s Portrait, RCA mural, May 1933. Fresco.

558

4.23 Diego Rivera’s Man at the Crossroads mural covered after the project was cancelled, 1933.

558

4.24

Caricature of Diego Rivera and his $21,000 check, 1933.

559

4.25 Miguel Covarrubias, Rockefeller Discovering the Rivera Murals, 1933. Gouache on paper.

559

4.26 Diego Rivera, Man, Controller o f the Universe, 1934. Variation of the RCA mural. Fresco. Palace of Fine Arts. Mexico City.

559

4.22

Chapter Five 5.1 Jose Juan Tablada in traditional Mexican costume, New York, cl930.

560

5.2 Jose Clemente Orozco. Elfusilado, c l928. Gouache and ink on paper, 37 x 48 cm. Mexico in Revolution series.

560

5 3 Jose Clemente Orozco, Against the Wall, Mexico in Revolution series.

560

5.4 Jose Clemente Orozco, The Wounded, c l928. Ink on paper, Mexico in Revolution series.

560

5.5 Jose Clemente Orozco, New York Factory, Williamsburg, 1928. Oil on canvas.

561

5.6 Jose Clemente Orozco, Coney Island Side-Show, 1928. Oil on canvas.

561

5.7 Jose Clemente Orozco, The Subway, 1928. Oil on paper laid down on board, 16'/*" x 22W .

561

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n e r. F u rth er r ep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

5.8 Jose Clemente Orozco, Workers, 1929. Oil on canvas.

561

5.9 Jose Clemente Orozco. The Occident, New School of Social Research mural series. 1930-1931. Fresco.

562

5.10 Jose Clemente Orozco, The Orient, New School of Social Research mural series, 1930-1931. Fresco.

562

5.11 Jose Clemente Orozco, Table o f Brotherhood, New School of Social Research mural series, 1930-1931. Fresco.

562

David Alfaro Siqueiros, Peasant Mother. 1930. Oil, 8 * 6 ft.

563

5.13 David Alfaro Siqueiros, Proletarian Mother, 1930. Oil on jute, 8.2 x 5.9 ft.

563

5.14 David Alfaro Siqueiros, Street Meeting, 1932. Pigments applied with spray gun on cement, 20 x 25 ft. Chouinard School of Art, Los Angeles, Calif.

563

5.15 David Alfaro Siqueiros, Tropical America Oppressed and Destroyed by Imperialism, 1932. Pigments applied with spray gun on cement. 19.7 x 98.4 ft. Plaza Art Center. Los Angeles, Calif.

563

5.16 David Alfaro Siqueiros, Portrait o f Present-Day Mexico, 1932. Casein oil pigments on cement, 52.5 sq. ft. Original location: Dudley Murphy’s house, Santa Monica, Calif.; Current location: Santa Barbara Museum of Art, Calif.

564

5.17 David Alfaro Siqueiros, Plastic Exercise, 1933. Nitrocellulose pigments applied with spray gun on black cement, 656 sq. ft. Bar of the country home of Natalio Botana, Don Torcuato, Argentina.

564

5.18 David Alfaro Siqueiros, Cover catalogue exhibition at the Delphic Studios, 1934.

564

5.19 Mexican delegates to the First American Artists’ Congress, New York 1936. Standing, from left: Rufino and Olga Tamayo, David Alfaro Siqueiros, Jose Clemente Orozco, and other colleagues.

565

5.20 David Alfaro Siqueiros with colleagues at the Siqueiros Experimental Workshop, New York, 1936.

565

5.21 David Alfaro Siqueiros, The Birth o f Fascism (first version), 1936. Pyroxylin on board, 3.28 x 2.46 ft.

565

5.12

vii

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n e r. F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

5.22 David Alfaro Siqueiros, Stop the War, 1936. Pyroxylin on board, 2.95 x 2.46 ft.

565

5.23 David Alfaro Siqueiros, Collective Suicide, 1936. Pyroxylin on wood with applied sections, 49" * 72".

565

5.24 Siqueiros Experimental Workshop, polychromed float for May Day parade, 1936.

566

5.25 Siqueiros Experimental Workshop, polychromed float for May Day parade, 1936.

566

5.26 Siqueiros Experimental Workshop, Portrait o f Earl Browder, CPUSA candidate for president of the United States, 1936. Pyroxylin on masonite.

566

5.27 Siqueiros Experimental Workshop, Portrait o f James Ford, CPUSA candidate for vice president of the United States, 1936. Pyroxylin on masonite.

566

5.28 Rufino Tamayo, Cover catalogue exhibition at The Weyhe Gallery, 1926.

567

5.29

Rufino Tamayo, India Oaxaqueha, c l926. Watercolor.

567

530

Rufino Tamayo, Cabezas, c l926. Watercolor.

567

531

Rufino Tamayo, Oaxaca, c l926. Watercolor.

567

532

Rufino Tamayo, Seashells, 1929. Oil on canvas.

568

533

Rufino Tamayo, Three Musicians, 1934. Oil on canvas.

568

534

Rufino Tamayo, New Yorkfrom a Terrace, 1937. Oil on canvas.

568

5.35

Rufino Tamayo, Strawberry Ice Cream, 1938. Oil on canvas.

568

536

Rufino Tamayo, Tehuantepec Women, 1939. Oil on canvas.

568

Chapter Six 6.1 Coatlicue, Aztec, from Mexico City. Full-size plaster cast.

571

6.2 Saint Francis, mid-16th century. Painting on wood.

571

viii

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

6 3 Augustinian Church in Yecapixtla, Morelos, 1540-1545. Gothic 16th century fortress-church with rose-window.

571

6.4 Open Chapel of the Convent of Tlalmanalco, state of Mexico, late 16th century. Plateresque archivolts show Renaissance detail and Indian craftsmanship.

571

6.5 Musical Angel from Santa Maria Tonanzintla, Puebla, late 17th century. Baroque of the Puebla carved stucco school, Indian craftsmanship.

570

6.6 Embroidered Chasuble, early 18th century. Silk, silver and thread, from the Treasure of the Cathedral o f Mexico City.

570

6.7 Glazed Earthenware Plates, so-called “Talavera de Puebla,” mid-19th century.

570

6.8 Polychromed and Wooden Chest, mid-19th century, from Olinala, Guerrero.

570

6.9 Julio Castellanos. The Day o f San Juan, Oil on canvas.

571

6.10

Manuel Rodriguez Lozano, The Ruler, 1935. Oil on canvas.

571

6.11

Rufino Tamayo, Pretty Girl, 1937. Oil on canvas, 5314" * 373/s".

571

6.12 God o f Death (breast plate), Mixtec, from Tomb no. 7. Monte Alban, Oaxaca. Gold.

572

6.13 GodXipe Totec, Zapotec, from Tomb no. 51. Monte Alban, Oaxaca, brown earthware.

572

6.14 Human Figure, Zapotec, from Tomb no. 113. Monte Alban, Oaxaca. Brown earthware.

572

6.15 Brassier o f the GodXipe Totec, Zapotec, from Tomb no. 58, Period IV. Monte Alban, Oaxaca. Gray earthware.

572

6.16 Baltasar de Echave Ibia (the Younger), The Virgin o f the Apocalypse, 1620.

573

6.17 The Count o f Galvez, 1796. Face and hands by Friar Pablo de Jesus; calligraphic horse by Father San Geronimo.

573

6.18

Miguel Cabrera, Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz, 1750.

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

573

6.19 Saint Sebastian, early 17th century, from the Treasure of the Cathedral of Mexico City. Carved in native alabaster.

573

6.20 Facade of the Cathedral of Puebla, 1649-64. Example of Herrerian architecture with Baroque details.

574

6.21 Eduardo Tresguerras, Dome of El Carmen, Celaya, Guanajuato, 1804.

574

6.22

Roberto Montenegro, Maya Women. Oil on canvas.

575

6.23 Carlos Merida, Variations on a Maya Motif, 1939. Gouache on canvas.

575

6.24

Dr. Atl, Landscape, 1930. Aqua resina.

575

6.25

Jean Chariot, Mother and Child, 1934. Color lithograph.

575

6.26

Frida Kahlo, The Two Fridas, 1939. Oil on canvas.

576

6.27

Diego Rivera, Kneeling Dancer, 1939. Oil on canvas.

576

6.28

Mardonio Magana, Woman and Child, Conglomerate limestone.

576

6.29 Jose Guadalupe Posada, Calavera Quijotesca, cl913. Wood engraving.

577

6.30

Leopoldo Mendez, Proletarian Hand, 1933. Wood engraving.

577

6.31

Leopoldo Mendez, Parade, 1933. Wood engraving.

577

632 Baked Clay Toy, contemporary, from San Pedro Tlaquepaque, Jalisco.

578

633

Painted Wooden Toys, contemporary, from Silao, Guanajuato.

578

634

Earthenware Jar, contemporary, from Toliman, Guerrero.

578

635

Musical Instrument, from Guanajuato.

578

636

Head, Olmec, from Mexico City. Jade.

579

637

Vessel, Tarascan, from state of Jalisco. Yellow polished earthware.

579

638 The Tribute Roll, Codex, Aztec, Mexico City. Watercolor on maguey paper.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

579

639

Head o f an Eagle Knight, Aztec, from Mexico City. Andesite.

579

6.40 Miguel Covarrubias, The Museum o f Modem Art Presents Twenty Centuries o f Mexican Art, 1940. Watercolor on paper.

580

6.41 Jose Clemente Orozco. Dive Bomber and Tank, 1940. Sketch of portable fresco.

580

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

Abbreviations

AAA/SI

Archives of American Art. Smithsonian Institution

AAR Papers

Abby Aldrich Rockefeller Papers

ACG

A. Conger Goodyear

AGN

Archivo General de la Nacion. Mexico City

CCNY/CU

Carnegie Corporation of New York, Rare Book & Manuscript Library of Columbia University, New York, New York

CCP

Carnegie Corporation Project, Oral History Research Office, Columbia University, New York. New York

CNCA

Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes

CZ Papers/ARBML/UP

Carl Zigrosser Papers, Annenberg Rare Book & Manuscript Library, University of Pennsylvania

DAS Papers/GRI

David Alfaro Siqueiros Papers, 1920-1991, bulk 1930-1936, Special Collections Department, © Research Library, The Getty Research Institute for the History of Art and the Humanities, Los Angeles, Calif.

DWM Papers/ACL

Dwight W. Morrow Papers, Archives and Special Collections. Amherst College Library

ENBA

Escuela Nacional de Bellas Artes (National School of Fine Arts; formerly known as Academy of San Carlos)

FAP

Federal Arts Project

FCCH

Fondo Carlos Chavez, Archivo General de la Nacion. Mexico City

FCE

Fondo de Cultura Economica

FOC

Fondo Obregon-Calles, Archivo General de la Nacion, Mexico City

FTP/CU

Frank Tannenbaum Papers, Rare Book & Manuscript

xii

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

Library o f Columbia University GEB Archives

General Education Board Archives

Institute de Investigaciones Esteticas

INAH

Institute Nacional de Antropologia e Historia (National Institute of Anthropology and History)

INBA

Institute Nacional de Bellas Artes (National Institute of Fine Arts)

LEAR

Liga de Escritores y Artistas Revolucionarios (League of Revolutionary Writers and Artists)

MdZ Papers/C U

Marius de Zayas Papers, Rare Book & Manuscript Library of Columbia University

MoMA

The Museum of Modem Art. New York, New York

NAR Papers

Nelson A. Rockefeller Papers

NYPL

New York Public Library

OMR

Messrs. Rockefeller Collection

RAC

Rockefeller Archive Center, Sleepy Hollow, New York

RdH Papers/AAA/S I

Rene d’Harnoncourt Papers, Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution

RFA

Rockefeller Family Archives

SEP

Secretaria de Education Publica (Ministry of Public Education)

SEW

Siqueiros Experimental Workshop

SOTPE

Sindicate de Obreros. Tecnicos, Pintores y Escultores (Syndicate of Technical Workers Painters and Sculptors)

TCMA

Twenty Centuries of Mexican Art

UNAM

Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico

VG Records/AAA/SI

Valentine Gallery Records, 1924-1948, Archives of

xiii

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

American Art. Smithsonian Institution WP Papers/AAA/SI

Walter Pach Papers, 1883-1980, Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution

YCAL MSS 85

Alfred Stieglitz\Georgia O’Keeffe Archive, Yale Collection of American Literature. Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University

Short Forms in Correspondence AAR

Abby Aldrich Rockefeller

Barr

Alfred H. Barr Jr.

Barreda

Octavio G. Barreda

Brum

Blanca Luz Brum

Calles

President Plutarco Elias Calles

Cardenas

President Lazaro Cardenas

Chariot

Jean Chariot

Chavez

Carlos Chavez

Clemente or Orozco

Jose Clemente Orozco

Covarrubias

Miguel Covarrubias

De Forest

Robert W. de Forest

D’Harnoncourt

Rene d’Hamoncourt

De Zayas

Marius de Zayas

Frida

Frieda Rivera or Frida Kahlo

Keppel

Frederick Keppel

Margarita

Margarita Valladares de Orozco

xiv

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

Morrow

Dwight W. Morrow

Mrs. Morrow

Elizabeth C. Morrow

NAR

Nelson A. Rockefeller

Obregon

President Alvaro Obregon

Pach

Walter Pach

Paine

Frances Flynn Paine

Puig Casauranc

Jose Manuel Puig Casauranc

Rivas Mercado

Antonieta Rivas Mercado

Rivera

Diego Rivera

Rodriguez Lozano

Manuel Rodriguez Lozano

Saenz

Moises Saenz

Siqueiros

David Alfaro Siqueiros

Stieglitz

Alfred Stieglitz

Tablada

Jose Juan Tablada

Tamayo

Rufino Tamayo

Toor

Frances Toor

Vasconcelos

Jose Vasconcelos

Zigrosser

Carl Zigrosser

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

Acknowledgments

In the course of researching and writing this dissertation, numerous people and institutions have generously offered their support both in the United States and Mexico. First and foremost I wish to express my deepest gratitude to Prof. Herbert S. Klein, my doctoral sponsor and chair of the Latin American program at the History Department of Columbia University. I thank him very much for his trust, patience, and guidance throughout the different stages of my graduate studies. In his own unique way he coached me. challenged me, and brought out my best. I extend my heartfelt gratitude to Prof. Pablo Piccato who. as specialist in Mexican history at Columbia University, provided a rigorous reading, enlightening comments and extremely helpful advice over the years. Working with both of them was a crucial experience for my academic, intellectual, and personal growth. Likewise, I want to thank the other members of the committee who examined my dissertation: Prof. Elizabeth Blackmar of Columbia University, Prof. Seth Fein of Yale University, and Dr. Renato Gonzalez Mello of the Instituto de Investigaciones Esteticas (HE), Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM). Their critiques, insights and recommendations were fundamental in improving and preparing the final copy of this manuscript. In revising this work I am also deeply indebted to Prof. Helen Delpar of the University of Alabama History Department; Prof. James Oles of Wellesley College Art History Department; Dra. Alicia Azuela of the IIE, UNAM; and Dra. Esther Acevedo of Curare-Espacio Critico para las Artes in Mexico City. All of these scholars were exceptionally gracious by reading the entire manuscript, and offering invaluable

xvi

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

criticism, information and direction that bettered the final outcome. For their stimulating comments and suggestions on specific chapters, I am very grateful to Prof. Shifra Goldman of the Art History Department, University of California, Los Angeles, and Dr. Antonio Saborit of the Centro de Estudios Historicos del Institute Nacional de Antropologia e Historia in Mexico City. As for their thoughtful interest and encouragement during the last phase of this project I want to thank Mauricio Tenorio. Francisco Reyes Palma, and Olivier Debroise. I also owe recognition to all of the abovementioned historians because in their body of work I learned a great deal about Mexico’s artistic, cultural and intellectual history. Furthermore, the quality and ambition of their writings sharpened my thinking and inspired me to persist in my own endeavor. For her direction at the earliest phase of this project, and for her orientation in the definition of my subject and the design of the research, I wish to thank Prof. Deborah Levenhson. who was my M.A. thesis advisor at Columbia in 1994. And for having made me aware of how significant was the Mexican artistic presence in New York in the 1920s-1940s. I mostly owe to Prof. Jorge Alberto Manrique of the HE. UNAM who. in the early 1990s. suggested me the study of Diego Rivera’s one-man exhibition at the Museum of Modem Art in 1931. Equally, I like to thank Mtra. Raquel Tibol for her guidance when conducting a documental research on Rufino Tamayo’s career in the 1920s-l 950s—most of which referred to his years in New York—for the catalogue Rufino Tamayo: 70 Anos de Creadon (1987). I would also like to express my profound appreciation to Prof. Karen Cordero Reiman of the Departamento de Arte, Universidad Iberoamericana, in Mexico City, who has been a remarkable mentor since my undergraduate years. Her expertise has

xvii

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

broadened my understanding of modem art history and her generous endorsement has opened many doors for me both in Mexico and the United States. Among other people whose well-disposed consideration helped me to start and carry out my studies, I want to thank Saul Juarez, Estela Eguiarte Sakar, Jose Luis Cuevas, Humberto Herrero, and Cristina Galvez Guzzy. I also have a different obligation to those institutions that provided support of various kinds, including the Universidad Iberoamericana, the Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes, and the Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes. Regarding financial assistance, I am mostly indebted to the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia. For allowing me access to their research collections I acknowledge my gratitude to the following institutions and their corresponding staffs: Amherst College Library; Archives of American Art. Smithsonian Institution; the Columbia University Libraries; the Getty Research Institute for the History of Art and the Humanities, Los Angeles. Calif.; Thomas J. Watson Library of the Metropolitan Museum of Art; the Museum of Modem Art Archives. New York; the Museum of Modem Art Library. New York; the New York Public Library, Humanities & Social Sciences Research Division; the Rockefeller Archive Center. Sleepy Hollow, New York; the Walter H. & Leonore Annenberg Rare Book & Manuscript Library of the University of Pennsylvania; and the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library of Yale University. In Mexico City: the Archivo General de la Nacion; the Biblioteca del Museo Nacional de Antropologia e Historia; the Fondo Documental Rufino Tamayo at the Museo de Arte Contemporaneo Intemacional Rufino Tamayo; the Hemeroteca Nacional, UNAM; and the Biblioteca Justino Fernandez, HE, UNAM.

xviii

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

I would also like to extend my appreciation to the staff of the History Department, Columbia University, and especially to the secretary of graduate studies, Kirsten Olsen, for having made a whole lot easier the administrative procedures involved in the completion and defense of this work. For her intelligence, wonderfid sense of humor and great love I want to thank my wife. Marcella Martuscelli. Her integrity and kindheartedness brought light and hope to those difficult moments that come along with long and complex projects. I am equally indebted to the generosity and care of my deceased father, my mother, my brothers Miguel Angel, Marco Antonio and his family, and Luis Carlos. As well as my in-laws and all of those friends and colleagues who accompanied me in this journey with love and affection. Needless to say, I myself am responsible for any errors of fact, interpretation or typing that the reader may find in the following pages.

— Alejandro Ugalde Lenox Hill, Manhattan May 2003

xix

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

This dissertation is dedicated to my older brother Miguel Angel, who has been in pain and difficulty most o f his life, but whose early talent and sensibility always made me feel at ease in the realm o f art.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

Introduction

In the spring of 1940 the Museum of Modem Art (MoMA) in New York made use of the three floors of its new building to display Twenty Centuries o f Mexican Art—the largest exhibition of Mexican art ever assembled. Covering the evolution of Mexican art from Pre-Columbian times, through the 300-year Spanish Colony, all the way to the post revolutionary painting of Diego Rivera, Jose Clemente Orozco, and David Alfaro Siqueiros, the exhibition was intended to draw Mexico and the United States closer at the dawn of World War II. Twenty Centuries o f Mexican Art was indeed an extraordinary event, but not an oddity: As a matter of fact, it seemed to be the logical culmination of twenty years of significant Mexican art events in New York- An overview of the presence of Mexican art during the 1920s and 1930s provides an impressive list of records that chronicles the development of Mexican art in the New York art scene. In the years preceding Twenty Centuries. Mexican artists were distinguished as the only foreign guests at the First American Artists’ Congress in 1936. Equally, in 1932—1933 a Mexican painter— Rivera—was hired to execute the most important mural at the Rockefeller Center complex. Only a year before, 1931—1932, Rivera’s one-man show at MoMA broke the records of attendance by luring more than 56,500 visitors—as opposed to the 36,798 that Henri Matisse had brought into the museum. In the winter of 1930-1931, another Mexican artist—Orozco—was hired to paint a major mural series at the new building of the New School of Social Research. And during the fall o f 1930 the Metropolitan Museum of Art held the exhibition Mexican Arts. a show of crafts and modem painting

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

that was a major success at the Metropolitan and made an outstanding two-year tour across the United States, attracting half a million spectators. If one keeps going back in time one would see that since the late 1920s top private patrons and foundations were eager to endorse Mexican art in New York. The list of sponsors included the U.S. ambassador to Mexico, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the American Federation of Arts, and the General Education Board of the Rockefeller Foundation. Hardly any other art school was receiving such kind of endowment. The interest in Mexican art, or more exactly, in the Mexican Art Renaissance, was also reflected in the pages of art magazines, newspapers’ art sections, and architectural and archaeological periodicals. The admiration for the Renaissance that emerged after the Revolution of 1910, and which had its best expression in public muralism, lured many American artists to visit Mexico in search of inspiration. As early as 1923, when the Society of Independent Artists hosted an exhibition of modem Mexican art at the Waldorf Astoria, the critics asserted that New York artists should take an example from the thrilling work of the Mexicans. In New York in the 1920s and 1930s, aside from French, German, and perhaps Soviet art, no other contemporary school was as influential as the Mexican one. During that period, no place (except for Mexico City) congregated more diverse Mexican art expressions and individuals than New York, which was also where the most comprehensive Mexican exhibitions took place—including Mexico itself.1Some of those

1 About the development of Mexican art in the 1920s and 1930s, see Carlos Merida, Modern Mexican Artists, Art Series (Mexico City: Frances Toor Studios, 1937); Agustin Veldzquez Chavez, Contemporary Mexican Artists (New York: Covici, Friede, 1937); Laurence E. Schmeckebier, Modern Mexican Art (Minneapolis: Univ. o f Minnesota Press, 1939); MacKinley Helm, Modern Mexican Painters (New York: Harper & Bros., 1941); Bernard Samuel Myers, Mexican Painting in Our Time (New York:

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

events were unique and resonated across the United States and Latin America. In fact, the presence of Mexican art in New York may be considered a peak of Mexico’s cultural and artistic internationalization in the twentieth century. But how did the art of a nation that in the late 1910s was still seen as barbarian and unruly arrive so quickly and so loudly to the top ranks of the New York art scene? And why did the otherwise nationalistic Mexican artists decide to emigrate or to send their works to a new art center like New York? To appreciate more clearly the singularity of those events, it is worth noting that at the opening of the twentieth century the international experience of Mexican artists was still very limited. Mexican art students traditionally traveled to Europe in modest numbers. Through academic achievements or by winning painting contests, they received fellowships to attend European academies and ateliers. Those aspiring artists were driven by a deep belief in the Old World’s artistic superiority and the need to directly study their sources to become great artists themselves. In that sense young Mexican artists were orthodox and dependent on Western art canons—a position that they shared with academicians, critics, and spectators. The traveling artists’ social origins reinforced their

Oxford Univ. Press, 1956); Luis Cardoza y Aragon, La n u b e y e l reloj (Mexico City: Ediciones de la UNAM, 1940); Jean Chariot, Mexican Art and the Academy o f San Carlos, 1785-1915, Texas Pan American Series (Austin: Univ. o f Texas Press, 1962); Olivier Debroise, Figuras en el tropico, plastica mexicana, 1920-1940 (Barcelona: Ocdano, 1984); Mari Carmen Ramirez-Garcia, “The Ideology and Politics o f the Mexican Mural Movement: 1920-1925,” 2 vols. (Ph.D. diss., Univ. o f Chicago, 1989); Olivier Debroise et al., Modernidady modernizacion en el arte mexicano, 1920-1960, Aflos 20s/50s, Ciudad de Mexico (Mexico City: [NBA, Munal, 1991); Leonard Folgarait, Mural Painting and Social Revolution in Mexico, 1920-1940: Art o f the New Order (Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998); Luis-Martin Lozano and Mayo Graham, eds., Mexican Modern Art, 1900-1950 (Ottawa: National Gallery o f Canada, 1999); Olivier Debroise et al., Portrait o f a Decade. David Alfaro Siqueiros, 1930-1940, exh. cat. (Mexico City: INBA, Munal, 1997; 1st English ed.).

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

art beliefs, which tended to be those of an educated middle class who honored the European-oriented values of the Porfiriato elite at the turn of the twentieth century. Furthermore, Mexican artists used to believe that the way to develop a serious and meaningful national school was through the imitation, assimilation, or re-creation of European icons and styles.2 Some artists and professors favored the importation of pieces—mostly casts—from Paris, as well as the invitation of European artists to teach at the Escuela Nacional de Bellas Artes (ENBA; National School of Fine Arts—formerly Academy of San Carlos). And the most ambitious even proposed that the ENBA opened branches for advanced studies either in Paris or in Rome.3 In short, before the end of the Revolution (late 1910s), there were difficulties and contradictions conceiving the creation of a Mexican art movement completely detached from European canons.

2 It is worth noting, however, that during the last two decades o f the nineteenth century there were some attempts to develop a national school. Back then Pre-Columbian subjects were common in the historical painting genre at the academy, whereas in architecture Pre-Columbian models were also recreated. By the early 1900s The Colonial source took the place o f Pre-Columbian art, as the source o f a national art and architecture. However, during those same years cosmopolitan and modem trends would claim that Mexico should create an art free from the past which reflected its true progress and modem spirit. Some o f them stated that Mexico should have “a school o f modem painting at the same level o f the European ones.” Fausto Ramirez, “Tradicidn y Modemidad, 1903-1912,” in Instituto de Investigaciones Esteticas, Las academias de arte: (VII Coloquio Internacional en Guanajuato

Indeed, Beals liked to believe that Mexico was a nation of “widely diffused popular artistic culture,” where colonial painters were already at work “before the United States existed,” and where everyone had “a love for poetry and a love for music that should be the envy of the average American.”14 For all those reasons, Beals concluded that Mexico was a land of hope and a model for industrial countries that in modem times were experiencing alienation and dehumanization.15 Equally, in early 1924, Ernest Gruening emphasized the cultural and artistic strength o f Mexico in his essay entitled “The Mexican Renaissance: Beneath the Battle of Politics.”16 Gruening, who was the editor of the Nation, argued that Mexico was of a different racial, cultural, and spiritual nature than the United States.17 North America was a Western nation: aggressive, competitive, and materialistic, while Mexico was an “Eastern” country: pacifist, creative, and artistic. Gruening avowed that only in Mexico City more than fifty thousand school children daily produced works of art where they

13 John A. Britton, Revolution and Ideology: Images o f the Mexican Revolution in the United States (Lexington: Univ. Press o f Kentucky, 1995), 59. 14 Beais, Mexico: An Interpretation, 205. 15 About the origins and evolution of the criticism towards industrial American culture, see T. J. Jackson Lears, No Place o f Grace: Antimodernism and the Transformation ofAmerican Culture, 18801920 (Chicago: Univ. o f Chicago Press, 1994); Casey Nelson Blake, Beloved Community: The Cultural Criticism o f Randolph Bourne, Van Wyck Brooks, Waldo Frank, and Lewis Mumford, Cultural Studies of the United States (Chapel Hill: Univ. o f North Carolina Press, 1990). 16 Emest Gruening, “The Mexican Renaissance; Beneath the Battle o f Politics,” Century Magazine 107, no. 4 (Feb. 1924): 520-35. About Gruening’s work as editor and journalist in the 1920s, see Emest Gruening, Many Battles: The Autobiography o f Ernest Gruening (New York: Liveright, 1973). 17 Gruening, “The Mexican Renaissance,” 521-22. Gruening expanded his ideas about the nature of post-revolutionary Mexico in a series o f articles published the following year, see Emest Gruening, “Emerging Mexico: 1. The Heritage,” Nation, 10 June 1925,649-50; idem, “ Emerging Mexico: 2. Education,” Nation, 17 June 1925,683-84; idem, “Emerging Mexico: 3. Land and Labor,” Nation, 24 June 1925,713-14; idem, “Emerging Mexico: 4. Democracy,” Nation, 1 July 1925,28-32.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n e r. F u rth er r ep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

159 displayed a unique talent. It was a national genius for “self-expression” that also reflected in the popular arts (fig. 3.1). One could see the expression of “race and place” in the pottery; in the blankets and serapes of Texcoco, Oaxaca, and Saltillo; in the huipiles (Indigenous dress for women) of Yucatan and Tehuantepec; as well as in the lacquers of Michoacan. That same spirit characterized the contemporary mural decorations that Diego Rivera, Roberto Montenegro, Dr. Atl, and Carlos Merida were painting under the sponsorship of Minister of Public Education Jose Vasconcelos.18 As a result, Gruening predicted that art creation would be “the raison d ’etre of Mexico in the coming evolution of the human race.”19 That same year— 1924— Frank Tannenbaum and Walter Pach published similar views about Mexican culture and the new post-revolutionary order.20 In the spring, Tannenbaum prepared for the Survey a special number entitled “Mexico: A Promise.”21 The edition was focused on art and culture, under the assumption that those were the really important subject matters in modem Mexico. In the introductory article Tannenbaum said that in Mexico there was “a cultural future that may well prove the greatest Renaissance in the contemporary world.”22 He pointed out that Mexican artists

18 Gruening, “The Mexican Renaissance,” 524-28. 19 Ibid.. 533. Josd Juan Tablada also argued that throughout history Mexicans had proved that their “natural skills” were art and poetry in direct opposition to industry and mechanics. See Josd Juan Tablada, Nueva York de dia y de noche, “Mexico se revela,” El Universal (Mexico City), 1 Jan. 1928; rpt. in idem. La Babilonia de Hierro: Cronicas neoyorkinas, ed. Esther Hernandez Palacios, Biblioteca UV/UNAM (Xalapa, Ver., Mexico: Univ. Veracruzana, 2000), 253-54. 20 About Frank Tannenbaum’s political antecedents, intellectual formation, and academic training, as well as his involvement with Mexico, see Charles A. Hale, “Frank Tannenbaum and the Mexican Revolution,” Hispanic American Review 75, no. 2 (May 1995): 215-46; and Helen Delpar, “Frank Tannenbaum: The Making o f a Mexicanist, 1914-1933,” The Americas 45 (Oct. 1988): 153-71. 21 Survey: Graphic Number 52, no. 3 (1 May 1924). 22 Frank Tannenbaum, “Mexico-A Promise,” ibid., 132.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

160

and intellectuals were extending their ideals to education and politics. And to corroborate this new state of affairs, Tannenbaum included the opinions o f intellectuals and artists who were for cultural reform, such as Jose Vasconcelos, Rivera, Manuel Gamio, Dr. Atl, Pedro Henriquez Urena, and Katherine Anne Porter.23 For all these reasons, Tannenbaum recommended that the American public should be less concerned about events in Far Eastern countries, and more attentive to developments in a neighboring country, which was the “gateway” to Latin America—a continent of “a hundred million people.” In a similar tone, Walter Pach remarked how important it was that Americans have contact with the “new Mexico” that was “growing up.” In a letter published in the New York Times. Pach noted that Mexicans were “one of the few peoples possessing a genuinely popular art today.”25 The following year— 1925— art critic Anita Brenner published “A Mexican Renascence,” an essay that summarized the views on the subject.26 Brenner stressed that the origins of Mexican art were in the Pre-Columbian era, so she lamented that the Spanish conquerors had destroyed most of the native arts and architecture.27 Fortunately, she said, the Indians found new opportunities to apply their creativity in the decoration of

23 Jos6 Vasconcelos, “Educational Aspirations”; Diego Rivera and Katherine Anne Porter, “The Guild Spirit in Mexican Art”; Manuel Gamio, “The New Conquest”; Dr. Atl, “Popular Arts o f Mexico” ; Pedro Henriquez Urefia, “The Revolution in Intellectual Life”; Katherine Anne Porter, “Corridos,” Survey: Graphic Number 52, no. 3 (1 May 1924). The number also included articles by governor o f Yucatan Felipe Carrillo Puerto, and upcoming President Plutarco Elias Calles. 24 Tannenbaum, “Mexico-A Promise,” 129. 25 Walter Pach, “Mexican Art and Culture,” Letter to the Editor o f the New York Times (hereafter cited as NYT), 30 Nov. 1924. 26 Anita Brenner, “A Mexican Renascence,” The Arts 8, no. 3 (Sept. 1925): 127-50. 27 In this regard Brenner’s view was very close to that o f Manuel Gamio (see chap. 1), who was her mentor in the mid-1920s. I thank Dr. Alicia Azuela for having called my attention to this connection.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

161

colonial Catholic churches.28 However, by the end of the eighteenth century the Academy of San Carlos was established and with it the use of European canons became compulsory.29 Thus, even if Mexico achieved political independence in the 1820s, the nation would continue being artistically dependent on Europe throughout the nineteenth century.30 To make things worse—Brenner noted—by the 1870s French models of architecture, arts, and fashion were imported and dominated Mexico’s designs for more than thirty years. Only the Revolution of 1910 was able to liberate Mexican art and restore original artistic values.31 Hence, in the aftermath of the civil war, movements like Best Maugard’s method of drawing and the Sindicato de Obreros, Tecnicos, Pintores y Escultores (SOTPE; Syndicate of Technical Workers, Painters and Sculptors) emerged to recover an authentic sense of beauty about Mexican peoples, landscapes, and topics. Brenner believed that these revolutionist artists not only reasserted Mexicanism, but they

28 Brenner, “A Mexican Renascence,” 127-30, 134-6. 29 About the foundation and the impact o f the Academy o f San Carlos on the development o f Mexican art, see Jean Chariot, Mexican Art and the Academy o f San Carlos, 1785-1915, Texas Pan American Series (Austin: Univ. o f Texas Press, 1962); see also Clara Bargellini, Guia que permite captar lo bello: Yesosy dibujos de la Academia de San Carlos, 1778-1916, Cuademos de Historia del Arte, no. 54 (Mexico City: UNAM-IIE, Escuela Nacional de Artes Pldsticas, 1989); and Arte de las academias: F ranciay Mexico, siglos XVH-XLX, exh. cat. (Mexico City: Antiguo Colegio de San Ildefonso, 1999). 30 For a thorough discussion o f Mexican art in the nineteenth century, see De la patria criolla a la nacion mexicana, 1750-1860, exh. cat. Mexico City: Banamex; INBA; Patronato del Museo Nacional de Arte; UNAM, Institute de Investigaciones Est6ticas, 2000. About the adoption o f foreign academic models, its variations, and the gradual emancipation, Stacie G. Widdifield, The Embodiment o f the National in Late Nineteenth-Century Mexican Painting (Tucson: Univ. o f Arizona Press, 1996); Ana Ortiz Angulo, La pintura mexicana independiente de la Academia en el siglo XIX, Coleccidn cientifica, no. 302 (Mexico City: INAH, 1995). 31 Once again, in an aim to magnify the accomplishments o f Mexico’s post-revolutionary art, Brenner discarded those episodes that contradicted her story. She omitted to tell that during the last two decades o f the nineteenth century Pre-Columbian subjects were common in the historical painting genre at the academy. Equally, in architecture Pre-Columbian models were recreated, being the most famous example the Mexican Pavilion at the Paris International Fair in 1889. In other words, since the late nineteenth century there was an active search for a national school o f art, and the academy was not really opposed or strange to that effort. See Fausto Ramirez, “Vertientes nacionalistas en el Modemismo,” in Institute de Investigaciones Esteticas, El nacionalismo y el arte mexicano. LX Coloquio de Historia del Arte. Estudios de Arte y Estetica, no. 25 (Mexico City: UNAM-IIE, 1986).]

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

162

also managed to integrate Mexican art into the international modem movement. She also celebrated that these Mexican modems found a source of inspiration in otherwise ignored popular art expressions, like the retablos (religious ex-votos), the mural decorations at the pulquerias (pulquej2 taverns), and the illustrations in popular ballads leafs (figs. 3.2-3).33 Brenner contended that fusion of modem technique and national spirit was what eventually resulted in the “Mexican Renascence” o f the 1920s. The Mexican art upsurge was not only valued in aesthetic and cultural terms, but also as a tool for social development. In 1926 in a series c f lectures on educational problems and contemporary philosophy at the National University’s Summer School, John Dewey underlined the importance of art in Mexico’s life.34 During his visit to Mexico Dewey observed that every elementary school had a flower garden that was always “gay and well cared for,” something that reflected the “aesthetic temperament” o f the Indians.35 Dewey also noted that the Mexican Indians displayed a “marked genius” for music and design in plastic arts; in fact, the designs in the small rural schools were more authentic and original than those in the industrial schools of the city, where he

32 Pulque - A fermented drink made in Mexico and some parts o f Central America from the sap o f the agave or maguey. Oxford English Dictionary, 2d ed., 1989. j3 For a discussion o f retablos, see Art and Faith in Mexico: The Nineteenth-Century Retablo Tradition, exh. cat. (Albuquerque: Univ. o f New Mexico Press, 2001). About the evolution o f Mexican popular art, see Arte popular mexicano: Cinco siglos, exh. cat. (Mexico City: Antiguo Colegio de San lldefonso, 1996). For examples o f Mexican popular illustrations, see Diego Rivera, Frances Toor, and Pablo O ’Higgins, eds., Monografia. Obras deJose Guadalupe Posada, grabador mexicano (Mexico City: Mexican Folkways, 1930); and Posada y la prensa ilustrada: Signos de modernizacion y resistencias, exh. cat. (Mexico City: Patronato del Munal, INBA, 1996). 34 See John Dewey, Impressions o f Soviet Russia and the Revolutionary World, Mexico-ChinaTurkey (New York: New Republic, 1929). About Dewey’s aesthetic ideas, see Susan Noyes Platt, Art and Politics in the 1930s: Modernism, Marxism, Americanism: A History o f Cultural Activism during the Depression Years (New York: Midmarch Arts Press, 1999), 33. 35 Dewey, Impressions o f Soviet Russia, 161.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er r ep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

163

found a lamentable influence of modem merchandise. Dewey would conclude that protecting Mexico’s “native arts” and “aesthetic traditions and patterns” from the influence o f machine-made industry would be “a great service to civilization.”36 By 1928 Emest Gruening expanded his ideas about post-revolutionary Mexico in his comprehensive book Mexico and Its Heritage?1 Gruening introduced the term “new efflorescence” to describe Mexico’s art phenomenon, and he presented a historical explanation about Mexican art development akin to Porter’s, Tablada’s, and Brenner’s. Gruening asserted that in Pre-Columbian times, art was an “expression of religious fervor” as reflected in pyramids, temples, and sculpture. After the conquest art continued being a religious work as manifested in colonial churches, monasteries, figures of saints, and canvases. However, by the end of the 300-year colony those wonderful creations stopped, and during the first century of independence (1810-1910) art production was confused by foreign fashions. Only after the Revolution of 1910 was there “a new esteem” for things Mexican thanks to the work of modem painters and the Open-Air Schools of Painting. He celebrated that in spite of centuries of foreign influences, in the 1920s one could still find beautiful popular arts “which our machine age now seeks so eagerly for its museums.”38 Gruening celebrated that in the 1920s Mexican Art Renaissance no pretension or artifice existed among either popular arts or among modem artists.39

36 ibid., 162. 37 Emest Gruening, Mexico and Its Heritage (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1928). 38 Ibid., 635-37.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

164

At the turn of the decade, cultural critic Waldo Frank also celebrated the strength of Mexican life and art. In 1929, in a series of lectures in Mexico, Frank asserted that just when Western civilization was in collapse, Mexico was experiencing a great renaissance; and he deplored that the United States was not learning from that lesson.40 In The Re discovery o f America Frank explained that art and culture were organisms that required a social and psychological basis to exist. In a country such as the United States, weak basis and traditions had hindered the evolvement of art, while in countries with strong traditions and rich contemporary life—such as Mexico—new art expressions were growing up. Frank believed that, in general, Latin Americans lived in “racial and economic wholeness” and consequently their cultural expressions were sound. Conversely, in contemporary America, society was fragmented, people lived disconnected from their feelings and intuitions, and not surprisingly they were “poor in art.” The American apparent economic and political order was in fact a disorder of humanity and it could be seen as a sign o f death.41 The rejection of American and Western forms of living and organization was also evident in Anita Brenner’s “Children of Revolution.” In this 1929 essay Brenner proudly declared that in Mexico there was no need of art galleries or art patrons, because art was

39 Ibid., 641-43. William Spratling was another observer who corroborated this view in his articles, see, for example, William Spratling, “Some Impressions o f Mexico,” Architectural Forum 47 (1927): I; idem, “Figures in a Mexican Renaissance,” Scribner's Magazine 85 (1929): 14-21. 40 Frank lectured at the National University’s Summer School and at Hubert C. Herring’s Seminar on Mexico. See Schmidt, “The American Intellectual Discovery o f Mexico,” 341; and Delpar, The Enormous Vogue, 68-69. About Frank’s career, see Waldo Frank, Memoirs o f Waldo Frank, ed. Alan Trachtenberg (: Univ. o f Massachusetts Press, 1973); for a broader analysis o f Frank’s thought, see Blake, Beloved Community. 41 See Waldo Frank, The Re-discovery ofAmerica: An Introduction to a Philosophy o f American Life (New York: Scribner, 1929), 126-28. See also idem, “What is Hispano-America to Us?” Scribner's Magazine 87 (1930): 586 ; idem, “Mexico,” Scribner's Magazine9Q (1931): 277-87.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er r ep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

165

integrated into everyday life, in streets and houses, in churches and toys.42 Brenner asserted that in Mexico were:

Hundreds of anonymous artists modeling figures and decorative vases, painting portraits and miracles on tin to hang in shrines, illustrating ballads, decorating drinking-shop walls [pulquerias], unconcerned with anything outside of their own craft, and with their own old style and vigor.43

Thus, Brenner was not surprised about the impact of Mexican children’s art exhibitions in the United States and Europe in the 1920s (see chap. 1). Their paintings were “exciting, rich, diverse” and stood out because they had “genius.” Without a doubt, Brenner’s extreme idealization of Mexican art was the result of several years of ideological construction around Mexico’s post-revolutionary culture. Her ideas on the subject were not innovative, however they were loud and adopted a romantic primitivist tone that was very compelling just at the time when America was entering the Great Depression and criticisms toward the Machine Age were proliferating. In Idols behind Altars, Anita Brenner’s major work, she summarized the views that she and the above mentioned authors developed throughout the 1920s.44 Furthermore, Idols behind Altars would epitomize the Mexican Art Renaissance discourse behind the Mexican comprehensive exhibitions of 1928-1930. Having lived

42 Anita Brenner, “Children o f Revolution,” Creative Art 4 (Feb. 1929): 36. 43 Ibid. 44 Anita Brenner, Idols behind Altars (New York: Payson & Clarke, 1929). See Brenner’s preceding article o f the same title, idem, “Idols Behind Altars,” Nation, 20 Oct. 1926. For details about the publication o f the book, see Susannah Joel Glusker, Anita Brenner: A Mind o f Her Own (Austin: Univ. o f Texas Press, 1998), 103. Regarding the title o f the book, Francisco Reyes Palma explains that it evokes a poem o f Josd Juan Tablada, “El idolo en el atrio,” but it mainly refers to Mexico’s cultural mestizaje, as symbolized in the fusion o f Indian and European religious practices, the strongest example being the transformation o f goddess Tonantzin into the Virgin o f Guadalupe. See Reyes Palma, “ Mythical Structures in Perceptions o f 20th Century Mexican Art.”

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r. F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

166

amid the protagonists of Mexico’s post-revolutionary art, Brenner was a privileged witness who wanted to become an actor through her book.45 There she argued that nowhere as in Mexico art was “so organically a part of life, at one with the national ends and the national longings...always the prime channel for the nation and for the unit.”46 She observed that for centuries Mexican artists had contributed to all areas of national life: They had not only articulated Mexico’s history, but they had also provided expression to religious beliefs, promoted and enhanced businesses, decorated for entertainment, and even granted visual form to land values.47 From that perspective Mexican art was not necessarily pretty or picturesque as it was being perceived by foreign tourists and most critics. Mexican art was not superficial but essential; it was not only the materialization of reality, but reality itself48

45 Anita Brenner was bom in Aguascaiientes, Mexico, in 1905; her father was a Jewish European inunigrant. During the Mexican Revolution the family moved to Saint Antonio, Texas, but in 1923—at eighteen years o f age— Anita returned to Mexico to study at the National University. By the same time she began writing art notes on Mexican art for American publications. In the mid-1920s she also worked as research assistant for Manuel Gamio, and she assisted Emest Gruening in preparing his book Mexico and Its Heritage { 1928). In the fall o f 1927 Brenner moved to New York, to do graduate studies in anthropology at Columbia University, under the direction o f Franz Boas, and in 1930 she obtained her doctoral degree with a dissertation on Aztec art. Brenner married an American physician and stayed in the United States; during the 1930s she would keep endorsing Mexican art and wrote art columns for the New York Times and other U.S. periodicals. For a chronology o f Anita Brenner’s life, see Glusker, Anita Brenner, 9-10. About her work as journalist in the 1920s, see ibid., 75. 46 Brenner, Idols behind Altars, 32. 47 For an analysis o f the intellectual and political context under which Brenner wrote Idols behind Altars, see Renato Gonzalez Mello, “Anita Brenner: Idolos tras los altares,” in Instituto de Investigaciones Estdticas, Arte, historia e identidad en America: Visiones comparativas. XVII Coloquio Internacional de Historia del Arte, ed. Gustavo Curiel, Renato Gonz&lez Mello, and Juana Gutierrez Haces, Estudios de Arte y Estdtica, no. 37 (Mexico City: UNAM-IIE, 1994), 2:599-610. 48 About Brenner’s idealization o f Mexican art, Karen Cordero Reiman points out that in the late 1920s, the intellectual clique associated with the Calles administration favored the predominance o f “an homogeneous explanation o f the cultural and social phenomenon o f the nation,” at the expense o f other “visual strategies and aesthetic and political proposals.” Cordero finds that Idols behind Altars was perhaps the most representative example o f that effort. In effect, Brenner paid special attention to “the major figures” o f post-revolutionary muralism, constructing a romantic and heroic narrative o f artistic geniuses; in doing so, Brenner was confirming the “official version o f lo mexicano.” This version was not only

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

167

Thus, by analyzing the political and social (i.e., human) development of post revolutionary Mexico vis-a-vis the United States in the 1920s, Brenner contended that Mexico had matured into, what she called, an artistic country.49 She conjectured that modem Mexico was so primordiaily artistic that it started painting mural decorations on its buildings before establishing its Federal Bank.30 Mexico was poor but beautiful as long as it was consistent with itself, just like other great civilizations throughout history. From that angle, the American or European visitor could understand that the “cult of health, wealth, and happiness” was “meager for people,” like the Mexicans, who practiced “the three heroisms that they preach: of emotion, thought, and expression.”31

politically effective, but also very popular among the American public and art community—the book, says Cordero, was so successful that it attracted more American artists to Mexico. See Karen Cordero Reiman, “Constructing a Modem Mexican art, 1910-1940,” in Oles, South o f the Border, 37, 39. 49 This idea o f Mexico as an artistic nation vis-a-vis the United States as a commercial nation corresponded to what Josd Vasconcelos argued in his 1926 lecture at the University o f Chicago (see chap. 1). And it was practically identical to Gruening’s assertion o f Mexico as an “Eastern” nation which raison d'etre was artistic creation. See Gruening, “The Mexican Renaissance,” 533. 50 Brenner’s romantic observation was superficial and inaccurate. She blatantly omitted to mention that since 1924 the mural movement almost became to a halt due to the radicalization o f some painters— e.g., Siqueiros—and specially due to the fact that the government withdrew the sponsorship to most artists, except to Rivera (who happened to be Brenner’s mentor). This situation prevailed during the second half o f the 1920s. See Comments o f Mari Carmen Ramirez, in Esther Acevedo, “Las decoraciones que pasaron a ser revolucionarias,” in Instituto de Investigaciones Estdticas, El nacionalismo y el arte mexicano. (IX Coloquio de Historia del Arte), Estudios de Arte y Est&ica, no. 25 (Mexico City: UN AM, 1986), 216; see also Alicia Azuela, “Arte publico y muralismo mexicano,” in Instituto de Investigaciones Estdticas, Arte, historia e identidad en America: Visiones comparativas. XVII Coloquio Internacional de Historia del Arte, ed. Gustavo Curiel, Renato Gonz&Iez Mello, and Juana Gutierrez Haces, Estudios de Arte y Est&ica, no. 37 (Mexico City: UNAM-IIE, 1994), 3:803-04. With regard to the public programs o f the Mexican goverment in the 1920s, Brenner overlooked that its priority was to reconstruct and modernize the country, paying special attention to the creation o f updated financial and administrative institutions. See Addresses Delivered by Dr. J. M. Puig Casauranc, Secretary o f Public Education o f Mexico; the 23 and 24 o f Mar., 1926, at Columbia University, New York, Pubiicaciones de la SEP, vol. 9, no. 3 (Mexico City: Talleres Gr&ficos de la Naci6n, SEP, 1926); see also Enrique Krauze et al.. La reconstruccion economica, Historia de la Revolucidn Mexicana, 1924-1928, no. 10 (Mexico City: El Colegio de Mexico, 1977); and Lorenzo Meyer, “El primer tramo del camino,” in Historia General de Mexico (Mexico City: El Colegio de Mexico, 1978), 2:1183-1271. 51 Brenner, Idols behind Altars, 314-15. About the idealization o f folk cultures as an alternative to “America’s industrial-capitalist society and its culture o f consumption,” see Jane S. Becker, Selling Tradition: Appalachia and the Construction o f an American Folk, 1930-1940 (Chapel Hill: Univ. o f North Carolina Press, 1998), 3-4.

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

168 The murals, the Open-Air Schools of Painting, and the craft centers had spread this spirit, which was the very essence o f the Mexican Art Renaissance.32 Brenner projected her analysis to the rest of Latin America, thus she recommended that Mexico’s art achievements should be taken as “shields and symbols” by Latin Americans who hoped to re-create a similar miracle in their own countries. Brenner asserted that Mexico’s spirituality was providing Latin America “the greatest protection” against U.S. imperialism. Thus as long as Mexico kept painting and singing, the hope of freedom and a better future could be maintained in the southern continent. In fact, for Brenner, the drama and the conflict between Latin America and Anglo-Saxon America was nothing more than a division between spiritual values and economic realities.53 By the end of the 1920s Brenner and her predecessors had certainly succeeded in articulating and disseminating the Mexican Art Renaissance discourse, and had made clear its social and political implications. However, they were not necessarily involved in implementing specific programs. In fact, two Christian missionaries and journalists of liberal orientation—Samuel Guy Inman and Hubert C. Herring—were responsible for developing pioneer programs o f cultural exchange between Mexico and the United States. Samuel Guy Inman had learned about the importance of cultural understanding during the first decades of the century, when he lived in Mexico. He witnessed the anti-

52 Brenner, Idols behind Altars, 316. 53 Ibid., 328-29. Note that Brenner was pointing to the division between economy and culture, and between North and South America, that in 1926 Josd Vasconcelos, Manuel Gamio, and Moises Sdenz stated in their lectures at the University o f Chicago (see chap. 1).

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

169

Mexico campaign in the 1910s and was one of the first voices who opposed American intervention in Mexico.34 In the 1920s. as professor of International Affairs and spokesman of the Inter-Church Missionary Group (Committee on Cooperation in Latin America), Inman promoted cultural exchange between the United States and Latin America. In fact, many of his lectures and writings would pave the way for “InterAmerican understanding” in the 1930s.35 As early as 1921 in his Problems in PanAmericanism, Inman argued that the distance between the United States and Latin America was caused by prejudice, misunderstanding, and misinformation.36 He was convinced that the United States was poorly regarded in Latin America, and warned that if that situation persisted Latin Americans would eventually abandon the ideal of PanAmericanism and would join Spain and France in Pan-Latinism. As a solution, Inman proposed educational, diplomatic, and economic cooperation as means to conciliate the two Americas.57 In 1925 Inman reported that Latin America was resenting U.S. intervention in the Caribbean and Central America, and he warned that in South America the tendency toward Ibero-Americanism was growing, becoming particularly strong in countries like Mexico, Argentina, and Chile.38 Inman pointed out that in the United States still prevailed

54 See Samuel Guy Inman, Intervention in Mexico (New York: Association Press, 1919). 55 Samuel Guy Inman was instructor o f Inter-American Relations at Columbia University from 1919 to 1934. His course was the first ever on this subject in the United States, and his students were teachers o f history, diplomats, managers o f export departments, and graduate students. During those years Inman also arranged exchanges with Latin American universities. See Kenneth Flint Woods, “Samuel Guy Inman-His Role in the Evolution o f Inter-American Cooperation” (Ph.D. diss., American Univ., 1962), 487. 56 See Samuel Guy Inman, Problems in Pan Americanism (New York: George H. Doran, < 1921 >). 57 Woods, “Samuel Guy Inman,” 143-44.

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

170 the “old idea” of Latin America made up only of Indians and illiterates; hence the commercial opportunities were neglected. The truth was that by 1924 neither Asia nor Oceania were buying as much from the United States as Latin America was. Inman added that Latin America had three times the territory of the United States, and a population of “eighty millions, with a foreign commerce o f five billions.” And if transportation, machinery, and economic efficiency were improved, by 1960 Latin America could have a population of 160 million and a foreign commerce above forty billion.39 Inman contended that differences in psychology and ideals were the main reasons for misunderstandings between the United States and Latin America. In addition, he considered that some historical events had damaged Latin American trust in the United States, for example, the Mexican War, the Spanish War, and the Platt Amendment, as well as recent U.S. interventions in the Caribbean and in Central America. Inman acknowledged that the pacifist ideals the United States displayed by the end of World War I had gained some Latin American sympathy. But since in the early 1920s the United States extended control over Central and South America, the historic mistrust came back. An extra source of Latin American suspicion and resistance were the loans that the United States allocated in the region during the same period.60 Given those antecedents, Inman thought that the United States could only improve relations with Latin America through “a larger emphasis on the spiritual side of Inter58 See Samuel Guy Inman, Ventures in Inter-American Friendship (New York: Missionary Education Movement o f the United States and Canada, 1925), 56. it is worth noting that about the same time J. Fred Rippy would also pay attention to the strengthening o f the Pan-Hispanic movement in Latin America, see J. Fred Rippy, Latin America in World Politics: An Outline Survey (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1928), 200-22. 59 Inman, Ventures in Inter-American Friendship, 68-69. 60 About this financial episode, see J. Fred Rippy, “A Bond-Selling Extravaganza o f the 1920’s,” Journal o f Business o f the University o f Chicago 23, no. 4 (Oct. 1950): 238—47.

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

171

American relations.” On this subject, he recommended that the United States act quickly because Italy, Spain and France were already deploying a similar strategy by sending intellectual, scientific, and university missions to South America. Inman lamented that while U.S. foundations and philanthropists were building great colleges and contributing large sums to cultural and spiritual enterprises in China, India, Japan, the Near East, and even in the most advanced countries of Europe, they were neglecting Latin America.61 Inman reminded everyone that “the North and the South” were physical and moral complements, the one to the other, and it was essential to work on their full integration. In this regard, in 1927 he lectured at Mexico’s National University and started a series of round-table discussions of Mexico-U.S. relations. In the summer of 1928 Inman lectured about “Los problemas de Mexico,” to an audience o f 1,200 people at Columbia University’s Teachers College. In his talk he praised Mexico’s educational and social programs and noted that the United Stated should support them. Furthermore, Inman argued that instead of throwing money in military actions, the Coolidge administration should allocate those resources to the development of schools, libraries, and hospitals in Mexico. Inman also proposed that the capitalists who had amassed fortunes in Mexico should provide funds for those projects. Borrowing the words of other pro-Mexico speakers, Inman said that Mexico deserved that aid for having been an excellent mother for foreign investors and only a negligent step-mother for her nationals.62

61 Inman, Ventures in Inter-American Friendship, 137. 62 Report, Manuel Cruz, vice consul o f Mexico in New York to President Calles’s Private Secretary, 28 July 1928, exp. 104-P-123, Fondo Obregdn-Calles (hereafter cited as FOC), Archivo General de la Nacidn, Mexico City (hereafter cited as AGN).

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

172 Hubert C. Herring’s experience in Mexico was more recent than Inman’s but no less transcendent. Herring was a graduate of Union Theological Seminary and executive secretary of the Social Relations Department of the Congressional Church. In late 1924 he was among the American guests who attended President Calles’s inauguration, and in April 1926 he led his first cultural mission to Mexico.63 The twenty-two-person delegation spent ten days in Mexico City, during which they met with President Calles, cabinet officials, religious leaders, educators, artists, and intellectuals.64 Impressed by Mexico’s art, music, and hospitality, Herring called the United States to leave aside its righteousness and superiority and to learn:

The art of living from these Indians of Mexico... seeking neither financial advantage nor political power, seeking rather to enter into the cultural and spiritual wealth which these sons of the soil have so hardly won.65

At the end of 1926 Herring organized a second mission to study religious, economic, and educational conditions in Mexico. In the heat o f the 1926 anti-Mexico campaign, the group would “try to find out what basis of fact” existed “for the anxiety attributed to State Department officials that ‘Mexican bolshevism is reaching down through Nicaragua and threatens the American defenses of the Panama Canal.’”66 The main purpose was to understand Mexico and to interpret it to the people of the United States, considering that both countries had “much to offer the other through the

63 About Herring’s view on Mexico at that time, see Hubert C. Herring, “Mexico’s Spiritual Rebirth,” Christian Century 43 (22 July 1926): 916-17. 64 See “Will Investigate Mexico; Congregationalist Body Heads a Liberal Inquiry into Conditions,” NYT, 8 Apr. 1926. 65 Herring, “Mexico’s Spiritual Rebirth.” 66 See “Americans to Make a Survey in Mexico,” NYT, 18 Dec. 1926.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

173 interchange of cultures and ideas.” Herring would try to overcome the anti-Mexico distortions by cultivating “a new appreciation of the people of Mexico.” Among the members of this second mission were Herbert Croly, editor of the New Republic, and Paul Hutchinson, editor of the Christian Century. The mission also included lawyers, college professors, representatives of women’s organizations working for international good-will, representatives of Protestant churches, and Jewish rabbis.67 In Mexico City they had a conversation with President Calles, during which he let them know that Mexico and the United States might break off relations. Calles, however, indicated that Mexico did not want to have further problems and had decided to send the land and oil disputes to be solved at The Hague Court.68 Herring’s pro-Mexico missions began having positive effects on the public opinion of both countries; thus, in July 1928 he organized a third one. This time it consisted of eighty-two participants who during three weeks talked about Mexico’s agrarian, labor, and church problems. A few months later Herring’s efforts crystallized in the creation of the Committee on Cultural Relations with Latin America, the objectives of which were to spread accurate information about Latin America, to foster appreciation o f Latin American cultures, and to bring representative American citizens in contact with Latin American life. Among the founding members of the New York-based Committee were Herring himself, Frank Tannenbaum, Hebert Croly, and John Dewey. The

67 Other participants were: Benjamin Stolberg, writer and publicist; William E. Walling, writer, Dan Brummitt, editor o f the Northwestern Christian Advocate; Isaac Landman, editor of American Hebrew; Benson Y. Landis, editor o f Rural America. See “Americans Arrive to Study Mexicans,” NYT., 30 Dec. 1926. 68 See “Interview with President Plutarco Elias Calles at His Office in the National Palace, on the Morning o f January 8, 1927, Roberto Haberman, Interpreter,” Hubert C. Herring, ed.. Proceedings o f The Seminar on Relations with Mexico; Mexico City, January I—10, 1927 (Boston: Committee on Relations with Mexico, 1927), 41.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n e r. F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

174 committee would assume responsibility over the Mexican missions that evolved into annual summer seminars. In this new phase Herring was particularly interested in attracting American opinion leaders in order to disseminate pro-Mexico ideas throughout the United States. In 1929 the seminar gathered ninety people who listened to talks by Mexican and American intellectuals, and were taken to visit Teotihuacan, Cuernavaca, and Puebla; and in 1930 the seminar had grown to include 189 participants.69 Thus, by the end of the 1920s the mission of the intellectual and active crusaders of Mexican art and culture was succeeding, and when their ideas and programs converged with the goodwill policy of Ambassador Dwight W. Morrow, they would had a definitive impact on the New York foundations, institutions, and patrons who endorsed the Mexican art exhibitions of 1928-1930. During the 1920s U.S. foundations had been conducting their own studies about the social and educational effects of art in American contemporary life.70 After World War I the foundations had observed certain dislocations in the fabric of American society, and among other solutions, researchers and advisors proposed the dissemination of art

69 The Mexican Seminars would be held until 1941. See Delpar, The Enormous Vogue, 73-74. among other publications associated with the Seminar, see Hubert C. Herring and Katharine Terrill, eds.. The Genius o f Mexico: Lectures Delivered before the Fifth Seminar in Mexico, 1930 (New York: Committee on Cultural Relations with Latin America, 1931); and Hubert C. Herring and Herbert Weinstock, eds., Renascent Mexico (New York: Covici, Friede Publishers: Committee on Cultural Relations with Latin America, 1935). 70 About the U.S. foundations’ philosophies, social motivations, and programs, see Frederick Keppel, The Foundation: Its Place in American Life (New York: Macmillan, 1930); Raymond B. Fosdick, A Philosophy fo r a Foundation: On the Fiftieth Anniversary o fth e Rockefeller Foundation, 1913-/963 (New York: Rockefeller Foundation, 1963); Waldemar A. Nielsen, The Big Foundations, A Twentieth Century Fund Study (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1972), 3-77; idem. The Golden Donors: A New Anatomy o f the Great Foundations (New York: E. P. Dutton, Truman Talley Books, 1985), 3—22; Merle Curti, American Philanthropy Abroad: A History (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers Univ. Press, 1963). About the general development o f the foundations, see Barry D. Karl and Stanley N. Katz, “Foundations and Ruling Class Elites,” Daedalus 116, no. I: Philanthropy, Patronage, Politics (winter 1987): 1-40; and Warren Weaver, ed., U.S. Philanthropic Foundations: Their History, Structure, Management, and Record (New York: Harper & Row, 1967).

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

175

education and appreciation at schools and museums.71 The enjoyment of art, beauty and emotion would bring together people from different venues: It would reintegrate the community at large. This belief in the social and humanistic value of art was reflected in the expansion and proliferation of art museums and galleries during the 1920s. In New York, the Metropolitan Museum of Art expanded its collections and pavilions, the Brooklyn Museum defined itself as an art museum, and new exhibition spaces were opened, like the Art Center and the Grand Central Palace, and even foreign institutions, like the French Institute, opened art galleries. Moreover, at the end of the decade two new art museums were established, the Museum of Modem Art and the Whitney Museum of American Art.72 At the same time it was manifest that just as art could bring people together, it could also bring nations together. In the aftermath of World War I art would be seen as an appropriate vehicle for the creation of an international community above political and economic differences. Thus, the experiences that the foundations had accumulated in other fields were put in the service of artistic and cultural exchanges.73 In the 1910s the

71 See Frederick Keppel and R. L. Duffiis, The Arts in American Life (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1933), 152-63. 72 See Howard Hibbard, The Metropolitan Museum o f Art, New York (London: Faber & Faber, 1980); Calvin Tomkins, Merchants and Masterpieces: The Story o f the Metropolitan Museum ofA rt (New York: Henry Holt, 1989); A. Conger Goodyear, The Museum o f Modern Art: The First Ten Years (New York. 1943); Russell Lynes, Good Old Modem: An Intimate Portrait o f the Museum o f Modern Art (New York: Atheneum, 1973); Sybil Gordon Kantor, Alfred H. Barr, Jr., and the Intellectual Origins o f the Museum o f Modern Art (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2002); “Modernism versus New York Modem: MoMA and the Whitney,” in William B. Scott and Peter M. Rutkoff, New York Modern: The Arts and the City (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1999), 163-93; and Avis Berman, Rebels on Eight Street: Juliana Force and the Whitney Museum o f American Art (New York: Atheneum, 1990). For contemporary notes, see, for example, “French Museum Is to Have Home Here,” American Art News 20, no. 22 (11 Mar. 1922), 4. 73 See Ellen Condliffe Lagemann, The Politics o f Knowledge: The Carnegie Corporation, Philanthropy, and Public Policy (Chicago: Univ. o f Chicago Press, 1992), 95-122; Robert Amove, ed.. Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism (Boston: G. K. Hall, 1980); Edward H. Berman, The Influence o f

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

176 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace had worked on inter-American intellectual understanding through its Division of Intercourse and Education. During World War I it arranged the first exchange o f professors between the United States and Latin America, and in the 1920s it extended the exchanges to include scientists, scholars, and distinguished citizens.74 Similarly, after the war the Rockefeller Foundation became interested in interpreting contemporary culture among nations.75 Based on these beliefs, in the late 1920s both the Carnegie Corporation o f New York and the Rockefeller Foundation would endorse the dissemination of Mexican art in New York. It was in 1927 when the General Education Board of the Rockefeller Foundation sponsored the first-ever comprehensive show of Mexican art in New York.76 The exhibition was arranged by and presented at the Art Center in early 1928 and circulated across the United States and overseas in the following five years. The Art Center, Inc., was a group of art galleries located at East Fifty-sixth Street—between Park and Madison Avenues—close to the uptown art district. It was founded in 1920 by Helen Sargent Hitchcock and a group of art patrons, who allocated up to $250,000 to start the operations. The Art Center opened to the public on 31 October 1921, and its original

the Carnegie, Ford, and Rockefeller Foundations on American Foreign Policy’: The Ideology o f Philanthropy (Albany: State Univ. o f New York Press, 1983). 4 Woods, “Samuel Guy Inman,” 121. About the origins o f the Carnegie Corporation, see Lagemann, The Politics o f Knowledge, 3-28. 75 Bear in mind that the Rockefeller Foundation had been established in 1913. and it was originally concentrated on medicine, public health, agriculture, and education. See Raymond B. Fosdick, The Story o f the Rockefeller Foundation (New York: Harper, 1952); Rockefeller Foundation, Annual Report, 1951 (New York: Rockefeller Foundation, 1952), 79; and Robert Shaplen, Toward the Well-Being o f Mankind: Fifty Years o f the Rockefeller Foundation (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1964). 76 For an overview of the General Education Board, see Raymond B. Fosdick, Adventure in Giving: The Story o f the General Education Board, A Foundation Established by John D. Rockefeller, Based on an Unfinished Manuscript Prepared by the Late Henry F. Pringle and Katharine Douglas Pringle (New York: Harper & Row, 1962).

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

177

purpose was to organize “cooperative art exhibitions.”77 During the 1920s its program 78

focused on displaying exhibitions of American and foreign arts and crafts. Thus, it was not surprising that the Center became interested in presenting a Mexican show of that kind. In the fall o f 1927 Aion Bement—director of the Art Center—explained to Charles E. Richards, director of the Division of Industrial Arts of the General Education Board, that the Center was interested in a Mexican exhibition o f arts and crafts because they believed that “cultural relations” were the “basis of true understanding between nations.” Bement added that the “political and economic conditions in Mexico, together with the unusually interesting art expression which its natives have now attained,” made a great opportunity to hold a Mexican show in New York.79 The idea had been presented to the Calles administration which, in the context of the pro-Mexico campaign, had immediately offered to finance the whole event. But the Art Center only accepted Mexico’s official support for the fine arts section; the Center would be definitely in charge of the crafts section. The reason for this decision was— Bement said—that the * Center wanted Mexican craftsmen to see the show as an American goodwill gesture. SO

Bement noted that to promote their interests, American patrons and institutions should develop direct and personal contacts with the craftsmen. Therefore, for the exhibition at 77 See “East Side Home for Art Centre.” NYT, 29 Dec. 1920; and “The Art Centre,” NYT, 31 Oct. 1921. 78 In the 1920s, it was not rare that exhibitions o f modem art included craft objects. See Janet Kardon, ed., Craft in the Machine Age, 1920-1945, The History o f Twentieth-Century American Craft, no. 3 (New York: Harry N. Abrams; American Craft Museum, 1995), 27. 79 Aion Bement to Charles E. Richards, 21 Sept. 1927, folder 724, box 321, General Education Board Archives (hereafter cited as GEB Archives)/Rockefeller Archive Center, Sleepy Hollow, New York (hereafter cited as RAC). 80 See “Mexico to Send Art Here,” NYT, 16 Dec. 1927.

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

178 the Art Center he recommended that the crafts to be displayed were purchased in Mexico and sold in New York during the event.81 In order to obtain funds for the project, Bement submitted an application, in name of the Art Center, to the Rockefeller Foundation’s General Education Board (GEB).82 In his request Bement noted that while the Revolution of 1910 had liberated Mexican fine arts from constraining forces, it had done exactly the opposite for the traditional crafts. Bement believed that the revolutionary war had ruined the crafts market, which in the 1920s was in danger of being permanently lost. Bement explained to the GEB that the Art Center was concerned about such an outcome because the Mexican crafts were:

The artistic heritage of the Western Continent and therefore a natural, as well as a vigorous source, from which we as Americans may draw inspiration for our [own] native creative design.83

Beyond these aesthetic and cultural values, Bement also considered that a Mexican exhibition in New York was an excellent way to shift American public opinion in favor of Mexico. As he said to one of the directors at the GEB. it was “desirable to bring to the attention of the American public opinion...the existence of a culturally influential Mexico.” In that regard, he proposed that the publicity and the press of the event be conducted by Conde Nast Publications, which would prepare the audience for the exhibition scheduled to open in early 1928. Bement hoped that the show would be

81 Aion Bement to Charles E. Richards, 21 Sept. 1927, folder 724, box 321, GEB Archives/RAC. 82 Since its foundation the GEB had focused in working for the “rural folk.” The GEB’s goal was to “teach them to do in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers” were doing “in an imperfect way, in the homes, in the shop and on the farm.” See Frederick T. Gates, Occasional Paper no. I (General Education Board, 1904), quoted in Emanuel M. Josephson, Rockefeller, "Internationalist, " the Man who Misrules the World (New York: Chedney Press, 1952), 73. 83 Bement to Richards, 21 Sept. 1927, folder 724, box 321, GEB Archives/RAC.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

179 just “the beginning of a more friendly and intimate interest between the people of Mexico and the United States.”84 Only a few weeks after the Art Center’s application had been submitted, the GEB approved the appropriation of $5,000 for the acquisition of a collection of Mexican crafts, which would constitute the core of the exhibition. The GEB’s only condition was that once the exhibition at the Art Center was closed, the collection be circulated among other “prominent art museums” of the United States.85 Accordingly, the Art Center began to organize the exhibition under the direction of Frances Flynn Paine, who was an associate director of the center. In December 1927 Paine traveled to Mexico City, where she requested Ambassador Morrow’s moral support for the exhibition. 87 In response, Morrow *

introduced Paine to Minister of Public Education Puig Casauranc, who had been a proMexico lecturer in the United States during the mid-1920s (see chap. 1). In his letter of recommendation, Morrow emphasized that the Art Center exhibition was “underwritten by the General Education Board” of the Rockefeller Foundation. Ambassador Morrow also told Minister Puig Casauranc that the aim of the show was to create “a better

84 Bement to Richards, 21 Sept. 1927, folder 724. box 321, GEB Archives/RAC. 85 W. W. Brierly to Aion Bement, 20 Oct. 1927, folder 724, box 321, GEB Archives/RAC. 86 Aion Bement to W. W. Brierly, 21 Nov. 1927, folder 724, box 321, GEB Archives/RAC. Frances Flynn Paine was bom in Laredo, Texas, but spent her childhood in Mexico, where she learned Spanish. Her father was an American engineer who worked in Mexico for a long time and, at some point, acted as U.S. consul. See Delpar, The Enormous Vogue, 84; see also Bernice Kert, Abby Aldrich Rockefeller: The Woman in the Family (New York; Random House, 1993), 346. 87 Aion Bement to Ambassador Morrow, 12 Dec. 1927, folder 5, box 4, series 10, Dwight W. Morrow Papers, Archives and Special Collections, Amherst College Library, Amherst, Massachusetts (hereafter cited as DWM Papers/ACL). Bement’s letter to Ambassador Morrow indicated that the aim o f the show was to create “a better feeling between the natives o f Mexico and the purchasing public o f the United States.”

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

180 go

understanding in the United States of the work being done in Mexico.” As expected, Puig Casauranc celebrated the project, offered the Ministry’s thorough cooperation, and •

•

►

referred Paine to Under-Secretary Moises Saenz to discuss the subject in detail. The following weeks Paine concentrated in selecting and gathering the artworks and crafts to be presented at the Art Center.90 During that time Paine met Elizabeth C. Morrow, the wife of the ambassador, to talk about the exhibition.91 Apparently Mrs. Morrow was not very convinced about Paine’s abilities to conduct the exhibition; however, given the diplomatic aim of the project, she confirmed to Helen Sargent Hitchcock—president of the Art Center—that she and the ambassador would provide all help necessary.92 As planned, the exhibition of “Mexican Art” was displayed at the Art Center during the first quarter of 1928.93 The fine arts section was presented from 18 January to 15 February 1928, and it consisted of a collection of modem— i.e., post-revolutionary— art.94 Among the seventeen artists whose work was included were Roberto Montenegro,

88 Ambassador Morrow to Minister Puig Casauranc, 19 Dec. 1927, folder 5, box 4, series 10, DWM Papers/ACL. Meanwhile, the U.S. press underlined that the Art Center had launched this initiative “believing that cultural and commercial relations among nations form the soundest basis for enduring friendships.” See “A Hand to Mexico,” NYT, 25 Dec. 1927. 89 Minister Puig Casauranc to Ambassador Morrow, 21 Dec. 1927, folder 5, box 4, series 10, DWM Papers/ACL. 90 A newspaper article noted that to collect the pieces for the crafts section, Paine had to travel “about isolated parts o f Mexico with an aged Mexican woman and three children.” See “Rockefeller Gift Aids Mexican Art,” NYT, 17 June 1928. 91 As we saw in chap. 1, Elizabeth C. Morrow was directly involved in the art diplomacy endorse by Ambassador Morrow. 92 Elizabeth C. Morrow to Helen Sargent Hitchcock (Mrs. Ripley Hitchcock), 7 Jan. 1928, folder “Morrow, Elizabeth C. (Mrs. Dwight), 1928,” box 4, , Ripley Hitchcock Collection, Rare Book & Manuscript Library o f Columbia University, New York, New York. 93 Note that there was no specific name assigned to the show, see the cover o f the catalogue (fig 3.4).

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

181

Diego Rivera, David Alfaro Siqueiros, Maximo Pacheco, Jose Clemente Orozco, Manuel Rodriguez Lozano, Jean Chariot, Miguel Covarrubias, Rufino Tamayo, Julio Castellanos, Fermin Revueltas, Antonio Ruiz, and Luis Hidalgo (fig. 3.4).95 Meanwhile, the crafts section remained opened until mid-March and it was considered “the most extensive collection of native Mexican pottery, glassware and textiles” ever seen in the United States.96 In New York—as Orozco aptly observed—the show did not impress the art critics; nonetheless, it had a positive effect on the promotion of the Mexican Art Renaissance, particularly in the area of applied arts.97 After the closing at the Art Center, the American Federation of Arts circulated the applied arts section through a dozen of museums and galleries across the United States.98 The itinerary was so successful that it extended for about five years, including special presentations in Canada, Denmark, and Sweden.99 In 1933—at the end of the tour—Aion Bement reported to the GEB that the exhibition turned out very well because it had finally “changed the attitude of the American public toward the art of Mexico.” 100

94 Jose Juan Tablada scored that this exhibition was the first time in Mexico’s history that the government and the artists worked in an harmonious way. On the other hand, he noted that it was a great opportunity to demonstrate Mexico’s spiritual values and to promote broader interests, hence every Mexican had to render its support to the event. See Tablada, '‘Mexico se revela,” El Universal (Mexico City), 1 Jan. 1928; rpt. in idem. La Babilonia de Hierro. 95 See “A Hand to Mexico,” NYT, 25 Dec. 1927; see also “Mexican Art Shown Here,” NYT, 19 Jan. 1928; and Anita Brenner, “The Mexican Primitives,” Nation, 1 Feb. 1928. 96 See “Rockefeller Gift Aids Mexican Art.” NYT, 17 June 1928. 97 Jose Clemente Orozco to Mrs. A. Chariot Goupil, New York City. 22 Feb. 1928; idem to Jean Chariot, New York City, 23 Feb. 1928, in Jose Clemente Orozco, The Artist in New York: Letters to Jean Chariot and Unpublished Writings, 1925-1929, trans. Ruth L. C. Simms, The Texas Pan American Series (Austin: Univ. o f Texas Press, 1974), 33-41. Among the favorable reviews o f the show, see Brenner, “The Mexican Primitives.” 98 Aion Bement to Charles E. Richards, 27 Dec. 1927, folder 724, box 321, GEB Archives/ RAC. 99 Aion Bement to Ernest A. Buttrick, 10 Dec. 1930, folder 724, box 321, GEB Archives/RAC.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

182

As early as 1928, Frances Flynn Paine delivered a similar report to the GEB. Paine informed the board that the Mexican applied arts section of the exhibition had proved its appeal among the American audience.101 In her opinion, American people were already eager to purchase Mexican crafts, and by doing so they would help Mexican craftsmen overcome poverty and become economically independent.102 To ensure that outcome Paine recommended the creation of a craft guild in Mexico, which, formed on a cooperative basis, would reestablish their pride in craftsmanship.103 She also advised that an expert on ceramics be sent to make Mexican pottery materials more durable. And she noted that there were American companies interested in selling the Mexican goods and designs across the United States.104 From an educational point of view, Paine remarked that after the show was successfully presented at the Art Center, several museums were requesting the exhibition and magazines were asking for information about Mexican arts and crafts. 100 Aion Bement to W. W. Brierley, 4 Apr. 1933, folder 724. box 321, GEB Archives/RAC. 101 William Spratling was also among those who believed that Mexican crafts could be very attractive for the U.S. public. In his opinion, if they were displayed in a “Fifth Avenue window," they would cause a “sensation." But unfortunately, the Mexican craftsmen ignored that that “Fifth Avenue Art" existed, thus they kept selling their pieces at 8 cents in their local markets. William Spratling, Little Mexico (New York: Jonathan Cape & Harrison Smith, 1932), 37. More about the American attraction to Mexican crafts, in Oles, South o f the Border, 117-19. 102 Paine to Charles E. Richards, 19 May 1928, folder 97, box 7, series I, Abby Aldrich Rockefeller Papers (hereafter cited as AAR Papers)/Rockefeller Family Archives (hereafter cited as RFA)/RAC. 103 Paine's proposals were attuned to similar projects that Mexican intellectuals and promoters presented to the Mexican government during the second half o f the 1920s. See Rick Anthony Lopez, "Lo mas mexicano de Mexico: Popular Arts, Indians, and Urban Intellectuals in the Ethnicization o f Postrevolutionary National Culture, 1920-1972” (Ph.D. diss., Yale Univ., 2001), chaps. 5 and 6 . 104 Paine to Charles E. Richards, 19 May 1928, folder 97, box 7, series I, AAR Papers/RFA/RAC. It is important to note that Paine favored the modernization in the designs and production o f the crafts, something opposite to the majority o f artists, collectors, and dealers who disapproved the Americanization of Mexican costumes, and were for the preservation o f traditions. About this discussion in the 1920s, see Oles, South o f the Border, 121-23. About the developing interest o f American companies and collectors in purchasing Mexican crafts, see Lopez’s ''Lo mas mexicano de Mexico,” chap. 6.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

183

On the diplomatic side, Paine pointed out that the Mexican Indians, as well as the Catholic Church and the “aristocracy,” had improved their opinion of the United States.105 Hence Paine envisioned that this kind of art exchanges would offer great possibilities to lessen “the feeling o f antipathy Mexicans feel for us.” Moreover, this art strategy could be extended to the rest of Latin America where “antagonism” against the United States had “increased alarmingly in the past few years.” In this regard, Ambassador Morrow had confided to Paine that the art strategy was “a practical and important step in the right direction,” and for that reason he asked Paine to keep him posted about the results of the exhibition. Another major patron who also paid close attention to the show, was Robert W. de Forest106—who besides being president of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, was president of the American Federation of Arts—and an old friend of Morrow.107 According to Paine, de Forest visited the show of “Mexican Art” at least four times and purchased a number of pieces.108 Clearly, the exhibition was also beneficial for Frances Flynn Paine’s own career and personal businesses. As a result o f her approach to Ambassador Morrow, and her

105 Paine to Charles E. Richards. 19 May 1928, folder 97, box 7, series I, AAR Papers/ RFA/RAC. Bement had also considered the exhibition a great achievement because it had strengthened "the growing feeling o f good will” between Mexico and the United States. Aion Bement to Arthur G. Askey, 25 Oct. 1928, folder 724, box 321, GEB Archives/RAC. 106 Robert W. de Forest was a corporate lawyer and philanthropist who in 1917 was elected president o f the Metropolitan Museum o f A rt. He had been elected to the Board o f the Museum in 1898, at the time when he had also begun his philanthropic and educational work. That year he was the main founder o f Columbia University’s School o f Social Work. In 1870 he married Emily Johnston, daughter of John Taylor Johnston, a railroad magnate, who was also the first president o f the Metropolitan Museum. Throughout the years, and at different positions within the Board, de Forest always showed a marked interest in making the Metropolitan Museum an educational institution open to all kind of public, as opposed to other trustees and directors who conceived the museum as a space consecrated to connoisseurs and collectors. See Tomkins, Merchants a n d Masterpieces, 186-88. 107 About de Forest’s and Morrow’s early friendship and association, see Harold Nicolson, Dwight Morrow (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1935), 56-58, 77. 108 Paine to Charles E. Richards, 19 May 1928, folder 97, box 7, series I, AAR Papers/ RF A/RAC.

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

184 contact with Mexican officials, by 1929 Paine was serving the Mexican government as a sort of public relations agent in New York.109 Meanwhile, with respect to her personal businesses, in the second half of 1928 Paine purchased pieces o f Mexican pottery from the exhibition at a reduced price. She explained to Bement that she wanted to keep them as samples for the Paine Mexican Arts Corporation, a company of her own dedicated to the importation and sale of Mexican crafts in the United States.110 As a matter of fact, more than fostering art appreciation, Paine was trying to sell these crafts to American middle-class consumers: such a strategy was inserted in the boom of the crafts market that took place in the 1910s and 1920s.111 In sympathy with Paine’s aims, John D. Rockefeller Jr. made a personal loan of $15,000, to be paid over a period of three years, to the Paine Mexican Arts Corporation. Rockefeller’s intention was to contribute to the endeavor of developing the native crafts of Mexico and to continue their promotion in the United States.112 The interest of the

109 In the summer o f 1929. for example, the Mexican consul in New York asked Paine’s help to carry out a request made by Interim President Portes Gil. Portes Gil wanted that his wedding gift to Charles Lindbergh and Anne Morrow—daughter of the ambassador—be displayed in a New York store window before sending it to the newlyweds. Lindbergh and Anne Morrow had married on 27 May 1929. and a present from the Mexican president was supposed to have special meaning because Lindbergh and Morrow had met in Mexico City in late 1927, and fell in love also in Mexico in 1928. Paine to Ambassador Morrow. 18 Aug. , folder 113, box 37, series 1, DWM Papers/ACL. 110 Aion Bement to Charles E. Richards, 20 Sept. 1928, folder 724, box 321, GEB Archives/RAC. The Paine Mexican Arts Corporation was located at 74 Trinity Place, New York City. See Paine to Chavez, New York, 29 Jan. 1929, exp. 82, caja 9, vol. Ill, sec. correspondencia personal, Fondo Carlos Chavez (hereafter cited as FCCH), AGN. 111 About the discovery and marketing o f the crafts in the United States, see Harvey Green, "Culture and Crisis: Americans and the Craft Revival,” in Revivals! Diverse Traditions, 1920-1945, ed. Janet Kardon, The History o f Twentieth-Century American Craft, no. 2 (New York: Harry N. Abrams; American Craft Museum, 1994). 112 Aion Bement to Arthur G. Askey, 25 Oct. 1928, folder 724, box 321, GEB Archives/RAC; see also "Rockefeller Gift Aids Mexican Art,” NYT, 17 June 1928. John Davison Rockefeller Jr. was the first son o f John D. Rockefeller Jr. Sr., founder o f the Standard Oil Co. He was bom in Cleveland in 1874, and graduated from Brown University in 1897. That same year he joined the staff o f the Standard Oil Co. See

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

185

Rockefellers in Mexican art and culture was not new, in fact it went back to the early 1900s. In 1903 John D. Rockefeller Jr. and his wife, Abby Aldrich, became acquainted with Mexican crafts during a trip across Mexico.113 As a wide-reaching collector, Abby Aldrich Rockefeller integrated Mexican crafts into her art collections, but they did not occupy a significant place within them until the 1920s.114 Regarding Mexican modem art, she began collecting it by the late 1920s and throughout the 1930s, having a predilection for graphic works. Conversely, John D. Rockefeller Jr.'s interest in promoting Mexican art was not as a collector but as a philanthropist who, in the 1920s and 1930s, was deeply interested in reviving and restoring cultural traditions and historical places throughout the world. In that spirit, after World War I he helped with the reconstruction of Versailles, endorsed archeological excavations in the Near East, and was the creator of colonial Williamsburg in Virginia. During the 1930s, he also sponsored the foundation of The Cloisters in New York, as a medieval branch of the Metropolitan Museum.115 The Rockefellers’ dual and complementary interest in collecting and promoting cultural projects would be inherited by their son, Nelson A. Rockefeller who, in the 1930s and 1940s, became a major patron of Mexican modem and popular art.116

Josephson, Rockefeller, "Internationalist, ” 32; see also Raymond B. Fosdick, John D. Rockefeller, Jr.: A Portrait (New York: Harper & Bros., 1956). 11J About this travel, see Kert, Abby Aldrich Rockefeller: The Woman in the Family, 105-06. 114 Abby Green Aldrich was daughter of the late Senator Nelson W. Aldrich of Rhode Island, who was Republican leader o f the Senate at the turn o f the century. She was bom in 1874, was privately educated, and married John D. Rockefeller Jr. in 1901. Since her youth she was involved in different philanthropic programs, many o f them related to development o f young women, and improvement of workers’ living conditions. Later on she was an active participant in the Rockefeller Foundation, the Rockefeller Institute, and the restoration of Colonial Williamsburg. See Mary Ellen Chase, Abby Aldrich Rockefeller (New York: Macmillan, 1950); see also Kert, Abby Aldrich Rockefeller: The Woman in the Family. 113 See Tomkins, Merchants and Masterpieces.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er r ep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

186 In reciprocity to the Rockefellers’ early endorsement to her project, Frances Flynn Paine became an adviser on Mexican arts and crafts for the family. Between 1928 and 1933. she counseled them from the organization of art associations and exhibitions to the acquisition of Mexican objects for their private collections (see chap. 4). In 1929, for instance, Paine imported Talavera pottery for Abby Aldrich Rockefeller's pool and playhouse. Pedro Padiema—chief of the pottery workshop—showed his gratitude for the purchase by sending two plates with the bust portrait of John D. Rockefeller Sr.117 As a reply to such a kind and spontaneous gesture, Abby Aldrich asked her father-in-law “to send a word of appreciation” to the “Mexican Indian.” 118 She informed Rockefeller Sr. that Padiema had dared to picture him because—as Paine had told her—the only two American names well known among Mexicans were Rockefeller and Morrow.119 Abby Aldrich believed that because the Rockefeller Foundation had been doing wonderful work in Mexico, the people had developed a genuine affection for Rockefeller Sr., in spite of a Communist group that had been trying to discredit the family. Abby Aldrich celebrated that the foundation was promoting a “better understanding between the United States and Mexico by encouraging the import of Mexican handicraft,” which tended to be “much more beautiful than [what] the American Indians have ever been able to do.”120

116 See chaps. 4 and 6. See also Marion Oettinger, Folk Treasures o f Mexico: The Nelson A. Rockefeller Collection (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1990). 117 Paine to Abby Aldrich Rockefeller (hereafter cited as AAR), 16 May 1929, folder 97. box 7, series I, AAR Papers/RFA/RAC. 118 AAR to John D. Rockefeller, Sr., 24 May 1929, folder 97, box 7, series I, AAR Papers/RFA/RAC. 119 Mexican public opinion was indeed familiar with the Rockefeller name and its implications, but it did not distinguish among the members o f the family. Interestingly, when the Mexican press reported about “ Rockefeller” activities it constantly mixed up John D. Rockefeller Sr., John D. Rockefeller Jr., and even Nelson A. Rockefeller.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

187

Considering Abby Aldrich’s arguments, Rockefeller Sr. agreed to write a thankyou card to Padiema, which Paine asked Elizabeth C. Morrow to deliver. Moreover. Paine advised Abby Aldrich to publicize in Mexico this “human and kindly” encounter of two peoples from different countries and cultures. She proposed to write a little story, to reproduce the note from Rockefeller Sr., and to take some photographs of the pottery for the press.121 In this, as in other cases in the late 1920s and early 1930s, the pro-Mexico campaign in the United States adopted a pro-American side in Mexico. After the arrival of Ambassador Morrow in Mexico, the Mexican government had also left behind the anti-American discourse and was spreading more positive feelings about the United States. Since the improvement of relations between Mexico and the United States was a priority, Dwight W. Morrow had already considered cultural exchanges and art projects as diplomatic strategies since 1927. In October of that year, days before Morrow's arrival in Mexico. Robert W. de Forest recounted to Morrow that in the 1900s in a visit to Mexico, he conceived the idea of having a gallery of the Metropolitan Museum devoted to the permanent exhibition of Mexican arts and crafts.122 De Forest and his wife—Emily Johnston de Forest—began that effort by purchasing a collection of Mexican majolica, which was given to the museum, was placed in a gallery, and was catalogued. " T o

120 AAR to John D. Rockefeller, Sr., 24 May 1929, folder 97, box 7, series I, AAR Papers/RF A/RAC. 121 Paine to AAR, 28 June 1929, folder 97, box 7. series I, AAR Papers/RF A/RAC. 122 De Forest to Morrow, 18 Oct. 1927, folder 167, box 1, series X, DWM Papers/ACL. The de Forests had made their first trip to Mexico in 1903; note that this letter was written just a few days before Dwight W, Morrow arrived in Mexico (23 Oct. 1927).

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

188

continue the project, de Forest asked Zelia Nuttall—the renowned archaeologist living in Mexico—to assemble a comprehensive collection of Mexican art.124 Nuttall did so, but when relations between Mexico and the United States became tense, de Forest decided to keep the collection in Mexico. In short, the creation of a Mexican gallery at the Metropolitan Museum had to be indefinitely postponed, and by the 1920s, the only Mexican art on display at the Metropolitan was the collection of majolica. Nonetheless, as de Forest confided to Morrow, he still dreamed of giving his broader Mexican collection to the museum and opening a permanent Mexican gallery.125 It is worth noting that since the early 1920s. de Forest had been working on the idea of using art diplomacy to improve relations between the United States and Latin America. At the 13th Annual Convention of the American Federation of Arts (Corcoran Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.. 16-20 May 1922), de Forest and some high officials of the government organized a discussion on “Art as a Factor in a Permanent Peace.” a topic directly related to the notion of cultural diplomacy. In effect, the American Federation was among the first institutions to discuss such a strategy. Furthermore, on 18 May during a special session at the Pan American Union building, the following topics were discussed: “Pan American Art.” “The Art of the Earliest Americans,” and “What American Art Owes to Spanish Tradition.”126

123 See The Emily Johnston de Forest Collection o f Mexican Majolica, exh. cat. (New York: Metropolitan Museum o f Art. , 1918); see also Catalogue o f Mexican Majolica Belonging to Mrs. Robert W. de Forest, exh. cat. (New York: Hispanic Society o f America. 1911). 124 About Zelia Nuttall’s professional background and the work she was conducting in Mexico, see chap. I n. 255. 125 Robert W. de Forest to Ambassador Morrow. 2 Dec. 1927, folder 167, box 1, series 10, DWM Papers/ACL. 126 See “Will Consider Art in National Aspect,” American Art News 20, no. 26 (8 Apr. 1922): 6.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

189 It is safe to say that inspired by both de Forest’s personal experiences and by the diplomatic success of the show at the Art Center, Ambassador Morrow began developing I^7 his own idea of presenting a great Mexican art exhibition in New York. ~ By the fall of 1929, Morrow had matured the concept: The exhibition should be presented at the Metropolitan Museum and other selected museums across the United States. Thus he traveled to New York to submit the idea to de Forest, and both of them decided to look for the financial support of the Carnegie Corporation of New York (CCNY). Morrow and de Forest went to talk with Frederick Keppel, president of the CCNY. who approved the project, and offered funding to circulate the show for one year.128 Keppel—as Morrow and de Forest—was a believer in artistic and educational programs.129 At his request, in 1923-1924 the CCNY produced the first report ever on the place of arts in American life, and it was decided to include art among the major interests of the corporation. As a result, between 1923 and 1933 the CCNY would increase more than ever the number of its grants in the arts.130 In the late 1920s. Keppel expanded the interests of the CCNY in art by including the study of art diplomacy; more specifically, he requested research about cultural relations between the United States and Asia. Keppel

127 According to Rene d ’Hamoncourt, from Morrow’s point o f view such an exhibition would be an excellent tool “to change or influence somewhat the image of Mexico that was held by the majority o f the people” in the United States. See transcript o f interview: “Reminiscences o f Rene d ’Hamoncourt” (Conducted by Isabel Grossner in New York City, 1968) Carnegie Corporation Project. Oral History Research Office, Butler Library, Columbia University, New York, New York (hereafter cited as CCP, OHRO/CU), 1-2.

128 Ibid., 2. 129 Keppel’s father— Frederick Keppel— was the owner of a prestigious art gallery in New York, and Frederick himself was dean o f Columbia College (1910-1917). In 1922 he was appointed president of the CCNY and remained in that post until 1941. 130 The first advisory group in the arts included, among others, Paul Sachs, Royal Cortissoz, and Homer Saint-Gaudens.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er r ep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

190

had come to believe that when nations desiring to understand each other were “hampered by political boundaries’’ and language differences, they should remember that the one field where they could always meet was art, which “knows neither frontiers nor irregular verbs.”131 Furthermore, Keppel asserted that: The greater the barriers created by distance, by contrast in institutional and social life, and by language, the more important is a common basis for the appreciation of beauty as men have tried to express it in all lands and from the earliest days.132

Given those antecedents, Keppel became very interested in Morrow's initiative, and asked Homer Saint-Gaudens, who was the director o f the Department of Fine Arts of the Carnegie Institute of Pittsburgh, to work on the project and make a proposal for the exhibition.133 In November 1929 Saint-Gaudens went to Mexico, where he traveled for a month seeing the arts and crafts in their original context, and looking for the right person to arrange the exhibition.134 Rene d'Hamoncourt—who was Morrow's advisor on Mexican crafts (see chap. 1)—was responsible for taking Saint-Gaudens on that trip to remote

131 See Frederick P. Keppel, foreword to Benjamin March, China and Japan in Our Museums (New York: American Council Institute o f Pacific Relations, 1929), vii. More about the notion o f art as an international language in Forbes Watson, “The Universal Diplomat,” Parnassus 5, no. 1 (Jan. 1933). 132 Keppel, foreword to China and Japan in Our Museums, vii. ,j3 Homer Saint-Gaudens was the son o f sculptor Augustus Saint-Gaudens, and on his mother side he was related to painter Winslow Homer. He graduated from Harvard in 1903, married a miniaturist painter, and published art criticism in different magazines— among them International Studio. In the 1910s he produced plays in New York, and by 1922 he was appointed director o f the fine arts department o f the Carnegie Institute. See “Saint-Gaudens is Carnegie Art Head,” American Art News 20, no. 38 (15 July 1922): 1; see also “Saint-Gaudens to Assemble Mexican Show,” Art News 28 (9 Nov. 1929): 18. 134 See 4. 14-142 Scrapbooks, frame 1073, reel 3830, Valentine Gallery Records, 1924-1948, Archives o f American Art, Smithsonian Institution (hereafter cited as VG Records/AAA/SI). See also “The Mexican Exhibition,” 4; “Mexican Art,” American Magazine o f Art 20 (Dec. 1929): 707-08; “Mexican Exhibition,” American Magazine o f Art 21 (July 1930): 399; and “Reminiscences o f Rene d’Hamoncourt,” CCP. OHRO/CU, 2-3.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

191 places “to see colonial art, folk art, and modem art.”135 Thereafter Morrow took SaintGaudens to his house in Cuernavaca to talk with William Spratling—another of his art advisors—who had already prepared some aspects of the exhibition. Then and there, both Spratling and Saint-Gaudens agreed that d’Hamoncourt be named director of the show.136 The press reported that it was Ambassador Morrow who had personally recommended d’Hamoncourt to Saint-Gaudens as the ideal person to collect the pieces and to coordinate the show in the United States.137 In any case it was odd that of the existing number of Mexican specialists, the person selected had been Rene d’Hamoncourt—an Austrian count who. forced by circumstances, had just arrived in Mexico a few years earlier.138 D’Hamoncourt thought that two main factors must have influenced that decision. First, due to his job at Frederick W. Davis's art gallery in Mexico City, he had become acquainted with the Morrows and had been advising them in the formation of their own collection of Mexican arts and

,j5 Geoffrey T. Heilman. "Imperturbable Noble,” New Yorker, 7 May I960, 82, 84. Ij6 See William Spratling, File on Spratling: An Autobiography (Boston: Little, Brown, 1967), 3536. Cf. "Reminiscences o f Rene d*Harnoncourt,” CCP, OHRO/CU, 2-3. According to d’Hamoncourt’s recollection the person who preferred him over two other candidates was Homer Saint-Gaudens. not Spratling. 137 4. 14-142. Scrapbooks, frame 1073, reel 3830, VG Records/ A A A/S I. 138 When in 1925 d’Hamoncourt’s titles of Austrian nobility were revoked, he decided to look for opportunities overseas. He opted for Mexico because he had some friends from Vienna living there, and he thought he could work as chemist, the profession that he had studied at the university. The problem was that when he arrived in Mexico his friends were dead, and to make things worse he did not speak Spanish or English, and had no money. William Spratling recalled that d ’Hamoncourt was too broke to buy clothes, to eat regularly, or to pay for his hotel room. Spratling also recalled that infatuated by the creative atmosphere o f the Mexican Art Renaissance, d’Hamoncourt himself—like many other foreign travelers— tried to become an artist, but he only managed to paint posters and to decorate show windows. See 4. 14142. Scrapbook, frames 733, 1084, reel 3830, VG Records/AAA/Sl; "Old Mexican Arts on Exhibition,” Christian Science Monitor, 26 July 1930, frame 1096, reel 3830, Rene d’Hamoncourt Papers, 1920-1983, Archives o f American Art/Smithsonian Institution (hereafter cited as RdH Papers/AAA/S I); Spratling, File on Spratling, 19-20.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

192 crafts.139 Second, he had a professional relationship with Under-Secretary Moises Saenz and other officials at the Ministry o f Public Education—and Morrow was aware of it. According to d’Hamoncourt, these friends had asked him to help the Ministry preserve and make economically fruitful the production of traditional crafts.140 In the late 1920s, d’Hamoncourt. in collaboration with Roberto Montenegro, worked in reestablishing the production of Olinala lacquers in the state of Guerrero, under the sponsorship of Frederick Davis who purchased the resulting production.141 Finally, in 1929 the Ministry also asked d’Hamoncourt to create forty-eight collections of Mexican crafts—one for each of the United States—to display at schools and to foster appreciation for Mexican art among American children.142 As a matter of fact, in the spirit of national rediscovery that pervaded the 1920s. d’Hamoncourt was not alone in those projects. Many more Mexican and American artists, historians, archaeologists, anthropologists, and art critics were also involved in the ‘“rescue” of popular arts.143 Artists Jorge Enciso and Gabriel Fernandez Ledesma—for

139 In the 1920s Frederick Davis was a prestigious dealer o f Mexican art, crafts, and antiques. Davis had arrived in Mexico before the Revolution o f 1910, worked for the Sonora News Company, and began selling curios to American collectors. Thereafter he established a successful store in downtown Mexico City. D’Hamoncourt came to work at his place in the second half o f the 1920s, and one o f his tasks was to go across rural Mexico in search o f original crafts. D’Hamoncourt also began helping the craftsmen “to keep on doing quality work in spite o f the decadence forced on them by their tourist trade.” See Schmidt. “The American Intellectual Discovery o f Mexico,” 339; Oles, South o f the Border, 111-2; 4. 14142. Scrapbooks, frame 1084, reel 3830, VG Records/AAA/SI; “Reminiscences o f Rene d’Hamoncourt,” CCP, OHRO/CU, 1. 140 “Reminiscences o f Rene d ’Hamoncourt,” CCP, OHRO/CU, 1-2. 141 See Karen Cordero Reiman. “ Desconstruyendo la ‘Escuela Nacional’: diversas formas de abordar el arte popular en el arte mexicano posrevolucionario.” in Arte, historia e identidad en America: visiones comparativas, 2:642. See also Lopez, “Lo mas mexicano de Mexico,” 322-74. 142 Heilman, “ Imperturbable Noble," 79.

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

193 instance—were providing assistance to the lacquer craftsmen of Uruapan, Michoacan.144 But in spite of the existence of these other specialists and potential candidates to coordinate the exhibition for the Metropolitan Museum, the appointment of cTHarnoncourt did not result in further controversy and the organization of the show continued. On 18 December 1929. the Board of Trustees of the CCNY appropriated the sum of $5,000 to cover preliminary expenses for the Mexican art exhibition. In the resolution it was noted that:

Through the interest of Mr. [Elihu] Root145 of the Corporation Board. Robert W. de Forest of the American Federation of Arts and Dwight W. Morrow. Ambassador to Mexico, it has been possible to make preliminary arrangements for a carefully selected exhibition of Mexican art to be shown in the important cities of the United States. The collection will be made and the material exhibited under the auspices of the American Federation of Arts.146

143 Two contemporary books that reflected this interest are: Roberto Montenegro, Mascaras mexicanas (Mexico City: Talleres Graficos de la Nacion, 1926); and Gabriel FernandezLedesma, Juguetes mexicanos (Mexico City: Talleres Graficos de la Nacion, 1930). 144 See Oles, South o f the Border, 123, 287 n. 65. 145 Elihu Root was a prominent corporation lawyer who enteredpolitics at the turn o f the century as secretary o f war in the McKinley administration, then he served President Theodore Roosevelt as secretary o f state, and afterwards he was senator for New York. As Secretary o f State Elihu Root was very interested in strengthening relations between the United States and Latin America, and he was the first secretary to take a goodwill tour of South America. In 1912 Root won the Nobel Peace Prize for his diplomatic work in the Far East, and thereafter he was a main founder o f the World Court in The Hague. Root’s interest in art matters went back to the 1900s when he was a trustee— like Robert W. de Forest—of the Metropolitan Museum. See Tomkins, Merchants and Masterpieces, 186; see also Emily S. Rosenberg, Financial Missionaries to the World: The Politics and Culture o f Dollar Diplomacy, 1900-1930 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1999), 32. 146 Carnegie Corporation o f New York Meeting o f Board o f Trustees, 18 Dec. 1929. Agenda, Minutes, p. 6. Folder “Board-Dee. 18, 1929,” box 9, Administrative Records, Secretary’s Office Records, Carnegie Corporation of New York Archives, Rare Book & Manuscript Library o f Columbia University, New York, New York (hereafter cited as CCNY/RBML/CU).

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er r ep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

194 By 20 December 1929, d’Hamoncourt informed Minister of Public Education Ezequiel Padilla about the details of the project.147 D’Hamoncourt explained Minster Padilla that the CCNY would cover all the expenses, and it would be responsible for collecting the objects in Mexico, transporting them to the United States, circulating them throughout the museums, and returning them to Mexico. D’Hamoncourt also let Minister Padilla know that in November 1929 Homer Saint-Gaudens—in name of the CCNY—had visited Mexico, and after consulting with Mexican specialists, had decided that the exhibition should include “ancient” and contemporary crafts, as well as “ancient” and contemporary painting and sculpture.148 The CCNY would put together the exhibition with works of art borrowed from private collectors and institutions, and would cover the insurance for all the works. D’Hamoncourt told Minister Padilla that the exhibit was scheduled to open in New York in the fall of 1930, to travel across the United States during the winter and the spring, and to return to Mexico in the summer of 1931. But before leaving for the United States, the exhibition was to be displayed in Mexico City and a corresponding catalogue would be published.149 Regarding other details, d’Hamoncourt stressed that the CCNY would not turn the exhibition into a commercial matter. In other words, the corporation would neither buy works nor resell them in the United States.150 However, if any of the

147 D’Hamoncourt to Minister Ezequiel Padilla, 20 Dec. 1929, frame 537, reel 3830, RdH Papers/AAA/SI. 148 Note that this comprehensive approach was derived from the Mexican Art Renaissance model and it was inserted within the New York interest in arts and crafts exhibitions in the 1920s. 149 The Catalogo de la exposicion de artes mexicanas (Mexico City: Editorial "Cvltvra," 1930) was published with a brief text o f introduction signed by Rend d ’Hamoncourt.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er r ep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

195

artists whose works were exhibited wished to offer them for sale, the CCNY would not oppose. The only condition was that the transaction be completed after the last of the exhibitions had been concluded. Once the CCNY's commitments were clear, d’Hamoncourt explained to Minister Padilla that the corporation needed the support of his Ministry in five areas: first, moral endorsement; second, in advising the CCNY in the selection of a Mexican team responsible for the exhibition; third, providing the permits to take the works out of Mexico; fourth, facilitating the display of the exhibition in Mexico City before its departure to the United States; and fifth, persuading the respective private collectors and institutions to loan their works and collections. Finally, d'Harnoncourt reminded Minister Padilla that the project was very relevant for Mexico because the exhibition would inform American critics and people about Mexican "artistic treasures.” as well as "the high elements” that constituted Mexican culture, all of which would "promote the appreciation and respect of the United States public towards Mexico.” In turn, the United States would benefit from the exhibition because it would be allowed to see the works of art that had conferred “international prestige” on Mexico.151 D’Hamoncourt began working on the show in November 1929. but it was until January 1930 that the CCNY officially hired him as director of the exhibition.152 The Office of President Frederick Keppel sent him a letter certifying that “Count Rene d’Hamoncourt” was “authorized agent of Carnegie Corporation of New York in

150 This note seemed to be a tacit criticism towards the sale o f crafts during the show o f “ Mexican Art” at the Art Center, and the subsequent creation o f the Paine Mexican Arts Corporation. 151 D’Hamoncourt to Minister Ezequiel Padilla, 20 Dec. 1929, frame 537, reel 3830, RdH Papers/AAA/S I. 152 “Reminiscences o f Ren6 d ’Hamoncourt,” CCP, OHRO/CU, 3.

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

196

collecting and organizing an exhibition of Mexican art.”153 D’Hamoncourt recalled that from that day on, every time he had problems with customs all he had to do was show that document with the gold seal of the CCNY, and everything was solved.154 At any rate Keppel was very pleased with d’Hamoncourt’s performance, and congratulated him for the excellent official relations that he had established with the Mexican government.153 On the Mexican side, the organization and sponsorship of the project was given to an advisory committee supervised by an honorary committee. The former was constituted by a group of seven artists and experts, including Diego Rivera, Dr. Atl, Jorge Enciso, Roberto Montenegro, Francisco Diaz de Leon, Gabriel Fernandez Ledesma, and Antonio Cortez.156 While the latter committee was integrated by Ambassador Morrow. Minister of Foreign Affairs Genaro Estrada, Minister of Finance Luis Montes de Oca, and the Under secretaries of Public Education Moises Saenz and Carlos Lerdo de Tejada.137 The existence of an advisory committee resulted in the nomination of its president, Dr. Atl, as co-director of the show.138 The problem was that Dr. Atl and d’Hamoncourt seemed to have a different position regarding the organization. According to d’Hamoncourt, when

153 20 Jan. 1930, frame 540, reel 3830, RdH Papers/AAA/SI. 154 “Reminiscences o f Rene d’Hamoncourt,” CCP, OHRO/CU, 3-4. 155 Keppel to d’Hamoncourt, 3 Feb. 1930, frame 543, reel 3830, RdH Papers/AAA/SI. 156 Under-Secretary Moises Saenz had presented a list of twenty-three artists and intellectuals from which were chosen the members o f the advisory committee. See Rick A. Lopez, “The Morrows in Mexico: Nationalist Politics, Foreign Patronage, and the Promotion o f Mexican Popular Arts,” in Casa Manana: The Morrow Collection o f Mexican Popular Arts, 6 1. 157 “Gran Exposicidn,” El Universal (Mexico City), 29 June 1930. 158 Dr. Atl’s experience was as co-organizer o f the Exposicion de Arte Popular (Exhibition of Popular Art) to commemorate the 100th anniversary o f the Consummation o f Independence in 1921. He was also the author o f the corresponding book catalogue. Dr. Atl [Gerardo Murillo], Las artes populares de Mexico, 2 vols., Publicaciones de la Secretaria de Industria y Comercio (Mexico City: Editorial "Cvltvra,” 1922).

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

197 they met with the advisory committee for the first time. Dr. Atl dismissed them by saying: “Senores, there is no reason for us really to discuss the matter, because the exhibition as you realize is already a reality.”159 Noting that Dr. Atl had no intention of working, d’Hamoncourt suggested that Atl was paid in advance for writing the catalogue and was released from other responsibilities.160 In that way, d’Hamoncourt took full charge of the organization and spent the first half of 1930 collecting the objects that formed the exhibition, most of which were borrowed from Mexican collections.161 Among the private lenders were Rivera, Spratling, Manuel Rodriguez Lozano, Miguel Covarrubias. Luis Hidalgo, Mardonio Magana, Jorge Enciso, Moises Saenz, Alma Reed, the Morrows, and d’Hamoncourt himself. Several other pieces were borrowed from the National Museum in Mexico City and the State Museum in Guadalajara, as well as from museums of the state of Puebla.162 As Spratling pointed out, many of those pieces were “priceless objects” that were leaving the country “for the first time in their history.”163 Perhaps for that reason it had to be President Ortiz Rubio himself who had to authorize the loans.

159 “Reminiscences o f Rend d’Hamoncourt," CCP, OHRO/CU, 5. 160 Ibid., 6. It is important to note that, in his role as artist, expert on Mexican arts and crafts, and chief o f Mexico’s Museums Department, Dr. Atl would accompany d ’Hamoncourt and lecture during the circulation o f the show in the United States. See 4. 14-142. Scrapbooks, frame 1090, reel 3830, VG Records/AAA/S I. See account in Lopez, “Z.o mas mexicano de Mexico." 161 See Rend d ’Hamoncourt, “The Exposition o f Mexican Art,” International Studio 98 (Oct. 1930): 50-51. 162 4. 14-142. Scrapbooks, frame 1090, reel 3830, VG Records/AAA/SI; News and Exhibitions o f the Week in Art, “Mexico Sees Art,” 6. See also “The Mexican Exhibition,” American Magazine o f Art 22 (Jan. 1931): 3^t. I6j William Spratling, “The Arts and Letters in Mexico,” New York Herald Tribune Magazine. 8 June 1930. See also “Mexico’s Gesture,” Art Digest 4 (July 1930): 7.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

198

In early June 1930, d’Hamoncourt notified Ambassador Morrow that the Mexican authorities had already seen and approved the collection assembled for the exhibition.164 Hence on 28 June 1930, President Ortiz Rubio opened the Exposition de artes mexicanas in the galleries of the Ministry of Public Education in Mexico City.165 Members of the cabinet, foreign diplomats, and artists were special guests at the ceremony, while d’Hamoncourt and Dr. Atl (who reappeared for this occasion) represented the organizing team (figs. 3.5-6).166 As scheduled, in early August d’Hamoncourt departed to New York with Mexican Arts—the name given to the show for its exhibition in the United States. The Ministry of Public Education, as the Mexican sponsor of the exhibition, issued a letter of recommendation for customs, stating that the object of Mexican Arts was “to introduce the American public [to] an important aspect of Mexico’s culture.” 167 By this time the American press began publicizing the event, emphasizing three major aspects. First, the exhibition was sponsored by Ambassador Morrow, the CCNY, and the American Federation of Arts. Second, it was noted that many o f the Mexican art treasures that were seen were so rare and precious that they would surprise the American public. And third, the director of the exhibition was a European count who had become a great connoisseur

164 D’Hamoncourt to Ambassador Morrow, 4 June 1930, folder 67. box 18. series 1, DWM Papers/ACL. 165 “Mexican Arts Exhibit en Mexico,” El Universal (Mexico City). 29 June 1930. See 4. 14-142. Scrapbooks, frame 1091, reel 3830, VG Records/AAA/SI. It is worth noting that some artists, including, Orozco, Rivera. Rodriguez Lozano, Julio Castellanos did not lend their works for the show in Mexico. 166 See "Reminiscences o f Ren6 d ’Hamoncourt,” CCP, OHRO/CU, 6. See also News and Exhibitions o f the Week in Art, “Mexico Sees Art Shown Prior to Opening Here.” New York Herald Tribune, 27 July 1930. 167 Moists SAenz to Whom it may concern, 5 Aug. 1930, frame 541, reel 3830, RdH Papers/AAA/SI.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

199 and promoter of Mexican crafts. One o f the reviews stated that Mexican Arts would be “the first one showing the essentially Mexican in old and modem art as distinctive from the Spanish.”168 A few weeks before the opening, Ernest Gruening—who had left the editorship of the Nation for the direction of the Portland Evening News—published an editorial praising Ambassador Morrow’s achievements in Mexico.169 The editorial focused on crediting Morrow for having “changed the assumptions of most Americans going to Mexico.” It was explained that Americans going to countries inhabited by darker races used to believe that the natives were a sort of inferior race. But Morrow had manage to overcome that prejudice by speaking of the beautiful arts and crafts of Mexico, noting at the same time that such creativeness no longer existed in the United States. Morrow had proved that Mexico's contribution to the rapidly changing twentieth century were creativity and artistry, as opposed to the United States’ contributions, which were machinery and technology.170 In the spring of 1930 Morrow himself revealed what seemed to be his thoughts about Mexican crafts in a speech he delivered at the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London. In Morrow’s words, the Mexicans were “an amazing people,” because:

i6g .‘Q u Mexican Arts on Exhibition,” Christian Science Monitor, 26 July 1930, frame 1096, reel 3830, RdH Papers/AAA/SI; see also “Mexican Exhibition,” American Magazine o f Art 21 (July 1930): 399. 169 Ernest Gruening to Ambassador Morrow, 18 Sept. 1930, folder 94, box 24, series 1. DWM Papers/ACL. See “Mr. Morrow Leaves Mexico,” Editorial, Portland Evening News, 17 Sept. 1930. 170 See “Mr. Morrow Leaves Mexico.” In his editorial, Gruening was recycling his earlier notion o f Mexico as an “Eastern” artistic country in opposition to the United States as a “Western” industrial country.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er r ep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

200

They are in the household industry stage—it is almost like turning back one's history three or four hundred years and see how we lived then. You see people making steel blades in the way they made them in Toledo four hundred years ago. They make rugs on looms which they have constructed themselves, and they use old vegetables dyes....They make wonderful pottery, not for sale but for use. It is not durable, but labor is so cheap that it is cheaper to replace vessels than to bake them very thoroughly.171

Accordingly, for Morrow the Mexican crafts were not a product of creativity and sense of beauty, but mostly the result of poverty and backwardness. And Morrow's opinion, as we will see, was shared by other people involved or related to the organization of the exhibition. Therefore to present the arts and crafts of Mexico at the Metropolitan Museum of Art was a bold and risky step. In the late 1920s the Metropolitan Museum was by far the most prestigious and also the most conservative art institution in New York. The Metropolitan Museum had been founded in the 1870s following a traditional Eurocentric cultural model. In the early 1900s it opened its galleries to Egyptian and Eastern art, and it included a glimpse into Impressionism, but in general it aspired to hold a traditional Western art collection.172 By the end of World War I the Metropolitan began struggling between the conservative trend and a more contemporary one, which was for including European avant-garde and modem American art in the museum. An example of this conflict happened in 1921, when a rich collection of Impressionism and PostImpressionism was shown with great public success, but conservative voices claimed that by holding that kind of shows the museum was losing its original vocation.

I 7*1

Further,

171 Dwight W. Morrow, “The Present Situation in Mexico," Speech Delivered at the Section Meeting o f the Royal Institute o f International Affairs, retyped report, 3 Mar. 1930, folder 135, box 1. series II, DWM Papers/ACL. Cf. Gruening, Mexico and Its Heritage, 636. 172 For an account about the origins o f the Metropolitan, see Hibbard, The Metropolitan Museum o f Art', and Tomkins, Merchants and Masterpieces.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

201

under the premise that modem art was a Bolshevik strategy to destroy Western culture, some conservatives said that the Metropolitan was becoming another victim of the international revolution.174 In other occasions the conservatives prevailed, for instance, when Gertrude Whitney offered the museum her vast collection of American modem art, and to pay for the construction of a permanent pavilion to display it, her proposal was dismissed on the grounds that such art did not belong in a museum like the Metropolitan.175 By the late 1920s, the Metropolitan’s reluctance to nontraditional art provoked public criticisms from the newly founded Museum of Modem Art. In effect, at the turn of the decade, the majority of the Metropolitan Museum’s trustees, directors, and staff still maintained an elitist and Eurocentric approach to art, in contrast to President Robert W. de Forest who had a much more open perspective.176 Thus getting an exhibition like Mexican Arts into the Metropolitan would inevitably result in a confrontation between President of the Board de Forest and Museum Director Edward Robinson, who happened to be a specialist in classical Greek art.177 Rene

173 The exhibition was displayed from May to September 1921. and it covered paintings from socalled latest masters, as Courbet, Manet, Puvis de Chavannes, Renoir, and Degas, to painters who were arriving to the “Pantheon,” like Cezanne, van Gogh, and Gauguin, up to those who were still battling around, like Matisse, Derain, and Picasso. See “Museum Opens its Modernist Show,” American Art News 19, no. 30 (7 May 1921): 5. 174 “Attack on Museum Is still Anonymous,” American Art News 19. no. 40 (17 Sept. 1921): 4. 175 Tomkins, Merchants and Masterpieces, 298-99. The rejection o f the Metropolitan Museum would be the trigger to create the Whitney Museum. See Berman, Rebels on Eighth Street. 176 In 1930. at the celebration o f the Metropolitan’s sixtieth anniversary, de Forest took the opportunity o f emphasizing the educational function o f the museum and demanded more universal collections and exhibitions. He stressed that the Metropolitan should be a source of inspiration to schools and colleges, “not only in art but in history and in the development o f civilization.” See “Sixtieth Anniversary o f the Founding o f the Museum,” Metropolitan Museum Bulletin 25. supplement (May 1930): 1- 1 1 .

177 Edward Robinson was a seventy-year-old scholar and curator, who had been director o f the Metropolitan for twenty years. During that time he had made a reputation for his extremely conservative

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n e r. F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

202

d’Hamoncourt recalled that it took “a great deal of pressure” from de Forest, Ambassador Morrow and Frederick Keppel to convince Robinson to lend his galleries to something as “highly deplorable” as Mexican arts and crafts.178 In any case, with Robinson’s reluctant permission the conflict did not end, because when the Mexican collection arrived the first case opened contained toys made out of mat material, and that was sufficient to start the controversy all over again.179 Those objects appeared ridiculous to Robinson, who immediately wrote a letter to de Forest saying that they had found “the most atrocious lot o f truck” that he had ever seen in the United States, and if that was exhibited it would ruin the reputation of the Metropolitan.180 In turn, de Forest, Keppel. and Saint-Gaudens consulted with d’Hamoncourt, and following d’Harnoncourt’s advice, de Forest replied to Robinson that the exhibition was “the finest” collection that one could gather in Mexico.181 The arrangements for Mexican Arts had to continue, but. from that moment on de Forest distanced himself from the event because he feared a negative reaction from the critics and from the public. At the press conference Robinson and his team cleared themselves from any responsibility and asked d’Hamoncourt to conduct the interviews. judgment in art matters, as well as for his reserved and dignified personality. See Tomkins, Merchants and Masterpieces, 216-17. 178 “Reminiscences o f Rene d’Hamoncourt” CCP, OHRO/CU, 3. 179 Ibid., 8. 180 The way this conflict developed resembled an earlier conflict between de Forest and Robinson. In 1909, during the Hudson-Fulton celebration Robert de Forest sponsored an exhibition o f American “industrial arts” from 1625 to 1825 at the Metropolitan. De Forest stated that the show was an opportunity “to test out the question whether American domestic art was worthy o f a place in an art museum.” However, Director Edward Robinson thought differently and opposed such a “test”; Robinson simply argued that American applied arts were inferior to the European decorative arts. Nonetheless, the exhibition took place and was a great public success. As a result, throughout the 1910s an American decorative arts section began to develop within the Metropolitan. By 1922 the de Forests offered to finance the construction of a pavilion for the permanent display of those collections, and by November 1924 the new area under the name o f the American Wing was dedicated. See Tomkins, Merchants and Masterpieces, 195-97, 199-201. 181 “Reminiscences o f Rend d ’Hamoncourt.” CCP, OHRO/CU, 8—10.

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

203

In the same tone, d’Hamoncourt was asked to write and sign the corresponding essay for the Bulletin—a task that as a rule was done by the staff.182 Besides, d’Hamoncourt did not have any museographic assistance during the installation, except for the carpenters and housepainters.183 Amid the New York art world it was clear that the Metropolitan was only the host for Mexican Arts—a show organized by the CCNY, Ambassador Morrow, and the American Federation of Arts.

Being free from any further pressure, d’Hamoncourt worked on an installation that intermixed four groups of objects.185 A first group comprised crafts, including both early and contemporary works. The second group consisted of early and contemporary fine arts. A selection of Mexican books and art periodicals constituted the third group. And the fourth group was a collection of children's paintings and drawings (fig. 3.7).

I0£

Among the early crafts (sixteenth to nineteenth centuries), the exhibition included works in feather, iron, copper, bronze, silver, gold, ivory, bone, stone, and wood (fig. 3.8), as well as lacquered and painted objects, Ieatherwork, pottery, straw work, textiles, embroideries, and beadwork (figs. 3.9-12).187 The contemporary—i.e., twentieth

182 See Rene d’Hamoncourt, “Loan Exhibition o f Mexican Arts," Metropolitan Museum Bulletin 25 (Oct. 1930): 210-17. 183 Ibid. 184 4. 14-142. Scrapbook, frame 756, reel 3830, VG Records/AAA/SI. 185 I thank Prof. James Oles for calling to my attention that the installation was intermixed. This arrangement may be seen in a photograph that Prof. Oles published in his essay "For Business or Pleasure.” in Casa Manana: The Morrow Collection o f Mexican Popular Arts, 10. 186 Rick A. Lopez points out that Homer Saint-Gaudens was the first person to propose dividing the exhibition in four sections, according to period (colonial or contemporary) and type (popular arts or fine arts). D’Hamoncourt would refine that proposal by excluding those works or styles that were not “truly Mexican,” according to the criteria o f Mexican intellectuals like Dr. Atl. Manuel Gamio. and Moists Sdenz. See L6pez, “The Morrows in Mexico,” 6 1.

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

204

century—crafts included masks, costumes, furniture, basketry, rush decorations, toys, and marquettes (figs. 3.13-14).188 In the fine arts section, the subdivision o f early paintings featured a few colonial works, some examples of genre painting and portraits from the nineteenth century, as well as twenty-six retablos from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.189 A subdivision of early sculpture comprised four religious pieces: two virgins, a baptism of Christ, and a Saint Augustine.190 The most extensive fine arts subdivision was the one dedicated to contemporary painting, containing ninety-two works from twenty-four artists representative of the Mexican Art Renaissance.191 Among other participants were Miguel Covarrubias, Abraham Angel, Carlos Merida, Julio Castellanos. Jose Clemente Orozco. Diego Rivera, Jean Chariot, Joaquin Clausell, Maria Izquierdo, Agustin Lazo, Rodriguez Lozano. Roberto Montenegro, Paul O'Higgins, Carlos Orozco-Romero, Maximo Pacheco, Fermin Revueltas. David Alfaro Siqueiros, Rufino Tamayo, and Isabel Villasefior.192 The dominant subjects of the paintings were Mexican landscapes (Tehuantepec, Chalma, Patzcuaro), Indian types and costumes (Tarascans. Chamulas, Tehuanas), and Mexican rural scenes (mules, shepherds, peasant children). There were

187 For a complete list o f the early crafts exhibited, see Mexican Arts: Catalogue o f an Exhibition Organized fo r and Circulated by The American Federation o f Arts, 1930—193 /, exh. cat. (N.p.: Southworth Press, American Federation o f Arts, \930).Mexican Arts, exh. cat., 3-22. 188 For the full list o f the contemporary crafts included, see ibid., 18-40. 189 For details o f the “early paintings,” see ibid., 44-47. 190 Ibid., 47. 191 The section comprised 44 oils. 4 tempera, 9 watercolors, 3 gouache, 29 drawings, and 1 fragment o f a mural decoration by Rivera. Ibid., 47-52. 192 The rest o f the participants were: Abelardo Avilar, Pablo Camarena, Everardo Ramirez, Ignacio Mdrquez, and Francisco Dosamantes. Ibid., 48-51.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

205

also some urban popular scenes, revolutionary situations or allegories, and only a few modernist motives (figs. 3.15-20).193 In the subdivision of contemporary sculpture eleven artists displayed twenty-six sculptures in terracotta, wax. bronze, wood, wrought iron, and stone. Among the participants were Luis Hidalgo, Mardonio Magana, and Guillermo Ruiz; and the subjects were similar to those of the contemporary painting section, with the depiction of Mexican animals and Mexican types prevailing (figs. 3.21-22).194 The subdivision of contemporary woodcuts, etchings, and engravings consisted of eighty-seven works from more than twelve artists, among them Francisco Diaz de Leon, Fernando Leal, Roberto Montenegro, Jose Guadalupe Posada, and Isabel Villasenor.195 Finally, the section devoted to children’s paintings and drawings contained twelve drawings and watercolors from children varying in age from six to fifteen years old.196 It is worth noting that even if the modem art area was so well represented. Mexican Arts as a whole was conceived as a historical and aesthetic appraisal of the Mexican crafts, which Rene d ’Hamoncourt and Dwight W. Morrow perceived as the quintessential expression of Mexico’s art and culture.197 In this regard, d’Hamoncourt

193 Ibid.. 47-52. 194 Other participants were: Rafael Archundia, J. Trinidad Corona, Fernando Leon, Miguel Magafla, Eucario Olvera, Rebeca Ortiz, Eliseo de la Rosa and an unknown artist. Ibid., 52-54. 195 Among other participants were: Manuel Echauri, Justino Fernandez, Geronimo Flores, F. Ocampo, I. Paco, Feliciano Pefia, and Andres Torres. Ibid., 54-55. 196 Ibid., 59. 197 See ibid., ix. About the idealization o f Mexican crafts, Reyes Palma observes that by the end o f the Revolution o f 1910 popular art became a “timeless and spaceless enclave: a living past without which the task o f establishing a great tradition seemed unthinkable, in fact, turned out to be grounds for a series o f moral reservations for society.” See Reyes Palma, “Mythical Structures in Perceptions o f 20th Century Mexican Art.”

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

206

and Morrow were strongly influenced by Franz Boas’s cultural relativism and, particularly, by the Mexican Art Renaissance discourse of the 1920s. The show manifested the idealization of “Mexican” forms and motives at the expense of Europeanized, academic, or modernist expressions, which were excluded for being considered intrusive and illegitimate. Thus, erasing these conflicting expressions was an attempt to create a harmonious story of Mexico’s art development. Mexican Arts reflected the same bias of the Mexican Art Renaissance discourse, and attacked what were not truly Mexican (i.e., popular and Indianlike) forms. The preface for the catalogue clearly stated that Mexican Arts was “an exhibition of Mexican arts, not of arts in Mexico.”198 For that reason, the “unassimilated copies of foreign models” were excluded from the exhibition; among this category were most of the colonial arts, and practically all the art produced during the nineteenth and early twentieth century at the Academy of San Carlos and its successor, the Escuela Nacional de Bellas Artes (ENBA; National School o f Fine Arts). In contrast, the crafts had a special place because they represented “the unconscious expression of national characteristics,” they were “the truest form of self-expression of the Mexican people.”

IQG

This was because—

just as the ideologues of the Mexican Art Renaissance said—Mexican popular arts were so naturally integrated to the community, that “every aspect of native life” was “reflected in the work of the artisan.”200 Following that logic, the significance and authenticity of modem painting was derived from its connection with ‘The simple life of the Mexican

198 Mexican Arts, exh. cat., ix. With regard to the idealization of Indian culture in post revolutionary Mexico, see Lopez, “The Morrows in Mexico,” 61-62. 199 Mexican Arts, exh. cat., xii—xiii. 200 Ibid., 3.

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

207

people,” and genuine Mexican traditions, i.e., those sanctioned by the Mexican Art Renaissance paradigm.201 Not surprisingly, for the organizers of Mexican Arts, the '‘bestknown manifestation” of the modem period was “the so-called Mexican Renaissance in painting,” which, given its Mexican subjects and Mexican manners—plus the support of the government—materialized in frescoes of “international fame.”202 At any rate, the Mexican Arts’’ approach—like the Mexican Art Renaissance discourse—was appealing to the New York audience; it featured a romantic primitivism akin to the one concurrently celebrated in Hollywood movies and other contemporary cultural movements, such as the Harlem Renaissance itself. Therefore, from day one the exhibition was a popular event that turned out to be the Metropolitan Museum’s greatest success of the year.203 At the opening, celebrities such as Charles Lindbergh attracted great publicity. That same evening, in the presence of Elizabeth C. Morrow, Director Edward Robinson had no choice but to reconcile with Rene d’Hamoncourt and his “atrocious lot of truck.”204 By now Robinson was claiming great admiration for the Mexican collection, and de Forest was finally relieved: The exhibition had succeeded “despite some doubts and forebodings, which proved themselves entirely unnecessary.”205

201 Ibid., 42-43. 202 See ibid., xii. For other contemporary articles where d’Hamoncourt elaborated on these concepts, see Ren6 d ’Hamoncourt, “Mexican Arts,” American Magazine o f Art 22 (Jan. 1931): 5-22; idem, “Exhibition o f Mexican Arts.” Carnegie Magazine 4 (Jan. 1931): 225,227-32: idem. “Four Hundred Years o f Mexican Art,” Art and Archaeology 33 (Mar. 1932): 70-77. 203 “ Reminiscences of Ren6 d’Hamoncourt,” CCP, OHRO/CU, 10. 2, folder 31. box 4, series IV, DAS Papers/GRI. Stein, Siqueiros: His Life and Works, 96. Cardoza y Arag6n believed that Orozco and Tamayo were appointed as delegates to simulate an ideological and aesthetic tolerance that did not exist inside the Mexican artistic associatons. See “Jos6 Clemente Orozco: Dos apuntes para un retrato,” in Orozco: Una Relectura. 16. 210 For more details about the foundation, see “Call for the American Artists’ Congress,” in Artists against War and Fascism: Papers o f the First American Artists' Congress, ed. Matthew Baigell and Julia Williams (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers Univ. Press, 1986), 47-48 211 For a through discussion o f the American Artists’ Congress, see Garnett McCoy, “The Rise and Fall o f the American Artists’ Congress,” Prospects 13 (1988): 325-39.

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

358 attended by 360 American artists of all schools and political convictions, plus a delegation of twelve artists from Mexico and a delegate from Peru (fig. 5.19).212 The aim of the congress was to discuss the economic problems brought on by the Great Depression and to develop a common strategy vis-a-vis the advance of Fascism and the threat of another world war.213 The congress began with a public session opened by critic Lewis Mumford. Among other speakers, artist Stuart Davis explained the origin of the congress and sculptor Paul Manship stated why American artists should oppose war and Fascism. Thereafter the discussions were arranged in a series of closed sessions. In the first one, dedicated to “The Artist in Society,” art historian Meyer Shapiro lectured about the “Racial Bases of Art,” and Lynd Ward discussed “Race, Nationality, and Art.” On the second session the subject was the “Problems of the American Artist,” an opportunity to talk about the relation between artists and government in the United States, in comparison to the conditions of art in the Soviet Union, in Fascist Italy, and in Nazi Germany. In the third session the topic was the “Economic Problems of the American Artist” and the speakers focused on the economic status of the artists, and on more specific problems o f sales and rents. Finally, at the fourth and last session, the “Reports and Resolutions of Delegates and Permanent Organization” were presented.214 It was at this session that Orozco and Siqueiros, as representatives of the Mexican delegates to the First Congress, read two papers.

212 See Stuart Davis. “Introduction” to Artists against War and Fascism: Papers o f the First American Artists' Congress, 53-54. 213 Ibid., 54. 2,4 Ibid.. 56-59.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

359

Orozco talked about what he called the major concerns o f the Mexican artists. Those concerns were the position that artists should adopt vis-a-vis imperialism, Fascism and war; the economic security of artists, craftsmen, and art educators; the situation o f artists and workers organizations; and the development of contemporary forms and contents in art.215 Regarding the first issue, Orozco explained that Mexican artists were against imperialism, Fascism, and war because these opposed the progress of art and culture. To win the battle against such threats, the Mexicans proposed to work in association with trade union organizations, and to denounce in louder terms the persecution of artists and intellectuals in Fascist countries.216 About the economic tribulations of artists. Orozco particularly deplored that many of them had been pushed to teach as a form of living. That was a twofold problem, because most of those artists were not prepared to teach, and they were spending their time and talent in a non-artistic activity. Therefore, it was essential to remove those colleagues from the schools and give them financial support and materials to create art.217 Reflecting about the effects of the Great Depression on art sales, Orozco observed that the crisis of the art market had showed that in the present works o f art had become

215 Josd Clemente Orozco. '‘General Report o f the Mexican Delegation to the American Artists’ Congress,” in Two Papers Presented at the American Artists' Congress, Feb. 15, 1936, fo r the Mexican Delegates by Orozco and Siqueiros (), 2-5. The New York Public Library, Humanities & Social Sciences Research Division, New York, New York (hereafter cited as NYPL/HSSRD), 2. 216 Orozco, “General Report,” 3. NYPL/HSSRD. 217 Orozco, “General Report,” 3. NYPL/HSSRD. Orozco’s skepticism about art education went back to the 1900s when he was studying at the ENBA. Back then he endured the incompetence o f ignorant and bored instructors. In his autobiography he recounts how such a situation would become so intolerable that it would result in a students strike in 1910. On the other hand, in the mid-1920s Orozco would have another bad experience with art education when he was obliged to teach to live after he was run out o f mural commissions.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

360

luxurious and superfluous commodities. However, the crisis was also an opportunity for artists to take over and to prove that art could fill “a higher function within the complexity of human relationships.”

7)0

With respect to the relation between artists and workers’ organizations, Orozco recommended that artists address their art to the “working masses” through a system of intertrade union cooperation. Going a step beyond the already existing art unions, Orozco suggested that members of the American Artists’ Union create and coordinate art sections within trade unions. These art sections would focus in raising "‘the cultural level of the masses by means of lectures, concerts, exhibitions, [and] theater performances.” The financial funds of that program would not come from any government, but from the workers themselves who would cooperate by buying one stamp a month. The administration of the programs would be in the hands of the producers themselves, who would receive a salary for their services.219 To encourage the American artists at the congress, Orozco assured them that in Mexico LEAR, as well as other organizations, were already working on executing such a plan.220 Orozco concluded by stressing that this strategy presented two great advantages: one, it would promote cooperative work among all kinds of artists and two, it would bring together the artists own concerns and the working-class problems.221

218 Orozco. “General Report,” 4. NYPL/HSSRD. 2,9 Orozco. “General Report,” 4-5. NYPL/HSSRD. 220 In 1937, a year after its participation in the American Artists’ Congress in New York. LEAR would celebrate its first congress in Mexico. By 1938, after four years o f activities, LEAR— like other Popular Front associations— would dissolve over the confrontation between the Stalinist and anti-Stalinist Left.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

361

Apparently, Orozco would have developed some o f these “socialist” views during the late 1920s and early 1930s. As we have seen, through the first years of the Depression his works reflected an increasing pessimism about human conditions in modem capitalist societies. His beliefs about the need of a radical change were confirmed in his homage to world revolutions in the mural cycle at the New School for Social Research. In 1933 Orozco’s critical approach also led him to participate in a group exhibition of paintings, sculpture, watercolors. and prints called The Social Viewpoint in Art at the John Reed Club.222 An additional reason for Orozco to support socialist strategies was that they favored the sale of his graphics, which used to be the area of his artwork that sold best. In the aftermath of the congress, the magazine Frente a Frente published the paper that Orozco read at the congress as well as some of his illustrations.224 However, Orozco himself rectified somewhat his ideas in an anti-Fascist leaflet entitled Rojo, where he criticized the confrontation between Siqueiros and Rivera, noting that both of them lacked political independence.225 In advancing that position, Orozco would paint The Carnival o f Ideologies (1936-1939) where he simultaneously rejected Fascism and Stalinism, and mocked Trotskyism.226

221 Orozco. “General Report,” 5. NYPL/HSSRD. 222 See Gertrude Benson, “Art and Social Theories,” Creative Art 12, no. 3 (Mar. 1933): 218. 223 In spite o f this kind o f evidence, Alejandro Anreus contends that Siqueiros and Luis Arenal were the real authors o f the document that Orozco read. F irst the Popular Front language used throughout it was typical o f Siqueiros and not o f Orozco. And secondly, Arenal— as opposed to Orozco— was fluent in speaking and writing in English. See Anreus, Orozco in Gringoland’ 117. 224 Ibid., 114. 225 Ibid., 117-18 226 Cardoza y Aragdn noted that in the aftermath o f the New York congress both Orozco and Tamayo came tired of the leftist debates and broke relations with LEAR. On the other hand, given Orozco’s

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

362

At his turn in the congress, Siqueiros read a paper about “The Mexican Experience in Art,” which happened to be an account very similar to the Mexican Art Renaissance’s.227 Siqueiros began by asserting that before the Revolution of 1910 the Mexican arts were fixated in European academic models.228 Only with the dawn of the Mexican Revolution did things begin to change: artists became interested in national folk expressions, the students at the ENBA rebelled against foreign models, and the first Open-Air Schools of Painting were created. Siqueiros pointed out that artists who joined the revolution would come in contact with the real Mexico—i.e., the working class people, the peasants, and the country’s landscape. He also praised those artists who got involved in the appreciation of popular arts, Pre-Columbian art and architecture, mural paintings at the pulquerias, and the popular graphics of Jose Guadalupe Posada.229 Then Siqueiros recalled the beginning of the mural movement at the National Preparatory School. According to Siqueiros, the first challenge had been technical, because all of them were only trained in easel painting. And given the technical difficulties of the task, they would neglect “the real problems of content” and would create murals of “neutral or socially irrelevant character.”230 Siqueiros lamented that they had been politically ignorant, confused and “Utopians.” Soon, however, they would

independent position, Mexican leftist groups would accuse him o f being pro-German and reactionary. See “Jos6 Clemente Orozco: Dos apuntes para un retrato,” 15-16. 227 David Alfaro Siqueiros, “The Mexican Experience in Art,” in Two Papers Presented at the American Artists ’ Congress. 6 - 1 1. NYPL/HSSRD. 228 It is important to note how Siqueiros’ narration follows the canon set by Tablada in 1923, and confirmed by Brenner in 1925 and 1929 (see chaps. 2 and 3). 229 Siqueiros, “The Mexican Experience in Art.” 6-7. NYPL/HSSRD. 230 Siqueiros, “The Mexican Experience in Art,” 8. NYPL/HSSRD.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

363

correct themselves by creating the SOTPE, and the newspaper El Machete. Those would be their first contacts with the Mexican masses, but they would also be the beginning of a series of conflicts with the post-revolutionary regime that did not want their art to agitate in any way the people. Thus, when the artists insisted on that direction they would be censored, fired, and persecuted.231 In retrospect Siqueiros found that in the mid- and late 1920s Mexican modem art became '‘opportunist” and “reactionary” just as the post revolutionary regime did. In a criticism o f the kind of Mexicanism supported by Rivera, Ambassador Morrow and the Calles administration (see chaps. 1 and 3), Siqueiros denounced that:

[Mexican] art turned to the picturesque and adopted forms and contents attractive to the tourist spectator now coming in increasing numbers, under the influence of the new post revolutionary Mexican regime which supported the imperialist penetration of Mexico.232

Hence Siqueiros was not surprised that the following generation would avoid that kind of artwork. He explained that the new Mexican artists were disappointed in picturesque muralism, and they were repelled by “the monopoly of Rivera.”233 Thus, Siqueiros understood that they preferred to focus on formal experiments, but he acknowledged that some young artists were becoming politically involved and eager to create revolutionary works.234 On the other hand, Siqueiros, who believed that revolutionary art needed to

231 Siqueiros, “The Mexican Experience in Art,” 9. NYPL/HSSRD. 232 Siqueiros, “The Mexican Experience in Art,” 9. NYPL/HSSRD. 233 In this regard, Alicia Azuela observes that the Mexican delegation to the American Artists’ Congress was very critical about the officialization o f muralism, and it was particularly angry about Rivera’s role in that evolvement. Azuela, “Arte publico y muralismo mexicano,” 3:804.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

364

develop more effective forms to reach the masses, celebrated that the artists of LEAR were concentrated in producing graphic art affordable by the masses. Siqueiros was sure that in Mexico such revolutionary graphics would renew art teaching and would evolve the art production system from an individual to a collective level.233 Helga Prignitz has observed that although the Mexican delegates did not have more than twenty minutes to read their papers, their specific proposals of organization impacted the audience; as it would other activities in which they participated during their visit to New York.236 Right after the congress had finished, Siqueiros decided to stay in New York for a longer period. A decision that he justified by saying that the Cardenas administration had been infiltrated by reactionary “forces” that were conspiring against his art projects, and harassed him all the time— so. he better exiled himself for a while.237 The following months in New York were a most fertile period in Siqueiros’s career.238 He would implement some of the programs and experiments that he had outlined in “Towards the Transformation of Plastic Arts” in 1934, and he would also cooperate “with the workers’ movement in the United States.”239 Siqueiros recalled that at the beginning some artists

234 Siqueiros. “The Mexican Experience in Art,” 10. NYPL/HSSRD. 235 Siqueiros, “The Mexican Experience in Art,” 10-11. NYPL/HSSRD. Alicia Azuela points out that, from a political point o f view, Siqueiros thought that Mexican artists would achieve better results through graphics than through muralism. See Azuela, “Arte publico y muralismo mexicano,” 804. 236 For a list of the other activities where the Mexican delegates participated, see Helga Prignitz, El taller de Grdfica Popular en Mixico, 1937-1977, trans. Elizabeth Siefer (Mexico City: INBA, CEN1DIAP, 1992), 39. 237 Siqueiros recalled that by 1936 the ghost o f Communism had returned and any suspicious movement was accused o f being Communist. In addition, an emerging oligarchy banned his own political activities and blocked his artistic projects. Siqueiros, La Tracala, 24-25. 238 For details about Siqueiros’s life in New York the following months, see Arenal, Paginas sueltas con Siqueiros, 106-10.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er r ep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

365

expressed hostility and skepticism toward his projects; he believed that it was an effect of his harsh conflict with Rivera. In any case, he would succeed this time—as opposed to his 1934 visit—just because, as he said, he was determined to prove New York that he was right and nothing would stop him.240 In that spirit, in April Siqueiros founded the Siqueiros Experimental Workshop (SEW) in a Ioft-studio located in the area of Union Square (5 West Fourteenth Street).241 He invited to join the group Mexican, South American, and American painters, some of whom were Communist activists.242 Among the founders of the SEW. or “Laboratory of Modem Techniques in Art.” were Luis Arenal, Roberto Guardia Berdecio, Antonio Pujol, Philip Guston, Jackson Pollock, Harold Lehman, Sande McCoy (brother of Pollock), Axel Horr. George Cox, Louis Ferstadt, Clara Mahl, Conrado Vasquez, Reuben Kadish, and Jose L. Gutierrez (fig. 5.20).243

239 Stein. Siqueiros: His Life and Works, 98. 240 “4 meses de experiencia en el camino del arte funcional revolucionario,” , folder 34, box 4, series IV, DAS Papers/GRI. 241 Siqueiros Experimental Workshop, folder 32, box 4, series IV, DAS Papers/GRI. About the artistic and ideological context in which the SEW was created, see Baigell, The American Scene: American Painting o f the 1930's; Platt, Art and Politics in the 1930s; Pells, Radical Visions and American Dreams. 242 Siqueiros, Me llamaban el coronelazo, 298-99. All the members should be "professionals in the plastic arts, or persons who because o f their specific technical knowledge can contribute to its growth— such as painters, sculptors, engravers, photographers, cinematographers, chemists, architects, etc.” Siqueiros Experimental Workshop, folder 32, box 4, series IV, DAS Papers/GRI. 243 Laurance P. Hurlburt, “The Siqueiros Experimental Workshop: New York, 1936,” Art Journal 35, no. 3 (spring 1976): 238. See also Irene Hemer, “Siqueiros/ Pollock: Redes,” 9 obras maestras de David Alfaro Siqueiros: Siqueiros/Pollock, Pollock/Siqueiros, exh. cat. (Mexico City: Galeria Arvil, 1995), n. 21. For details about the influence o f the SEW and Mexican art in New York on the work o f Jackson Pollock, see Katharine Baetjer et al., The Jackson Pollock Sketchbooks in the Metropolitan Museum o f Art, 4 vols. (New York: The Museum, 1997); see also Jurgen Harten, Siqueiros/Pollock, Pollock/Siqueiros, exh. cat. vol. 1 (: Dumont, 1995); Pollock, Orozco, and Siqueiros, exh. cat. (New York: Washburn Gallery, 21 Jan.-28 Feb., 1998).

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

366

The associates of the SEW would spend part of their time discussing and practicing new techniques and materials, and the other part producing “functional art for labor and political organizations.” Their goal was to generate an art modem and figurative in its forms, and revolutionary in its contents.244 Their main experiments involved the use of spray guns, pyroxylin, and automobile lacquer painting, all of which enhanced colors and produced random impressions or patterns.245 According to Axel Horr, Siqueiros had such a great energy and “torrential flow of ideas” that he was able to stimulate everyone in the SEW to try new things all the time. Among other experiments, they would spray lacquer through stencils and friskets, embedded wood, metal, sand, and paper; and they would pour it, drip it, splatter it, hurl it at the picture surface. The outcome used to be “an endless variety of accidental effects” that Siqueiros would name “controlled accidents.”246 Siqueiros soon would become very thrilled about these achievements because in the past years—at his workshops in Los Angeles and in Buenos Aires—he had experienced much more difficulty in applying the industrial tools and materials.247 To advance the SEW’s experiments Siqueiros contacted the DuPont Company to ask for donations of pyroxylin, which they produced under the commercial name of

244 Siqueiros Experimental Workshop, folder 32, box 4, series IV, DAS Papers/GRI. Stein, Siqueiros: His Life and Works, 99; Siqueiros, La Tracala, 25. 245 Stein, Siqueiros: His Life and Works, 98. Bear in mind that Siqueiros had begun using the nitrocellulose pigments in South America, but it was in New York where he really took advantage o f the artistic possibilities o f those materials (e.g., elasticity, transparency, and fast drying). See Hurlburt, '‘The Siqueiros Experimental Workshop,” 242; see also Oles, “Catalogue Raisonnd,” 176. 246 See Axel Horn [formerly Horr], “Jackson Pollock: the Hollow and the Bump,” Carieton Miscellany (summer 1966): 85-86. 247 According to Siqueiros, the results were going beyond his original expectations. Typed and handwritten notes, , folder 35, box 4, series IV, DAS Papers/GRI.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

367

Duco. Siqueiros based such a request on the grounds that the SEW was the first group of artists to substitute industrial pigments for traditional ones: They could be a very good advertisement for this new use o f pyroxylin. Siqueiros underlined to DuPont that there were already fifty other artists ready to start using pyroxylin in the United States, and with the right publicity soon there would be thousands doing the same in Paris and the rest of the world. To Siqueiros’s disappointment, the general manager of the company replied that DuPont did not care about such a small market because it had enough with the sales of paint for cars, planes, and electric objects around the world. Moreover, DuPont opposed the experiments of Siqueiros and other artists with Duco, because they might discover the chemical properties of the product. The manager warned Siqueiros that if they continued their studies, he would order the company’s publicity department to discredit the SEW’s art accomplishments.248 Similarly, when the members of the SEW wanted to know more about the Nitro Valspar Valentine—another brand of industrial paint—they had to befriend the chemical engineer in chief of the factory and get him drunk in an attempt to extract the secrets, but they did not get much out of it either.249 As part of the experimentation with pyroxylin Siqueiros would execute a number of important easel paintings.250Through these Siqueiros was seeking to clarify the problem of “the superimposition of technique, aesthetics and politics,” and most of them

248 Siqueiros, Me llamaban el coronelazo, 314—15. In another account Siqueiros said that the general manager had tried to bribe them to stop their experiments with Duco. The manager would have offered to give them $500 a month for that purpose. Jacobo Zabludovsky, Siqueiros me dijo (Mexico City: Editorial Novaro, 1974), 113-14. 249 Siqueiros, Me llamaban el coronelazo, 312-13. 250 It is worth noting Siqueiros’s ability to carry out both the SEW projects for parades, demonstrations, and unions, and his own personal painting. See Hurlburt, “The Siqueiros Experimental Workshop,” 239,246n.l4.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

368

were focused in depicting “apocalyptic scenes of war and destruction.”251 Two representative works of this production are The Birth o f Fascism (1936, pyroxylin on board; a 2d version would be dated 1939) and Stop the War (1936. pyroxylin on board; also known as No More!). Just as Rivera had done three years before at the RCA mural, in The Birth o f Fascism Siqueiros painted the mutation of capitalism into Fascism. In the picture, the Statue of Liberty is drowning in a rough sea, while a book symbolizing religions and bourgeois morals goes with the flow. At the center of the painting, on a raft, a monster is being bom: It has the heads of Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and William Randolph Hearst. In the background, a firm rock—representing the Soviet Union—offers the only escape from the capitalist wreckage and the Fascist threat on the rise (fig. 5.21). From a technical point of view, Laurance Hurlburt has observed that the “superimposition of poured pigments and lacquers” allowed Siqueiros to create “the dynamic painterly effects of the ‘catastrophic sea' of capitalism.”232 This means that in The Birth o f Fascism Siqueiros would take advantage of the accidental effects of pyroxylin painting. In contrast, in Stop the War Siqueiros would depict “the transformation of the imperialist war into a civil war against the capitalist oppressor.” From the background of the painting the Popular Front masses emerge and advance in search of justice. However, they still have to overcome the threats of the capitalist and Fascist enemies symbolized by a little creature covered with a gas mask and a swastika, a head representing capitalism, and a flashback of World War I. But to help the masses in their quest a lighthouse of

251 Stein. Siqueiros: His Life and Works, 99; Oles, “Catalogue Raisonnd,” 176. 232 Hurlburt “The Siqueiros Experimental Workshop,” 242.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e c o p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er r ep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

369 International Communism illuminates the way to the future (fig. 5.22). In carrying out this painting Siqueiros made use of the spray gun, the stencil, and the brush.253 On the other hand, it is worth noting that both The Birth o f Fascism and Stop the War were displayed at the anti-Fascist exhibition that the American Artists’ Congress presented at the New School for Social Research that 1936.254 During this politically-charged phase of his career Siqueiros would also have the opportunity of painting some works by commission, including a few portraits. Among the major patrons of Siqueiros were composer George Gershwin and his psychoanalyst. Dr. Gregory Zilboorg. In 1936 Siqueiros re-encountered Gershwin, whom he had met in 1930 in Taxco, and who now was at the peak of his fame.255 To celebrate the occasion Gershwin asked Siqueiros for a portrait of himself. Following Gershwin’s instructions, Siqueiros would paint the composer playing the piano in a full theater with little portraits of family and friends scattered among the audience.256 Gershwin also commissioned Siqueiros to paint Self-Portrait (with Mirror) (1937, pyroxylin with wood cutouts attached) and Nina madre (Child Mother; 1936, pyroxylin on masonite). Meanwhile, Gregory Zilboorg would request Siqueiros to paint a reflection about suicide, a subject on which he was conducting studies. That was the origin of Collective Suicide (1936), a

233 Stein. Siqueiros: His Life and Works, 99. 354 Stein, Siqueiros: His Life and Works, 99. For a thorough discussion about the use o f art against Fascism, see Whiting, Antifascism in American Art. Among other works of this kind that Siqueiros produced during this period: Child Mother: City Wall: The End o f the World; Cosmos and Disaster. Echo o f a Scream. See Oles, “Catalogue Raisonnd,” 176-79. 255 Kirstein, “Siqueiros: Painter and Revolutionary,” 27. 256 This time, just as two years before during the presentation o f Eve Myers’s portrait, Siqueiros would be honored with a dinner party at the Waldorf Astoria. Siqueiros, Me llamaban el coronelazo, 299302.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

370

piece executed in pyroxylin on wood with applied panels. The painting portrays the resistance of Chichimec Indians to the Spanish conquest in the late sixteenth century (fig. 5.23).2:>7 According to Siqueiros, the main interest in executing these private commissions was to obtain funds for the political projects of the SEW.258 In relation to political art—or “dialectical realism,” as Siqueiros preferred to call it—the SEW would generate a significant amount of propaganda in the form of posters, banners, and floats for anti-Fascist demonstrations and for the political rallies of the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA).259 According to Harold Lehman, this kind of work “crystallized practically all the outstanding ideas” about which the SEW was organized. At the workshop artists were producing “Art for the People.” and they were using “new painting media, mechanical construction and mechanical movement, polychrome sculpture,” as well as new tools.”260 It is important to emphasize that even if the SEW and the CPUSA developed a very close relationship in art matters, not all the members o f the SEW were

257 For a technical description o f the painting process, see Hurlburt. “The Siqueiros Experimental Workshop,” 242-43,246 n. 27. For a thorough analysis, see Joan Handwerg, “La Conquista como kairos (^o ser£ quiasma?) y el paradigma zilboorgiano primitivista,” in Otras rutas hacia Siqueiros, 147-65. 258 Hurlburt, “The Siqueiros Experimental Workshop,” 239,246 n. 13. For a complete list o f the portraits that Siqueiros painted during this period, see Oles, “Catalogue Raisonnd,” 182. Other sources of income for the SEW may have include tuition and lectures. A tuition o f $ 15 monthly by professional artists who utilized the facilities. $5 by accredited art students, and $5 by all union members. Regarding the lectures, the SEW should receive 50% o f the net proceeds. Siqueiros Experimental Workshop, folder 32, box 4, series IV, DAS Papers/GRI. 259 Stein, Siqueiros: His Life and Works, 99. For a panorama o f art and Communism during the 1920s and 1930s in America, see Virginia Hagelstein Marquardt, “Art on the Left in the United States, 1918—1937,” in Art and Journals on the Political Front, 1910-1940, ed. Virginia Hagelstein Marquardt (Gainesville, Fla.: Univ. Press o f Florida, 1997); idem, “Art on the Political Front in America. From The Liberator to Art Front,” Art Journal 52, no. 1 (spring 1993): 72-81. 260 See Harold Lehman, “For an Artists’ Union Workshop,” Art Front (Oct. 1937): 10-12.

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

371

Communists.261 Neither Harold Lehman, Jackson Pollock, nor Sande McCoy were affiliated with the party; however, they supported its positions in the context of the Popular Front struggle against Fascism.262 On this matter the only demand of the SEW was that all members were deeply interested in working “in the direction of true modem art, which is essentially public art.”263 Among the first public projects of the SEW was the production of a huge polychromed float in motion for the 1936 May Day march. The float built with an armature of chicken-wire and covered with papier-mache represented a rising and falling hammer, marked with the hammer-and-sickle symbol, smashing a Wall Street ticker-tape machine (figs. 5.24-25).264 The composition was derived from a poster of the Farmer Labor Party, and Siqueiros described it as “an essay of polychromed monumental sculpture in motion.”265 The aim of the float was to unveil the association of Fascism and Wall Street and their control over the American political system. Hence, the figure representing Wall Street was marked with a swastika and it held in its hands the

261 About the artistic beliefs o f the CPUSA, see Lawrence H. Schwartz, Marxism and Culture: The CPUSA and Aesthetics in the 1930s, Literary Criticism, National Univ. Publications (Port Washington, N.Y.: Kennikat Press, 1980); with regard to the background o f the CPUSA, see Irving Howe and Lewis A. Coser, The American Communist Party: A Critical History, Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Era o f the New Deal (New York: Da Capo Press, 1974); and concerning the influence o f the CPUSA in the 1930s, see Harvey Klehr, The Heyday o f American Communism: The Depression Decade (New York: Basic Books, 1984). 262 Hurlburt, “The Siqueiros Experimental Workshop,” 246 n. 19; about the participation of American artists in anti-fascist projects, see Whiting, Antifascism in American Art. 263 Siqueiros Experimental Workshop, folder 32, box 4, series IV, DAS Papers/GRI. 264 Siqueiros to Brum , quoted in Hemer, “Siqueiros/ Pollock: Redes,” n. 3 1. About the relation between the CPUSA and the labor movement, see Harvey Klehr et al„ The Soviet World o f American Communism, Annals o f Communism (New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, 1998). 265 See Hurlburt, “The Siqueiros Experimental Workshop,” 239,246 n. 16. It is worth noting that during the mid- and late 1930s it became relatively common the use o f floats at propagandists and political events. Look for some examples in Art Front (Feb. 1937).

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

372

emblems of the Republican and Democratic parties that would contend for the presidency of the United States that fall. In the context of the presidential elections, the SEW also produced works to support the campaign of the CPUS A. Siqueiros was particularly proud about these commisions, because as he confided to Brum the leaders of the party had in high esteem the SEW’s “multi-graphic inventions.”266 In June, at a meeting of the CPUSA in the Madison Square Garden, the SEW presented two huge paintings (about fifteen feet high) o f the party’s candidates for president and vice president of the United States, Earl Browder and James Ford (figs. 5.26-27).267 Siqueiros executed the Ford, and Harold Lehman the Browder. The procedure began by painting the portraits in pyroxylin on masonite (four to five feet high). Then Peter Juley took photos of the panels, and projected the eight by ten prints onto the final panels, which were painted using airbrush and pyroxylin.268 The reason why they employed these mechanical methods was that this kind of commissions had to be executed very rapidly. Thus, from an artistic point of view Siqueiros had no qualms; on the contrary, he would be proud that the works were appreciated by the public. Siqueiros recalled that when the portraits were unfolded in front of twenty-five thousand people gathered at the Madison Square Garden, the crowd roared with incredible enthusiasm. In Siqueiros’s view that was the greatest homage for

266 Siqueiros to Brum , quoted in Hemer, '‘Siqueiros/ Pollock: Redes,” n.31. 267 Stein, Siqueiros: His Life and Works, 100. Bear in mind that Browder had direct relations with the Mexican Communist Party because he was the Communist International representative for the United States, Mexico, and Central America. About the role o f Browder within the CPUSA in the 1930s, see Harvey Klehr et al.. The Secret World o f American Communism, Annals o f Communism (New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, 1995). 268 Hurlburt ‘‘The Siqueiros Experimental Workshop,” 240.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

373

an artist and it proved that the SEW was producing an art connected to the people’s problems.269 Thereafter the American League Against War and Fascism commissioned the SEW to create a float for the demonstrations of the so-called “Anti-Hearst Day” on 4 July 1936.270 The resulting work was made up of figures of William Randolph Hearst and Adolf Hitler (fourteen feet high by thirty feet long) seated back-to-back. Since the heads of the figures revolved, it created the illusion that Hearst and Hitler were exchanging one for each other or. more exactly, that they were the very same person.271 Siqueiros and Arenal decided to mount the enormous float on a boat to display it in front o f the crowded beaches of Coney Island. And to stress the sense of drama, the sides of the boat were covered with red handprints that symbolized the suffering of the victims of Fascism. However, due to the intervention of police the plan was aborted.272 This kind of setbacks did not dishearten Siqueiros who was already certain of having invented new techniques to address the masses’ concerns. In addition, Siqueiros was satisfied by the fact that in

269 Siqueiros, La Tracala, 24. Another good example o f political painting in the context o f the 1936 presidential campaign is Communism Is Twentieth Century Americanism (1936, pyroxylin on canvas). 270 About the confrontation between the CPUSA and Hearst, see Nancy Hyman, Public Enemy no. I: William Randolph Hearst (New York: District 2, Communist Party, 1935); and William F. Dunne, Why Hearst Lies about Communism: Three Open Letters to William Randolph Hearst (New York: Workers Library Publishers, 1935). Regarding Hearts views on Communism, see William Randolph Hearst on Government by the Proletariat. rpt. from the Editorial Columns o f the New York American and other Hearst Newspapers (N.p. ). 271 Hurlburt, “The Siqueiros Experimental Workshop,” 239-40. 272 rbid. Stein, Siqueiros: His Life and Works, 100. Siqueiros to Brum , quoted in Hemer, “Siqueiros/ Pollock: Redes,” n.31.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

374

New York everyone was aware that Mexican painters had started a movement that already had spread in South and North America, and soon would reach Europe.That summer of 1936 a thrilled Siqueiros wrote to Blanca Luz Brum that:

The Yankee artists, who during a period [had] reacted violently against me as a result of my controversy with Rivera, are beginning to understand clearly that my asseverations and experimental practices are opening the door to a second period or grade [level] o f agitational or propaganda art, initiated (in an idealized manner) by us in Mexico.274

In effect for Siqueiros the SEW represented an advanced phase in the development of Mexican muralism. As he had announced in 1934. in “Towards the Transformation of Plastic Arts”: “the adoption of modem industrial technology would supplant the ■primitivism’ of earlier mural efforts,” such as the fresco technique of Diego Rivera and his followers.275 In spite of all those enticing activities, tensions in the international scene would catch Siqueiros’s attention. As a result, by the end of 1936 he wanted to do something more effective to combat Fascism. More exactly, he would feel obliged to leave for Spain to fight with the Republican army against Francisco Franco.276 During a visit to New York. Spanish poets Rafael Alberti and Maria Teresa de Leon invited Siqueiros to found an Experimental Workshop in Spain to produce propaganda for the Republican cause.277

273 Siqueiros, La Tracala, 24. 274 Siqueiros to Brum, quoted in Hurlburt, “The Siqueiros Experimental Workshop,” 242. 275 Hurlburt, “The Siqueiros Experimental Workshop,” 242. 276 Arenal, Paginas sueltas con Siqueiros, 111-12. About the participation o f American artists and intellectuals in the Spanish Civil War, see Klehr et al.. The Secret World o f American Communism.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n e r. F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

375

Thus, regardless of the ongoing projects in New York, by November 1936 Siqueiros had decided to leave for Spain because, as he confided to his LEAR colleagues in Mexico, it was urgent to support full time the causes of Revolutionary Spain.278 Among his last activities in New York, in late December Siqueiros lectured at the opening of the Exhibition o f Mexican Art in the ACA Galleries, and by January 1937 he finally left for Spain. Once in Madrid he was sent to the Extremadura front where he would serve as Lieutenant Colonel in the Republican army.279 It is worth noting that aside from his resposibilities in the front, Siqueiros managed to be present in the local artistic scene. From time to time he lectured about modem muralism. and he would call Spanish artists to begin using industrial pigments and the spray-gun in the execution of public paintings. The Mexican writers and the LEAR members who were attending the Second International Congress of Writers in Defense of Culture in Spain in 1937 noticed how influential Siqueiros had become.280 Meanwhile, the SEW remained active in New York, but without Siqueiros’s energy and leadership it was impossible to keep it integrated for long. After Siqueiros’s departure the workshop only produced three major works: a Fifteen Foot Cut-Out Figure for a Loyalist Spain Rally (Jan. 1937); some Mecca-Temple Curtain Decorations for an

277 Siqueiros, La Tracala, 25-26. 278 Siqueiros to Leopoldo Mdndez, Pabio O ’Higgins, Alfredo Zalce y demds compafleros de la LEAR, New York, 17 Nov. 1936, folder 40, box 4, series IV, DAS Papers/GRI. 279 Among other special commissions, in November Siqueiros was ordered to go to Mexico City to seek for support from the Cardenas administarion. Debroise, “Biographical Sketch,” 218; Kirstein, “Siqueiros: Painter and Revolutionary,” 34. 280 See Elena Garro, Memorias de Espafia 1937 (Mexico City: Siglo Veintiuno Editores, 1992), 38,67. Among the Mexican participants in the Second Congress were: Octavio Paz, Elena Garro, Fernando Gamboa. Juan de la Cabada, Carlos Pellicer, Silvestre Revueltas, Josd Chdvez Morado, and Josd Mancisidor. For more details see Quintanilla, Liga de Escritoresy Artistas Revolucionarios (LEAR), 39.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

376

Anti-Nazi Meeting (Apr. 1937); a May Day Float (1937); and it is also reported the making of a Three-Dimensional Mural for a Pro-Czechoslovakia Rally at Madison Square Garden in the fall of 1938.281 Seemingly, in the late 1930s the most important impact of the SEW was its influence on the development of a new kind o f muralism in New York. Following the example set by the SEW. the WPA artists would also experiment with new materials and techniques, more exactly, they would apply “‘industrial instruments and materials to artistic ends.” In an article for the New York Times, Anita Brenner attributed this evolvement to Siqueiros and the SEW. Brenner pointed out that they had been pioneers is using air-brushes and enamel painting (pyroxylin), and had discovered “a great variety of potential sources for a new art.” Following that example, American painters and sculptors now were working in collaboration with chemists, in an attempt to find the best techniques and materials for specific uses, such as subway decoration. So far. they had experimented wdth “silicon ester” painting, and their most successful product was “porcelain enamel.”282 Meanwhile, Siqueiros continued in Spain until mid-1938, time when the Republicans were losing the war. He moved to Paris and then traveled to Belgium, Holland and Italy, and in February 1939 he finally returned to Mexico.28j By this time

281 The complete list o f public works that the SEW carried out since its foundation include: May Day Float (1936); Boat Float for American League Against War and Fascism Anti-Hearst Day (1936); Two Anti-War Floats for the League (Aug. 1936); Fifteen Foot Cut-Out Figure for Loyalist Spain Rally (Jan. 1937); Mecca-Temple Curtain Decorations for Anti-Nazi Meeting (Apr. 1937); May Day Float (1937); and miscellaneous posters, cut-outs, illustrations. Artists Union Workshop [Project], , folder 39, box 4. series IV, DAS Papers/GRI. Hurlburt also mentions the production o f a Three-Dimensional Mural for a Pro-Czechoslovakia Rally at Madison Square Garden in the fall of 1938. Hurlburt, “The Siqueiros Experimental Workshop,” 245-46. 282 See Anita Brenner, “America Creates American Murals.” AIT, 10 Apr. 1938 283 Debroise, “Biographical Sketch,” 218.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

377

Siqueiros had formed a new team of painters that moved with him to Mexico. The same year of their arrival, Siqueiros and this team would paint Portrait o f the Bourgeoisie, a mural at the headquarters of the Mexican Electricians Union in Mexico City, which, in the opinion of many critics, was a magnificent synthesis of the Siqueiros experimental quest during the 1930s.284 During that time Siqueiros would also retake both his personal art career and his political activities in Mexico. The most important career accomplishment was his one-man show at the Pierre Matisse Gallery in January 1940. With the support o f Ines Amor (owner of the Galena de Arte Mexicano), and American collector and emerging critic, MacKinley Helm, Siqueiros managed to exhibit seventeen Duco paintings at the prestigious New York gallery. Among the works presented were: Ethnography; The Sob; Sleep; The Shell; Self-Portrait; The Giants; Maguey; and Electric Forest}** It is important to note that none of these works was political, except perhaps Ethnography, which criticized the use of archeology and folklore to mask the misery of contemporary Mexican Indians. The other paintings were, at most, allegorical, however, some critics tried to find political allusions either to the fall of the Spanish Republic, to the rise of Fascism, or the beginning of World War II. Whereas, in the political field, Siqueiros’s most resonating activity was his attempt to assassinate Leon Trotsky in May •

1940, an action that would cost him months of persecution throughout Mexico.

286

284 See Hurlburt Mexican Muralists, 232-45. For a personal recount see Josd Renau, “Mi experiencia con Siqueiros,” Revista de Bellas Artes (Mexico City) (Jan.-Feb. 1976): 3-25. 285 For the complete list o f works exhibited, see Oles, “Catalogue Raisonn6,” 220. 286 See Debroise, “Biographical Sketch,” 218. See also Francisco Reyes Palma, “Cuando Coyoac&n tendib su sombra sobre Paris. El caso Siqueiros,” in Otras rutas hacia Siqueiros, 45-62.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

378

In contrast to Siqueiros’s activities in New York, Rufino Tamayo’s may appear too conservative, even if he was one of the earliest opponents of the Mexicanist cliches and would become “the leader of the anti-Rivera forces” in the 1930s.287 As we saw in chapter 2, in September 1926 twenty-six-year-old Tamayo traveled for the first time to New York, in the company of composer Carlos Chavez.288 Once in New York, Tamayo and Chavez shared a loft on Fourteenth Street, where they frequently received the visits from Miguel Covarrubias, Octavio Barreda, and other Mexican artists in New York. On the other hand, among Tamayo’s neighbors were other striving modernists, like Stuart Davis. Reginald Marsh, Yasuo Kuniyoshi, and Marcel Duchamp. As a result of these contacts. Tamayo began conceiving a sort of universal Mexican art. not restricted to local themes and sources.289 This group of cosmopolitan painters seemed to have broaden Tamayo’s view of the role and possibilities of an artist in modem times; their influence, therefore, was not stylistic but philosophical. Tamayo had started to search a modernist path in Mexico since the early 1920s. At the ENBA he received lessons from Roberto Montenegro who had just returned to 287 McKinley Helm. Modern Mexican Painters (New York: Harper & Bros., 1941), 137. Bear in mind that in the 1920s Tamayo used to admire Rivera’s work and they even had a friendly relationship. Thus when Rivera was named director o f the ENBA he invited Tamayo to be instructor. During that period Tamayo defended Rivera both from the attacks o f intellectuals and political activists who accused Rivera of being a traitor o f the Communist cause, as well as from students and artists at the ENBA who did not approve o f his academic program. Dr. Renato Gonzilez Mello has pointed out to me that at some point Tamayo literally fought for Rivera against Communist writer Alejandro Gdmez Arias. For an excellent analysis o f Tamayo’s work vis-i-vis Rivera’s, Orozco’s and Siqueiros’s, see Octavio Paz, "Tamayo en la pintura mexicana,” in Rufino Tamayo: Pinturas, exh. cat. (Madrid: Centro de Arte Reina Sofia, 1988), 4855. Originally published in Las peras del olmo (Mexico City: Imprenta universitaria, 1957), 244-64. And for an assessment o f Tamayo’s place within Mexican art history and international modernism, see Octavio Paz, "An Art o f Transfigurations,” in Rufino Tamayo, Myth and Magic, exh. cat. (New York: Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, 1979), 9-23. 288 Victor Alba, Coloquios de Coyoacan con Rufino Tamayo, Coleccidn "Panoramas,” no. 4 (Mexico City: B. Costa-Amic, 1956), 19. 289 Emily Genauer, Rufino Tamayo (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1974), 36-37.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

379 Mexico after several years of living and painting in Europe. Equally, Tamayo assimilated some Impressionist lessons and an appreciation for personal expression from Alfredo Ramos-Martinez who also had a significant international experience.290 Thus when Tamayo encountered French modem painting in New York galleries and museums, that would only strengthen his opinion about the "‘universal qualities” that Mexican art should adopt.291 The pro-Mexico group in New York would immediately misconstrue these ideas and interests of Tamayo, and accused him of being anti-nationalist. As a result, the Mexican Ministry of Public Education admonished Tamayo for conducting anti-Mexico publicity abroad. Tamayo replied that he had never been against Mexico and the best proof was in his work—Tamayo would bitterly resent Jose Juan Tablada and his circle for having created the false rumors.

292

Although Tamayo had no money and barely spoke English, during the time that he stayed in New York he managed to display his work. Octavio Barreda introduced him to Pierre Matisse—son of Henri Matisse—who worked at the Valentine Gallery, but at that time he was not yet interested in Tamayo’s kind of painting.293 Then Tamayo looked for Walter Pach, whom he had met in Mexico, and Pach took him to talk with Carl Zigrosser of the Weyhe Gallery. Zigrosser would invite Tamayo to hold a one-man show

290 See Raquel Tibol, “Tamayo y su vuelo del reflejo al suefio,” in Rufino Tamayo: Del reflejo al suefio, 1920-1950, exh. cat. (Mexico City: Fundacidn Cultural Televisa, Centro Cultural Arte Contemporiineo, 1995), 9-10. 291 Helm, Modern Mexican Painters, 137. 292 Tamayo to Josd Gorostiza, 6 May . In Josd Gorostiza. Epistolario (1918—1940), ed. Guillermo Sheridan, Memorias Mexicanas (Mexico City: CNCA, 1995), 129. 293 Margarita Nelken, “Ensayo de exegesis de Rufino Tamayo,” Cuadernos Americanos (Mexico City) 84, no. 6 (Nov.-Dee. 1955): 241.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

380 at the gallery in October 1926 (figs. 5.28-31).294 The show consisted of thirty-nine works and was well received by the critics, however only twelve works were sold—hence Zigrosser proposed that Tamayo make some woodcuts, which would sell much better.295 A few months later Tamayo would meet Frances Flynn Paine, who invited him to exhibit a selection of watercolors, oils, drawings, and woodcuts at the gallery space she had in the Art Center. The exhibition was presented in November 1927, and it comprised thirty-five watercolors, nine oils, three drawings, and five xilographies.296 With the help of Covarrubias Tamayo would persuade Frank Crowninshield to write the presentation for the catalogue of the exhibition.297 The Vanity Fair editor wrote that Tamayo’s work was original because it seemed to be free from both academic and modernist influences. Crowninshield contended that Tamayo’s art was Indian and essentially primitive, and in that sense it was similar to Chinese, Italian, and French primitives. Thus he predicted that such a esprit de race, along with the beauty, personality, tragedy, and strength of his art, would make Tamayo succeed in the United States.298 Crowninshield’s observations were somewhat inaccurate because Tamayo was a mestizo with some Zapotec descent, and the

294 Rita Eder. “Tamayo en Nueva York,” in Rufino Tamayo: 70 Anos de Creadon, ed. Raquei Tibol (Mexico City: INBA, Museo de Arte Contempordneo Intemacional Rufino Tamayo, 1987). 56. 295 Genauer. Rufino Tamayo, 37. For a Mexican review, see Makedonio Garza, “Los mexicanos en Nueva York. Rufino Tamayo,” Revista de Revistas (Mexico City) (13 Feb. 1927): 7. 296 See “Work of a Brilliant Young Mexican Artist Shown at the Art Center, Eagle (Brooklyn), 20 Nov. 1927. 297 Walter Pach had been originally invited to write the presentation; but Tamayo and Paine were aware that, from a commercial point o f view, Crowninshield was a better option. In Tamayo’s words, Crowninshield was the “key that opened all doors” in New York. Tamayo to Josd Gorostiza, 26 Dec. . In Gorostiza, Epistolario (1918-1940), 167. For a profile about Crowninshield, see Geoffrey Heilman, “That Was New York: Crowninshield,” New Yorker, 14 Feb. 1948, 80-81, and the obituary “F. Crowninshield Is Dead Here at 75,” NYT, 29 Dec. 1947 298 See Frank Crowninshield, “Tamayo,” Ulises (Mexico City) vol. 1, no. 6 (Feb. 1928): 37.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

381

primitivism of his art was the result of self-training.299 In the early 1920s, after having studied a couple of years at the ENBA, Tamayo was hired as chief of the drawing department at the Museo Nacional de Arqueologia, Historia y Etnografia (National Museum of Archaeology, History and Ethnography). His job at the National Museum Tamayo was to create designs based on Pre-Columbian pieces to enrich the repertoire of the Mexican craftsmen.300 Tamayo recounted that he discovered the beauty and proportion of Pre-Columbian art, and he had to force his hand to forget what it had learned at the ENBA. Thus, the primitivism that his works would reflect years later in New York was the result of those early exercises/01 In addition, prior to his visit to New York Tamayo had already practiced the avant-garde grammar and subjects in works that integrated Cubist and Futurist elements, that was the case o f Avion (Airplane; 1925, oil on canvas), Fonografo (Phonograph; 1925, oil on canvas), Relojy telefono (Clock and Telephone; 1925, oil on canvas). Paine would also hire Tamayo to create the designs for a Mexicanist ballet that Carlos Chavez composed. The piece was never staged, but the project provided Tamayo an income of $500. Equally, Paine would get Tamayo a commission to execute modem Mexican designs for a textile company.302 But in spite of these sporadic incentives,

299 As Dr. Teresa del Conde points out, although Tamayo did not even speak Zapotec, he spread the legend that he was a “pure Indio o f the Zapotec race.” See Teresa del Conde, “The Words o f Others,” in Tamayo, ed. Teresa del Conde; trans. Andrew Long and Luisa Panichi, A Buifinch Press Book (Boston; Little, Brown, 2000), 89. About the mestizo origins o f Tamayo, see Ingrid Suckaer, “Biographical Nuances,” in ibid, 173-74. j0° See Tibol, “Tamayo y su vuelo del reflejo al suefio,” 10-11. 301 Helm would also note that many o f Tamayo’s designs were based on the shapes and forms of archeological treasures o f the National Museum. Helm, Modern Mexican Painters, 137. 302 Genauer, Rufino Tamayo, 38.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

382 Tamayo, like most of the Mexican artists in the 1920s could not settle in New York due to the lack of sufficient support; thus in 1928 he would return to Mexico/03 At any rate, that first contact with New York allowed Tamayo to realize that there were many other paths to follow aside from the Mexican Art Renaissance/04 In sum. after two years in New York Tamayo had met some of the leading American modernists and increased his knowledge of European modem art—being particularly impressed by Henri Matisse’s exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum in 1928. As a result of those experiences Tamayo would abandon “the hieratic representation of indigenous figures” characteristic of his mid-1920s watercolors/05 Mostly inspired in Giorgio de Chirico’s metaphysical painting, whose work he had also discovered in New York. Tamayo would begin painting his own metaphysical compositions, e.g ., Bodegdn (1928), Los caracoles (1929), Mandolinas y pihas (1930), Naturaleza muerta con desnudo y guitarra (1931)/06 Olivier Debroise argues that Tamayo chose to paint this kind of interior scenes and still lifes as a response to the “epic content” of muralism.307 As soon as 1929 the effects of Tamayo’s new ideas were noted by some Mexican critics. In an exhibition in the new Galeria de Arte Modemo in Mexico City, a reviewer would

303 Robert J. Goldwater. Rufino Tamayo (New York: Quadrangle Press. 1947), 18-19. 304 At that time Tamayo confided Gorostiza that his final “goal” was Paris. There he would be happy in spite o f poverty or any other obstacles. The truth is, as we will see ahead, that Tamayo kept coming to New York throughout the 1930s. Conversely, his first visit to Europe would be until 1949, and his first exhibition in Paris would take place in 1950. Tamayo to Josd Gorostiza, 1 Mar. . In Gorostiza. Epistolario (1918-1940), 122. j0S Olivier Debroise, “The Shared Studio,” in The True Poetry: The Art o f Maria Izquierdo, ed. Elizabeth Ferrer, exh. cat. (New York: Americas Society Art Gallery, 1997), 55. 306 Tibol, “Tamayo y su vuelo del reflejo al suefio,” 18-21. 307 Debroise, “The Shared Studio,” 56.

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

383

recognize that Tamayo was developing a “broad and universal Mexicanism”.308 However, all the evolution and hard work did not allow Tamayo to return to New York to complete his international experience. That 1929 he had to reject an invitation from the Weyhe Gallery to exhibit, because he had to work as instructor at the ENBA/09 Tamayo’s situation was so difficult that he had not even been able to pay back a loan that the gallery had made him.310 Only at the end of 1930 did Tamayo return to New York, but it was as companion of Maria Izquierdo, who was presenting her first exhibition in New York at Frances Flynn Paine’s gallery in the Art Center.311 It was until the spring of 1931 that Tamayo had the opportunity to exhibit again in New York, this time within the Mexican Month program that Paine and the Mexican Arts Association arranged at the John Levy Gallery (see chap. 4 ) / 12 Tamayo was scheduled to exhibit together with Joaquin Clausell in April-May 1931.313 He exhibited seventeen works and, once again, Frank Crowninshield—by now vice president of MoMA—wrote

j08 “Mexicanismo amplio y universal,” quoted in Helm, Modern Mexican Painters. 138. 309 Between 1929 and 1933 Tamayo— as many other Mexican artists— had to make a living working for the government. Between 1929 and 1930 he taught at the ENBA; in 1931 he represented the painters on a four-man Council for the Fine Arts in the Ministry o f Public Education; and in 1932, for a brief period, Chief o f the Department o f Plastic Arts in that same Ministry. Goldwater, Rufino Tamayo. 19. 310 Tamayo to Zigrosser, 1929, folder 1689, CZ Papers/ARBML/UP. 311 See William Spratling, “Notes from Mexico,” New York Herald Tribune, 7 Dec. 1930. 312 See “[Rufino Tamayo] Exhibition, John Levy Galleries,” Art News 29 (2 May 1931): 10; Rufino Tamayo, “Arrangement With Clock (reproduction),” Art Digest 5 (1 May 1931): 11; “[Rufino Tamayo] Exhibition, John Levy Galleries,” Creative Art 8 (June 1931): 450; Rufino Tamayo, “Women (reproduction),” ibid., 464; “[Rufino Tamayo] Exhibition, John Levy Galleries,” International Studio 99 (June 1931): 66. J'3 Judith Alanis and Sofia Urrutia, Rufino Tamayo: Una cronologia. 1899-1987 (Mexico City: INBA, Museo de Arte Contempordneo Intemacional Rufino Tamayo, 1987), 23-24.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

384

the notes for the catalogue.314 Crowninshield remarked that although Tamayo was still young (he was thirty years old), he was already one of the most important figures in contemporary Mexican art. As in 1927, Crowninshield portrayed Tamayo as an Indian from Oaxaca whose works were “plastic creations, springing from the necessities of the mind, and spirit.”315 Whereas the press reviews would emphasize the color, the absence of anecdotes, the harmony and the dreaming quality of the tropical fruits and clocks in his still lifes (fig. 5.32).316 Edward Alden Jewell of the New York Times found the work of Tamayo very “Mexican,” as opposed to the Europeanlike work of Clausell. In front of Tamayo’s paintings Jewell felt “at home” with a style that was both Mexican and modem at the same time. In Jewell’s opinion, Tamayo had accomplished to integrate his PreColumbian heritage with the Parisian avant-garde language. In sum, Tamayo was a Mexican painter whose “sense of nationality” had not become “a fetish.” Even more, Tamayo dared to be playful and “exuberantly personal,” as many of the autobiographical elements of his still lifes proved/17 Although the exhibition was well received, economic conditions were so bad due to the Great Depression that Tamayo soon ran out of money.318 In financial terms this second stay would be worse than the first one, Tamayo recalled that some days he “did

,u Among the canvases exhibited were: Reclining Woman; Woman Leaning; Kneeling Woman; Arrangement with Clock; Arrangement with Seashells; and Guitars. 315 Rufino Tamayo, John Levy Galleries, by arrangement o f Frances Flynn Paine, 27 Apr.-16 May . AEC TAMA 1931, Latin American Artists, exh. cat., MoMA Library. 316 See “Mexican Exhibit,” New York Evening Post, 2 May 1931. 3,7 Edward Alden Jewell. “More Mexican Canvases,” NYT, 28 Apr. 1931; idem, “Panorama of Current Week o f Art in New York,” NYT, 3 May 1931. 318 Except for an artist like Rivera or Covarrubias, who had commissions and income assured, 1931 was a bad year to be in New York attempting to start an art career.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e c o p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er r ep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

385

not have anything to eat,” and when he had “it was too little.”319 Equally, at some point he had no money to pay the rent, and eventually he had to borrow money “from different sources.” to pay for his return to Mexico.320 Thus, the great irony is that even though Tamayo, like Jean Chariot had been included in the Mexican Month program, he was neither making any money nor ensuring a career in the New York scene. For that reason back in Mexico Tamayo had to get a bureaucratic post in the Ministry of Public Education to make a living/21 The possibility for his return to New York would diminish in 1933 when he broke off relations with Carl Zigrosser for having mismanaged the sales of his works at the Weyhe Gallery. For years Tamayo had been selling his watercolors, drawings, and graphic works through Weyhe/22 But this time he was so indignant that he requested that Zigrosser return all his works as soon as possible/23 Therefore Tamayo would have to wait a few more years for a new opportunity to go back to New York. The opportunity would come in early 1936 when the National Assembly of Plastic Art Producers commissioned Tamayo to attend the First American Artists’ Congress. Tamayo, who was working as art instructor in the Ministry of Public Education, asked for a leave of absence and received $35 from the Ministry to pay for his transportation to

3,9 Quoted in Ingrid Suckaer, Rufino Tamayo: Aproximaciones, Col. El Horcdn (Mexico City: Editorial Praxis, 2000), 132. 320 Ibid., 132-33. 321 In this regard, Tamayo would be helped by his friend Carlos Chdvez who was well connected within the Abelardo Rodriguez administration. Goldwater, Rufino Tamayo, 19. 322 The average price o f one o f Tamayo’s watercolors at Weyhe was $75. “List o f watercolors by Rufino Tamayo,” 8 Feb. 1928, E. Weyhe, Prints and Books on the Fine Arts, folder 1689, CZ Papers/ARBML/UP. j23 Tamayo to Zigrosser, 31 July 1933, folder 1689, CZ Papers/ARBML/UP. In that regard. Tamayo was not alone; other artists also had problems with Zigrosser’s accounting. Suckaer, Rufino Tamayo, 131; Williams, “The Weyhe Gallery Between the Wars,” 112 n. 52.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

386

New York.324 Although Tamayo did not read any paper during the sessions of the congress, he would talk about the state of modem Mexican painting at the dinner offered by the Mutualista Obrera Mexicana to the Mexican delegates to the congress/25 Like Siqueiros, Tamayo would also stay in the aftermath of the congress, in a new attempt to settle and launch his career in New York. He would present his recent painting, which had become very much what Crowninshield had seen ten years earlier: Something beautiful, primitive, strong, and captivating. By this time, however, Tamayo had also integrated an modernist grammar that he had learned from his disciplined study of the avant-garde. Thus as to prevent the criticisms o f the Mexicanists and to satisfy the expectations of the American audience, Tamayo would argue that given his Indian origins the spirit of his race would always be inevitably reflected into his painting/26 On the other hand, it is important to note that Tamayo, who used to be very critical of the opportunism of some Mexicanist painters, would be equally opportunistic at this time that he needed a both a Mexican salary and a legal identity to establish himself in New York. That explains why in 1936 Tamayo, who liked to declared himself away from politics (especially from leftist politics) arrived in New York with the support of the nationalist and socialist government o f President Lazaro Cardenas. It also explains why in 1937 he accepted to be appointed as influence Mexico’s representative o f art and culture in New York. This may have been an honorary post, but it provided him with a

j24 Suckaer. Rufino Tamayo, 160-61. 325 Alanfs and Urrutia, Rufino Tamayo: Una cronologia, 30. 326 See Alba. Coloquios de Coyoacdn, 31.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

387

legal status and special influence.327 It is true—as Ingrid Suckaer observes—that as an alien Tamayo had to justify his presence in the United States to the immigration authorities, however, it is also true that Tamayo wanted to be backed by Mexico’s federal agencies, and it is equally true that the way in which he obtained that support was through friends and pulls, in short, the very same conduct that he abhorred in others/28 Tamayo’s ambiguous realtions with the Mexican government extended to other areas. In the following years he would ask for several administrative favors, sold his work to official collections (a form of official subsidy), and asked for solo exhibitions at official museums and galleries/29 But even though Tamayo cultivated and took advantage of his official contacts, he still had to find a way of making a living. In this regard Tamayo would also prove to be pragmatic and determined. One of his first jobs that he had was at the Federal Art Project (FAP) of the Works Progress Administration (WPA). He came in contact with the program through George Biddle, whom he had met at the Weyhe Gallery in the late 1920s. As a result, Tamayo would work in the New York City section of the FAP/WPA between the spring of 1936 and the summer of 1937. During the time that Tamayo participated in the FAP/WPA, he made a monthly salary of $95.44 in exchange for a

327 See Suckaer. Rufino Tamayo, 160-70 passim. 328 For more details about the immigration requirements that Tamayo had to fulfill, see Suckaer, “Biographical Nuances,” 195-97; see also TiboL, “Rufino Tamayo— Cronologfa,” in Rufino Tamayo: Del reflejo al suefio, 52. 329 Even though part o f Tamayo’s legend was that he—as opposed to Rivera and others—did not live, or want to live, from official commissions, he would actually take commissions from the Mexican government during the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. In 1938, for example, he returned to Mexico City to paint a mural called Revolucidn at the Museum o f Archeology; the sponsor o f the work was no other than the Ministry o f Public Education. See Suckaer, “Biographical Nuances,” 196.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

388

certain number of works. And he would also work on a proposal for the execution of a mural at the Kings County Hospital in Brooklyn. Tamayo would have to leave the FAP/WPA when the U.S. Congress rejected the participation of foreign artists in a program that had been conceived to relieve American artists during the Great Depression/30 By that time, however, Tamayo was in the process of reinserting himself into the circuit of the New York art galleries. In 1937, after six years of not having a solo exhibition in New York, Tamayo would begin to have a series of annual one-man shows at the Julien Levy Gallery/jI Tamayo had met Julien Levy at the Weyhe Gallery in the late 1920s. where Levy worked as assistant to Carl Zigrosser. In 1931 Levy opened his own gallery and offered to present Tamayo’s work, but nothing came out of i t/ 32 It was not until 1936 that Tamayo took Levy’s offer, and in January 1937 he presented an exhibition of more than thirty-one works/33 The press reviews were positive, but some critics found too many similarities between Tamayo’s work and that of Paul Klee’s and Marc Chagall’s. Whereas other critics came to believe that Tamayo was a sort of Surrealist, because the Julien Levy Gallery was becoming a place specialized in Surrealism, and Tamayo was exhibiting right after Salvador Dali’s first and spectacular exhibition in America/'’4 By this time

330 Alanfs and Urrutia, Rufino Tamayo: Una cronologia, 30; Ramon Favela, “Los Murales de Rufino Tamayo en los Estados Unidos,” in Rufino Tamayo: 70 Ahos de Creadon. 331 Goldwater, Rufino Tamayo, 20. j32 See Julien Levy, Memoir o f an Art Gallery (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1977). 333 Julien Levy Gallery, Rufino Tamayo: Paintings, Drawings, Gouaches, exh. cat.. Presentation by Luis Cardoza y Aragdn (New York: Julien Levy Galley, 12-30 Jan. 1937), AEC TAMA 1937. Latin American Artists, Mexico, MoMA Library. 334 Genauer, Rufino Tamayo, 42. Levy, Memoir o f an Art Gallery.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

389 Tamayo’s luck seemed to be changing for the better. After ten years of struggling to succeed in the New York scene. Tamayo was finally getting everything altogether. In 1938 Tamayo received an invitation to teach painting at the Dalton School, an interactive and sort of experimental private institution that had been founded in the 1920s.335 Tamayo would accept the offer because he was aware that having a regular income would help him be more independent of the irregular conditions o f the New York at scene in the 1930s. In the fall of 1938 he took the position as instructor in art, working from eight to twelve in the morning, and having the rest of the time free to paint—this job would help Tamayo to stay in New York from 1938 to 1947/36 Thus, after 1938 Tamayo would live in New York during the art season and go back to Mexico in the summers. In other words, he spent about eight months in New York and the other third of the year in his home country. In Mexico he was supposed to renew his painting through contact with “the shapes, the colors, the atmosphere, [and] the psychology of the native scene.”jj7 This means that during the decade that Tamayo lived in New York, he was neither far nor disconnected from the Mexican scene.338 In some sense Tamayo would become a sort of bridge between the Mexican and the New York modem scenes.339

335 Carlos Ddvila—a former president o f Chile— and friend o f Tamayo, was the person who invited him to teach at Dalton where two o f his children were studying and where he was a trustee 336 Among Tamayo’s students at Dalton were Helen Frankenthaler, who became a leading Abstract Expressionist painter in the 1950s, and Linda Nochlin, the renown art historian. Genauer. Rufino Tamayo, 42; Suckaer, Rufino Tamayo, 170-71; and Textos de Rufino Tamayo, comp. Raquel Tibol, Textos de Humanidades (Mexico City: Univ. Nacional Autdnoma de Mdxico, 1987), 90. j37 Goldwater. Rufino Tamayo, 20. 338 As Dr. del Conde observes, Tamayo had to go to Mexico not only for creative reasons, but also because it was an immigration law requirement. See del Conde, “The Words o f Others,” 104.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er r ep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

390

Another reason for Tamayo’s stabilization that 1938 was that he signed a contract of exclusivity with Ines Amor’s Galena de Arte Mexicano (Gallery of Mexican Art) in Mexico City. In the mid-1930s, Amor was a pioneer, along with Maria Asunsolo, in the creation o f a market for modem Mexican art both in Mexico and the United States. In the late 1930s Amor would also begin to advise influential private and institutional collectors, among which were Nelson A. Rockefeller and MoMA.340 Tamayo’s contract with the Galena de Arte Mexicano stipulated that in exchange for a monthly allowance of $300, Tamayo was obliged to deliver a certain number and kind of paintings by the end of the one-year deal. In case that Tamayo produced more works than the number specified in the contract, the gallery would have the option of buying them/41 Through this innovative method some modem Mexican artists started freeing themselves from the official commissions that had made them dependent on the post-revolutionary state for almost fifteen years.342 To those who, like Tamayo, were looking for international

339 In the summer o f 1939. for instance. Tamayo was instrumental in presenting the exhibition o f Contemporary French Painting at the National Palace o f Fine Arts in Mexico City. The show— sponsored by the Pierre Matisse Gallery and the Ministry o f Public Education— included works by de Chirico, Derain. Dufy, Laurencin, Leger, Matisse, Mir6, Pascin, Picasso, and Roualt. See Suckaer, Rufino Tamayo, 182. 340 See Jorge Alberto Manrique and Teresa del Conde, eds., Una mujer en el arte mexicano: Memorias de Ines Amor, Cuademos de Historia del Arte, no. 32 (Mexico City: UNAM-IIE, 1987). About the origins and development o f the gallery, see Delmari Romero Keith, Historia y testimonios: Galeria de Arte Mexicano (Mexico City: Ediciones Galerfa de Arte Mexicano, 1985). 341 Tamayo usually was to give the Galerfa de Arte Mexicano: 20 large watercolors, 20 small watercolors, and 5 oils. In6s Amor to Rufino Tamayo, 15 June 1939, CDMRT, quoted in Suckaer, Rufino Tamayo, 173. 342 As we have seen some artists— like Tamayo himself—did not want to break off completely from the benefits o f the government patronage. Consequently, they would alternate the new forms of support that the market offered them and the protection from the state.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

391 projection, the security of a monthly allowance for one year—with option of renewal— was a sound basis to try their way abroad/43 In 1938 the Valentine Gallery would also become interested in showing Tamayo's work. That year the Valentine Gallery presented an exhibition entitled 15 Contemporary Mexican Painters, which included works by Rivera, Orozco, Siqueiros, Miguel Covarrubias, Dr. Atl, and Tamayo himself.344 In the aftermath of the event, Valentine Dudensing—owner of the gallery—would propose Tamayo to be his dealer in New York; Tamayo accepted the offer and from that moment on his career would rise steadily/45 In 1939 Tamayo had his first one-man show at Valentine; as on other occasions the event was a critical success but there were no sales (figs. 5.33-35)/46 In March 1940 Tamayo exhibited another twenty-one works at Valentine, which meant that he was producing at a great pace (fig. 5.36)/47 This time the response of the public and the press was so good that he personally thanked some of the critics—like Henry McBride—who were

j43 For an overview o f the modem painters that the gallery adopted, see Agustin Velazquez Chavez, Contemporary Mexican Artists (New York: Covici, Friede, 1937); idem, indice de la pintura mexicana contempordnea. Index o f Contemporary Mexican Painting (Mexico City: Ediciones Arte Mexicano. 1935); idem, Pintura de caballete: Exposicion colectiva, exh. cat. (Mexico City: Ediciones Arte Mexicano, 1937). 344 The other participating artists were Carlos Mdrida, Julio Castellanos, Federico Cantu, Gabriel Fernandez Ledesma, Jesus Guerrero Galvin, Agustin Lazo, Roberto Montenegro, Antonio Ruiz, and Carlos Orozco Romero. For a contemporary review, see Edward Alden Jewell, “Show Represents Mexican Artists,” NYT, 8 Feb. 1938 j45 Alanis and Urrutia, Rufino Tamayo: Una cronologia, 33; Suckaer, Rufino Tamayo, 170. M Exhibition o f Paintings by Rufino Tamayo, exh. cat. (New York: Valentine Gallery, 30 Jan.-l 1 Feb. , AEC TAMA 1939. Latin American Artist Exh. Cat. Mexico, MoMA Library; Genauer, Rufino Tamayo, 44. j4? Exhibition Rufino Tamayo, exh. cat. (New York: Valentine Gallery, 4-23 Mar. ), AEC TAMA 1940. Latin American Artist Exh. Cat. Mexico, MoMA Library.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

392 supporting and orienting him in the ways of modernism.j48 McBride believed that Tamayo was much more skilled in the use o f color than Rivera and Orozco, and he would rank him at the top of the Mexican school. Another reason for McBride’s predilection for Tamayo was that he detested political rhetoric in painting, thus he sympathized with the “pure” style o f Tamayo. On the other hand, McBride thought that Tamayo should not stay too long within the New York scene because there was the risk that he lost his unique Mexican voice.349 In turn, Tamayo said to McBride that his “kind criticism and recognition” were “most encouraging” and gave him “the incentive to continue.”j5° By the turn of the decade Tamayo’s salary from Dalton School, plus his contract with the Galena de Arte Mexicano, allowed him and his wife Olga to move to a more comfortable apartment on the Upper East Side of Manhattan and entertain friends from Mexico, as well as potential American clients. Among prominent collectors who started buying his paintings were Samuel A. Lewisohn—trustee of MoMA—and the Rockefellers themselves/31 On account of his new relations, in 1943 Tamayo would be invited to paint a large fresco for the Hillyer Art Library at Smith College in Northampton, Massachusetts. Tamayo chose as his subject a reflection about the creative process, focusing in the relation between the artist, nature, and the audience; the mural

348 See Henry McBride, “A Mexican Painter,” New York Sun, 9 Mar. 1940; “Rufino Tamayo. The Well-Known Contemporary Mexican Artist,” NYT, 10 Mar. 1940. 349 Helm, Modern Mexican Painters, 141-42. 350 Tamayo to Henry McBride, 21 Mar. 1940, folder 335, box 12, series 1 correspondence, Henry McBride Papers, Yale Collection o f American Literature, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. 351 Genauer, Rufino Tamayo, 44. About the increasing success o f Tamayo in the late 1940s and throughout the 1950s, see Rodman, Mexican Journal, 216-25.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n e r. F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

393 was entitled Nature and the Artist: The Work o f Art and the Observer.352 Up to 1947 Tamayo kept teaching at the Dalton School, as well as at the Brooklyn Museum Art School, where he founded the Tamayo Workshop in the mid-1940s. In the late 1940s Tamayo would leave New York for Europe, where he would exhibit throughout the 1950s with great success. For that reason, he would live between Mexico and Paris, until 1964 when he would definitely stay in Mexico City.

As we have seen in this chapter, by the late 1920s, three leading Mexican artists in began opposing the promotion of the Mexican Art Renaissance in New York. Jose Clemente Orozco, David Alfaro Siqueiros, and Rufino Tamayo worried that their art was trapped in the Mexicanist cliche. But in spite of these objections, the three participated in the peak of the Mexicanist wave represented by shows like the 1930 Mexican Arts at the Metropolitan Museum. They were aware that such events were unique opportunities to promote their own work and to establish connections within the New York scene/53 Nonetheless, Orozco, Siqueiros, and Tamayo would become resentful and suspicious when they found that top New York institutions and patrons, like MoMA and the Rockefellers favored Diego Rivera projects at the expense—they believed—o f their own careers. Their response was to develop either more radical and experimental or simply

352 See Edward J. Sullivan, “Tamayo, el mundillo artistico neoyorquino y el mural del Smith College,” in Rufino Tamayo: Pinturas, exh. cat., 14—32. See also “The Tamayo Fresco,” Smith College Museum o f Art Bulletin no. 24 (Oct. 1943); and Nature and the Artist: The Work ofA rt and the Observer. Rufino Tamayo: A Fiftieth-Anniversary Exhibition o f Rufino Tamayo's Fresco fo r Smith College, exh. cat. (Northampton, Mass.: Smith College Museum o f Art, 1993). 353 As early as 1927 Tamayo had noted that New York’s increasing attraction o f Mexicanist art would be beneficial for his own career. Tamayo to Josd Gorostiza, 26 Dec. . In Gorostiza, Epistolario (1918-1940), 167.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

394 more avant-garde expressions, and by doing so, they would advance the definition of modem Mexican art in New York. Soon they would note that by being independent they may have lost the support of museums and foundations, but gained the respect of their American colleagues, especially those that had become united as a result of the Great Depression and the fight against war and Fascism. For that reason they were invited to participate in the first American Artists’ Congress in 1936. Orozco, Siqueiros, and Tamayo would find alternative paths in smaller galleries, commissions outside New York, as well as in leftist organizations. Interestingly, as independent and critical these three artists were in regarding the Mexican Art Renaissance, they were also independent and critical in regarding the New York modem scene. However, they were not free o f contradictions because many times they had to compromise both with Mexican Art Renaissance events and New York instances, in order to get commissions, exhibitions and to sell their works. Orozco, for example, would accept to paint a portable fresco for MoMA (see chap. 6), even though he believed—as he expressed in his autobiography—that MoMA was an art circus. Meanwhile. Siqueiros pretended to be distant from what he called the capitalist art market, but sold his easel paintings at the Pierre Matisse Gallery. In turn, Tamayo, who as we have seen used to despise the artists who lived from the Mexican government’s support, kept looking for favors throughout the 1940s, specially when his close friend Carlos Chavez was named director of the newly created Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes (INBA; National Institute of Fine Arts) around 1947. Then and there Tamayo’s first demand was to have a national-

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

395 homage exhibition at the National Palace o f Fine Arts to celebrate the success of his twenty-year battle against the Mexican school/34

In the following and final chapter, I will show how the reappearance of conflicts between Mexico and the United States, as a result of the oil expropriation decreed by the Mexican government in 1938, and the beginning of World War II. motivated some New York patrons and institutions, in association with President Cardenas administration, to revive the concept of Mexican Art Renaissance as a diplomatic tool to ease matters among Mexico, the United States, and the rest of Latin America.

j54 See Tamayo: 20 abos de su labor pictorica, exh. cat (Mexico City: INBA, Museo Nacional de Artes Pidsticas, 1948); see also Luis-Martfn Lozano, “La exposicidn Tamayo de 1948 en la coyuntura de la polftica cultural Alemanista, in Olivier Debroise et al., Modernidady modernizacion en el arte mexicano 1920-1960. exh. cat., Afios 20s/50s, Ciudad de Mexico (Mexico City; INBA, Munal, 1991), 121-30.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

396 Chapter Six Twenty Centuries o f Mexican A rt at the Museum of Modern Art in the Context of the Mexican Oil Expropriation and World War II, 1939-1940

By 1938 Mexico had maintained a stable and relatively positive presence in the American public opinion for more than ten years. After the Morrow-Calles agreement of 1928. economic and political relations between the Mexican government and the oil companies would develop in peace. The Morrow-Calles agreement was respected by both sides even after the resignation of Dwight W. Morrow in the fall of 1930. and his subsequent death one year later. A reason for the continuity was that President Calles did not leave power after the end of his constitutional term on 30 November 1928. As a matter of fact, he would be the power behind the throne during the Maximato regime (1928-1934) and as such he was responsible for maintaining the agreement alive. Conversely, the succeeding government of President Lazaro Cardenas (1934— 1940) ignored the agreement and looked forward to regaining control over the subsoil resources. Therefore throughout 1935 and 1937 the Cardenas administration supported the salary demands of the oil workers and drafted new legislation to charge royalties to foreign companies. Businesses resisted both the labor and the fiscal demands and played the press against the new orientation of the Mexican government. The result was that on 18 March 1938 the government decided to expropriate sixteen foreign oil companies. By doing this the Cardenas administration was discarding both the Bucareli (1923) and the Calles-Morrow (1928) agreements on oil. The expropriated companies said to the press

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

397 that the Mexican government would have to pay an indemnification of several hundred million dollars.1 In the successive months an anti-Mexico campaign similar to that of 1917-1927 reappeared (see chap. 1), and tensions escalated among the Mexican state and the foreign oil companies. The United States and some European nations imposed an embargo on Mexican oil that pushed Mexico to sell its oil to Germany and Japan. Whereas in Mexico the embargo was perceived as an American power game and it awakened anti-Yankee feelings that were propitious for Fascist penetration. On the eve of World War II this state of affairs appeared as a threat to the security of the Western Hemisphere, because it could be an opportunity for German. Italian, or Japanese interests to go farther into Mexico and Latin America. In the eyes of the United States security issues had become more important than business affairs, thus it was imperative to reestablish trust and goodwill with Mexico. This chapter argues that the art diplomacy scheme was instrumental in achieving that goal, just as it had been instrumental in the late 1920s in solving the deadlock generated by ten years of anti-Mexico campaigns. In 1930-1940. however, the art diplomacy strategy would not be implemented through the official channel of the American Embassy, but through the initiative of Nelson A. Rockefeller, president of the Museum of Modem Art (MoMA). Rockefeller’s family was the founder and major shareholder of the Standard Oil Company—one of the expropriated companies. In Mexico, Standard Oil’s major subsidiary—La Huasteca Company—had endured a

1 See Lorenzo Meyer, Mexico y los Estados Unidos en el conflicto petrolero (1917-1942). Coleccidn Centro de Estudios Intemacionales (Mexico City: El Colegio de Mexico. 1981), 340-41.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er r ep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

398 number o f strikes and other labor and fiscal pressures since 1935.2 Given that experience, when the expropriation took place Standard Oil worried that the Mexican measure would be an incentive for other Latin American nations to nationalize their oil resources.3 In other words, it was in the best interests of the company to settle things with Mexico as soon and as smooth as possible.4 It was in the spring of 1938, just after President Cardenas ordered the expropriation of foreign oil companies, that the anti-Mexico campaign reappeared in the American newspapers.3 Once again—as during the Carranza. Obregon. and Calles administrations—there were accusations of Bolshevism, insurrection, and corruption in Mexico. Once again, there were calls for some kind of American intervention in the

2 At that time Standard Oil complained with the State Department that the Mexican government was circumventing the Calles-Morrow agreement o f 1928. and it backed the idea o f bringing to Mexico City former Ambassador J. Reuben Clark. Jr. (Morrow’s advisor on oil and his successor), to talk with former President Calles about the recent difficulties. See E. David Cronon. Josephus Daniels in Mexico (Madison: Univ. o f Wisconsin Press, 1960), 155, 157-59: Meyer. Mexico y los Estados Unidos. 308-09. By the same token. Standard Oil published its own analysis o f the conflict in pamphlets such as: Mexico Labor Controversy: 1936-38: Memoranda on the Controversy Arising Out o f Mexico's Impositions on Foreign Oil Companies in Mexico Leading Up to the Expropriation Decree o f March 18. 1938 (New York. ); and The Mexican Expropriations in International Law (New Jersey, 1938). J See Cronon. Josephus Daniels in Mexico. 128. 169. About the position o f the Standard Oil in other Latin America nations during those years, see Standard Oil Company of Bolivia, Confiscation: A History o f the Oil Industry in Bolivia (New York. 1939): Alejandro Pietri, Lago Petroleum Corporation. Standard O il Company o f Venezuela y Compahia de Petroleo Lago contra la nacion, por la negativa de exoneracion de derechos de importacion (Caracas: Lit. y Tip. del Comercio, 1940). 1 Nevertheless, at the same time. Standard Oil published several denunciatory pamphlets against the Mexican expropriation, see for example: Diplomatic Protection (New York. ); Whose Oil Is It? The Question o f Subsoil Rights in Mexico (New York. ); The Mexican Expropriations in International Law (New Jersey, ); Confiscation or Expropriation? Mexico's Seizure o f the Foreign-Owned Oil Industry (New York, ); Denials o f Justice (New York, 1940); Empty Promises (New York. ); The Fine Art o f Squeezing (New York. 1940); Present Status o f the Mexican Oil “Expropriations'’ (New York. ); They Took what They Wanted (flew York, ); and The Reply to Mexico (New York, ). 5 The purpose o f the boycott and the international propaganda against Mexico was to drown the country “in its own oil.” Hector Aguilar Camfn and Lorenzo Meyer, In the Shadow o f the Mexican Revolution: Contemporary Mexican History, 1910-1989 (Austin: Univ. of Texas Press, 1993), 154-56. For an overview o f the campaign, see Burt M. McConnell, Mexico at the Bar o f Public Opinion: A Survey o f Editorial Opinion in Newspapers o f the Western Hemisphere (New York: Mail and Express Publishing, 1939).

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

399 unruly neighbor south of the border. Once again, it was said that the Mexican actions would set a bad example for other Latin American republics. And once again, this propaganda hardened the relations between two countries that had interacted in a mostly peaceful and cooperative way for about a decade. The anti-Mexico campaign of 1938— 1939. however, also would adopt some new features in the international context that preceded World War II. Since the mid-1930s there had been a preoccupation about foreign penetration, either Fascist or Communist, in Mexico and in Latin America. Thus, when President Lazaro Cardenas advanced his nationalist policies in 1936. some voices identified those policies with Communism. Henry J. Allen, among other critics, noted that after Leon Trotsky arrived in Mexico as a political refugee—January 1937—Cardenas furthered the program of nationalizations that culminated in the oil expropriation of 1938.6 It seemed that Trotsky was encouraging Cardenas to become a sort of international Communist leader. The alleged evidence was that after the expropriation, the Cardenas administration sent emissaries throughout Latin America talking in favor of the confiscation. Equally, President Cardenas had been supporting the Republican government in Spain for about two years.7 Allen said that in reciprocity Cardenas was being backed by the Communists of the world, and his dream was to create ”a Soviet Union in the Western Hemisphere.”

6 Henry J. Allen, “A Visit with Trotsky who Says Cdrdenas Is more Advanced than Communist Leaders o f Russia— Mexico Fairly Crackles with Revolution— 100,000 Workers. Admirers o f John L. Lewis, Are Armed,” in The Mexican Confiscations: Together with a Careful Survey o f the Present Revolutionary Trends in Mexico (: New York Herald-Tribune Newspaper Syndicate. Aug. 1938), 13-15. 7 Henry J. Allen, “President Cirdenas Says He Is Doing for Mexico what President Roosevelt Is Trying to Do in the United States—with Trotsky as His Teacher He Dreams o f Soviet Union in Western Hemisphere,” in The Mexican Confiscations, 33-35.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

400

As a result, Cardenas had attracted the attention of European Communists and Fascists: the former were naturally delighted and the latter were stirred up. And given the international atmosphere, it was plausible that Communists and Fascists might try to take control of Mexico to set a base for trade and propaganda across the continent.9 Not surprisingly, at the same time that some critics were accusing the Cardenas administration of being Communist other voices accused it of being pro-Axis for having developed commercial ties with Germany. Japan, and Italy.10 These countries were trading machinery and other supplies for Mexican oil. But that was only part of the problem, since those countries had more interests in Mexico than mere oil and trade. They had ideological, political, and military interests." Some observers reported that in the aftermath of the expropriation. Germans and Japanese were ‘‘drifting into Mexico City looking over the possibilities of supplanting American activities.’' 12

8 It is true that during the second half o f the 1930s Mexico and the Soviet Union sympathized with and supported Republican Spain, but when President Cardenas gave asylum to Leon Trotsky things got complicated. As Daniela Spenser notes, Cdrdenas may have been a socialist, but he was not a Communist much less a Stalinist. See Daniela Spenser, The Impossible Triangle: Mexico, Soviet Russia and the United States in the 1920s, American Encounters/Global Interactions (Durham: Duke Univ. Press, 1999), 169. About the ambiguous relation between the Cardenas administration and the Mexican Communist Party, see Barry Carr, Marxism & Communism in Twentieth-Century Mexico (Lincoln: Univ. o f Nebraska Press, 1992), 47-79. 9 Allen. “A Visit with Trotsky.” 10 About this concern, see Inter-American Center Conference, Can the United States Retain Latin American Trade and Cultural Relations against German, Italian, and Japanese Competition? (Washington, D.C.: George Washington Univ. Press, 1939). 11 With regard to the German increasing interest in Mexican oil, see Empresarios alemanes, el Tercer R eichy la oposicion de derecha a Cardenas, ed. Brigida von Mentz (Mexico City: CIESAS, 1988), 2:119-38. Concerning the dissemination o f German values in Mexico through education and cultural exchanges, see Brigida von M entz, “El Colegion alemdn en Mexico, 1894-1942,” in Empresarios alemanes, 2:197-248; and Wilhelm Faupel etal., Ibero-Americay Alemania: Obra colectiva sobre las relaciones amistosas, desarme e igualdad de derechos, Edicion especial de la Revista Polltica (Berlin: Carlheymanns Verlag, 1933). 12 Henry J. Allen. “Stricken Port o f Tampico a Harbor o f Ghosts—Only Japan and Germany Are Buying ‘Stolen Oil’—American Residents in Mexico Have Little Faith in the United States Aid.” in The Mexican Confiscations, 30-33.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

401 President Cardenas believed that the negative campaign about Mexican conditions had created “artificial problems” that were obstructing the solution of real problems.13 He also believed that the systematic publication of news, commentaries, and editorials against Mexico had created an anti-Mexican feeling in the United States and. in turn, that same campaign fostered in Mexico an anti-American attitude.14 Among the people who would advise President Cardenas in matters of American public opinion was Professor Frank Tannenbaum of Columbia University, who besides being connected to academic, intellectual, and journalism circles in New York, had the experience of participating in the pro-Mexico campaign of the mid-1920s. Back then Tannenbaum not only contributed in disseminating the Mexican Art Renaissance discourse (see chap. 3). but he was also associated with a pro-Mexico group called “Mexico Society” founded in the fall of 1924. and presided over by financier and philanthropist George Foster Peabody.13 By the late 1920s Tannenbaum had close communication with some pro-Mexico people, like Under secretary of Public Education Moises Saenz, and some other officials in the postrevolutionary regime. In advising President Cardenas. Tannenbaum showed a certain degree of idealism but much more political insight: thus his recommendations tended to be pragmatic.16 In addition, he served as intermediary in informal conversations with

13 President Cdrdenas to Ambassador Francisco Castillo Ndjera. 8 Feb. 1939. in Lazaro Cardenas, Epistolario de Lazaro Cardenas, El Hombre y sus Obras (Mexico City: Siglo Veintiuno Editores. 1974), 339-43. 14 Ibid. About Mexico’s own propaganda strategy, see Chap. 6: “Mexican and Propagandistic SelfDefense on the Eve o f World War II (1938-1940),” in Friedrich E. Schuler, Mexico between Hitler and Roosevelt: Mexican Foreign Relations in the Age o f Lazaro Cardenas, 1934-1940 (Albuquerque: Univ. o f New Mexico Press, 1998), 113-51. 15 For a contemporary profile o f Tannenbaum, see Esperanza Veldzquez Bringas. Pensadores y artistas (Mexico City: “Cvltvra,” 1922). 59-62.

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

402

officials at the State Department including Under-Secretary for Latin America Sumner Welles. Tannenbaum also kept Cardenas updated about what publications should be chosen to publicize the Mexican position in the United States (e.g.. Readers ’Digest. Survey Graphic), and what people were doing work in favor of Mexico’s image in the United States (e.g., Paul Strand and his photographic series on Mexico).17 Lazaro Cardenas—as Presidents Carranza. Obregon, and Calles had in the past— would accuse the oil companies of being behind the anti-Mexico propaganda, and would complain that the State Department had allowed it to happen. Cardenas was convinced that if the American government wanted to stop the attacks it would have already done so, but since it had adopted a quiet position it had encouraged the activities of those who wanted to discredit Mexico.18 Therefore Cardenas asked the Mexican ambassador to Washington to let the State Department know that the effects of the anti-Mexico campaign were being adverse to a prompt agreement. Besides, the Mexican government had to take into account Mexican public opinion, which due to the anti-Mexico publicity had become very upset and anti-American. Furthermore, he noted that the mere fact that some people in Mexico were already thinking that the U.S. government was behind the

16 Among other projects to re-position Mexico’s image abroad, in the second half o f 1938 Professor Frank Tannenbaum received a proposal to get President Cdrdenas to write a book for the American public about his political and economic opinions. There was also a proposal for Tannenbaum to write a couple o f articles favorable to Mexico for which he would be paid “very” well. Folder “Cdrdenas. Ldzaro. 1936-1938.” box 1. catalogued correspondence. Frank Tannenbaum Papers, Rare Book & Manuscript Library o f Columbia University, New York, New York (hereafter cited as FT Papers/RBML/CU). 17 Frank Tannenbaum to President Cdrdenas, 21 Sept. 1937. folder “Cdrdenas. Ldzaro. 1936— 1938,” box I, catalogued correspondence, FT Papers/RBML/CU. 18 President C&rdenas to Ambassador Castillo N&jera. 8 Feb. 1939. in Cdrdenas. Epistolario, 339— 43.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n e r. F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

403

campaign was bad enough for both nations.19 Cardenas admitted that Mexico had increased its commerce with Germany and Italy, but he clarified that there were no political or ideological reasons behind that.20 Such a trend was only the result of the embargo and boycott that the oil companies were leading against Mexico. Cardenas said that Mexico had no hard feelings and was ready to sell its oil to the American and English companies that asked for it but if there were none at the moment then Mexico would have to make long-term contracts with other countries.21 Similarly. Franklin D. Roosevelt did not want to alienate either Mexico or Latin America from the United States.22 His administration had invested more than five years in developing the Good Neighbor Policy throughout the continent, as to endanger it just when another world war seemed to be imminent.23 As early as February 1939. President Roosevelt had told the Mexican ambassador that in response to the growing conflicts in Europe the American republics would have to come together. In this regard. Roosevelt had no doubt that Mexico and the United States would be among the first in supporting

19 Ibid. 20 In effect trade between Mexico and Germany had been growing since 1920. For an analysis of this phenomenon between 1920 and 1942, see Brigida von M entz, “Las empresas alemanas en Mexico (1920-1942),” in Empresarios alemanes, 1:121-230. 21 President C&rdenas to Ambassador Castillo Najera. 8 Feb. 1939, in Cardenas, Epistolario, 33943. 22 Samuel Flagg Bemis noted that regarding the negotiation between the United States and Mexico “domestic politics had given way to international politics.” The Roosevelt administration “was anxious to have the unreserved goodwill o f all Latin America, as well as Mexico.” Samuel Flagg Bemis. The Latin American Policy o f the United States: An Historical Interpretation (New York: Harcourt. Brace & World, 1943). 348. 23 About the Roosevelt administration “neutral” position toward the oil expropriation, and its relation with the Good Neighbor Policy at the dawn o f World War II. see Bryce Wood, The Making o f the Good Neighbor Policy (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1961), 203-33. See also Clayton R. Koppes. “The Good Neighbor Policy and the Nationalization o f Mexican Oil: A Reinterpretation,” The Journal o f American History 69, no. 1 (June 1982): 62-81.

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

404

democracy.24 Roosevelt commented to the Mexican ambassador that in a recent meeting with U.S. senators many of them had expressed resentment toward the Mexican policies, and had affirmed that Mexico was the harbor of Communism in America, whereas others believed that Mexico was secretly allied with Germany, Italy and Japan.25 When asked his opinion. President Roosevelt simply said that the Cardenas administration was neither Communist nor Fascist but Mexican; thus he found it absurd that Mexico was at the same time accused of being Communist and Nazi-Fascist.26 In fact. President Roosevelt’s main concern was that Mexico reestablish its trade with the United States at the same level that it was before 1938. In that regard, he inquired the Mexican ambassador when Mexico would do that. The answer was that as soon as there was an agreement with the oil companies Mexico would be ready to restore its commerce with the United States.27 Meanwhile some people within the Roosevelt administration shared the senators’ anxiety about Nazi influence in Mexico. The same week that President Roosevelt talked with Ambassador Castillo Najera. Under-Secretary of State Sumner Welles told Frank Tannenbaum that he was worried about the increasing German propaganda in Mexico against the United States.28 Tannenbaum informed Cardenas that Welles believed the

24 Ambassador Francisco Castillo Ndjera to President Cdrdenas, Memorandum: “Conferencia con el presidente Roosevelt, el dla 4 de febrero de 1939. de las 12 a las 12:45 p.m..” 8 Feb. 1939. in Cdrdenas. Epistolario, 344—46. 25 It is worth noting that although Mexico and Germany maintained commercial relations, there were ideological differences and constant political frictions. Therefore an alliance between the two countries was unlikely. See Verena Radkau. “El Tercer Reich y Mdxico,” in Empresarios alemanes, 2:69100.

26 Ambassador Francisco Castillo N&jera to President Cdrdenas. Memorandum: “Conferencia con el presidente Roosevelt,” in C&rdenas. Epistolario. 344-46. 27 Ibid.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

405

Mexican government was becoming a victim of the German propaganda without knowing it. Even more, people in the State Department were sure that some minor officials in Mexico had been bought and influenced by Germany in order to attack the United States.29 Tannenbaum recommended Cardenas that he denounce to the press that certain foreign governments had been spreading propaganda in Mexico, and that he would not tolerate that situation and could provide names if necessary.30 Among the owners of the expropriated oil companies. Nelson A. Rockefeller sympathized with Roosevelt’s point of view. Rockefeller understood that in face of a new war it was imperative to promote political and economic unity between the United States and Latin America. By the late 1930s Rockefeller himself was well acquainted with the Latin American scenario. Among other experiences, between 1935 and 1940 he was director of the Creole Petroleum Company, the Venezuelan subsidiary of Standard Oil of New Jersey. In 1937 and 1939 he made extensive visits throughout Latin America in order to study economic, social, and political conditions/1As a result. Rockefeller concluded that in the 1930s German businessmen were much more experienced in Latin

28 In 1936 German agents had managed to publish a series o f pro-Nazi editorials in leading Mexican newspapers, like Excelsior. After Germany defined its position regarding the Spanish civil war those articles stopped appearing, but U.S. officials kept watching the stand o f the Mexican press in the following years. See Raquel Sosa Elfzaga, Los codigos ocultos del cardenismo: Un estudio de la violencia politico, el cambio socialy la contirmidad institucional (Mexico City: Plaza y Valdds Editores; UNAM, 1996), 176,351. 29 In response, the Mexican government accused the correspondent o f the New York Times. Frank Kluckholn. o f publishing false information about the alleged association o f Mexican officials with the Nazi regime. As a result Kluckholn was expelled from Mexico. Sosa Ellzaga, Los codigos ocultos del cardenismo, 356. J° Frank Tannenbaum to President Cdrdenas. 9 Feb. 1939. folder "Cdrdenas, Ldzaro, v.p.. 1939— 1941.” box 1, catalogued correspondence. FT Papers/RBML/CU. 31 Biographical Sketch o f Nelson A. Rockefeller (1908-1979), Nelson A. Rockefeller Papers (hereafter cited as NAR Papers)/RockefeIler Family Archives (hereafter cited as RFA)/Rockefeller Archive Center. Sleepy Hollow, New York (hereafter cited as RAC).

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

406

America than the American businessmen.32 The Germans had been present in Latin America “for generations, had married into the most important families, and played an extremely influential part in the economic, political and military life of those countries.’03 Moreover, those Germans had established organizations in South America whose objective was to instigate “anti-United States feelings both through the newspapers they controlled and through contacts in influential circles.”34 Nelson A. Rockefeller also observed that in the 1930s the Communists were penetrating labor and press circles in Latin American countries.33 It was after his 1939 travel in Latin America that Rockefeller prepared a memorandum for President Roosevelt explaining how much Nazi influence had grown in the continent. Rockefeller’s recommendation was that the United States government develop a program of cooperation with the southern republics to improve economic and political relations/6

j2 About German business experience in Mexico since the ninetenth century, see Los pioneros del imperialismo aleman en Mexico. ed. Brigida von Mentz, Ediciones de la Casa Chata, no. 14 (Mexico City: CIESAS, 1982). j3 See transcript o f the interview: “Reminiscences o f Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller.” 1952. Oral History Research Office, Butler Library. Columbia University, New York, New York (hereafter cited as OHRO/CU), 27. Since 1919 the U.S. press had expressed concern about German emigration to Latin America. They were going by millions to Mexico and South America as part o f a “New Teutonic Program,” which was nothing else but the “old German imperialism in disguise.” The plan consisted in establishing trade colonies between Latin America and Germany, and there were three countries where they had already gained influence over local governments: Mexico, Chile, and Argentina. See “Germans to Mexico.” the New York Times Magazine (hereafter cited as NYT Magazine) 24 Aug. 1919. Regarding early German colonies in Mexico, see Los pioneros del imperialismo aleman en Mexico: and Verena Radkau, “Los alemanes en Mdxico y sus organizaciones,” in Empresarios alemanes, 2:144-70. j4 See “ Reminiscences o f Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller.” OHRO/CU. 27. Since World War 1there had been a preoccupation about the German penetration in Latin American newspapers, banks, and commercial houses. See Alton Frye, Nazi Germany and the American Hemisphere, 1933-1941, Yale Historical Publications Miscellany 86 (New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, 1967): see also “Germany’s Active Propaganda in Latin America,” New York Times (hereafter cited as NYT), 22 Apr. 1917. And about German spies and propagandists in Mexico during the second half o f the 1930s, see Verena Radkau, “La Quinta Columna Nazi: Mito y realidad,” in Empresarios alemanes, 2:182-96. j5 “Reminiscences o f Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller.” OHRO/CU, 28.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

407

It was in that context that in mid-October 1939. thirty-one-year-old Nelson A. Rockefeller visited President Lazaro Cardenas at his ranch in Jiquilpan. Michoacan. In a two-day encounter. Rockefeller and President Cardenas would confer about health, nutrition, and other areas where the Rockefeller Foundation wished to help Mexico. They also exchanged opinions about possible solutions to the oil controversy, and they finally talked about the presentation of a Mexican art show in MoMA in 1940/7 The intention of this exhibition was “to portray the cultural history of Mexico” among the American public and the international visitors to the 1939-1940 World’s Fair/8 Nelson A. Rockefeller was sure about the viability of the project because, as he recalled years later, “one of the really important and strong movements of contemporary painting existed in Mexico” and that “was largely based on the cultural heritage of the country.’09 This art project was an opportune answer to President Cardenas’s concerns about the decline of Mexico’s image in the United States after a year and a half of anti-Mexico publicity. Cardenas confided to Rockefeller that:

the campaign of propaganda waged by the [American oil] companies in the United States had been unfair and very unfortunate, that it had hurt the relations between the two countries and had a serious effect on Mexican trade.40

_’6 Biographical Sketch. Nelson A. Rockefeller ( 1908—1979). NAR Papers/RFA/RAC. 37 Memorandum: “Conversation between General Lazaro C&rdenas (President o f Mexico) and Mr. Nelson A. Rockefeller, in the presence o f Mr. Walter Douglas and Mr. Louis Blanchard, Secretary to Mr. Douglas, Jiquilpan, Michoacdn, Mexico, October 14 and 15. 1939.” 26 Oct. 1939, folder 1139, box 117. Personal Projects RG 4, NAR Papers/RF A/RAC. j8 “Reminiscences o f Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller.” OHRO/CU. 33.

39 Ibid. w Memorandum “Conversation between Lazaro Cardenas and Nelson A. Rockefeller.” folder 1139, box 117, Personal Projects RG 4, NAR Papers/RF A/RAC.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

408 Cardenas also believed that the conflict should not be politicized by the intervention of the State Department or any other official entity. He expressed that his administration was for negotiating in goodwill to reach an ‘‘amicable and fair settlement as soon as possible in the interest of both parties.” It must have been for those reasons that President Cardenas “was most interested” in the exhibition program “and promised every assistance on the part of the Government to facilitate matters.”41 From the Mexican point o f view an art exhibition in New York, in the context of the World Fair, could have a threefold effect. One. it would help to restore Mexico’s image among the American public opinion. Two. it would depoliticize the relations between Mexico and the United States. Third, it would foster the feeling of goodwill so necessary to complete the negotiations. Besides, it could serve to re-activate trade exchanges between the two nations, because as Rockefeller had told President Cardenas, the exhibition would have “a very important effect on tourist travel in Mexico/’42 Furthermore, an art exhibition at MoMA. which was one of the most prestigious museums in the United States, could enhance Mexico’s national self-respect and pride.43 As President Cardenas explained to Rockefeller, Mexico suffered an inferiority complex in relation to the United States that should not be ignored in dealing with problems like

41 Ibid. 42 Ibid. 43 To have an idea about the increasing importance o f MoMA, it is worth noting that in 1939 the ten-year-old institution had evolved from exhibiting modem art in Manhattan to circulating art exhibitions across the United States. Since 1929 MoMA had held 115 shows, and more than a million and one half people had visited the Museum. In addition, it had been estimated that “for each person” who visited MoMA, there were “four persons” who saw its traveling exhibitions and film showings. See “Facts Concerning the Museum o f Modem Art”, prepared for the Special reception Committee for the Membership Teas, 5 Feb. 1940, 18 pages, folder 113, box 8, Abby Aldrich Rockefeller Papers (hereafter cited as AAR Papers)/RFA/RAC.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

409

the oil expropriation.44 Whereas from the point of view of MoMA. Rockefeller had succeeded by getting President Cardenas’s approval to lend Mexico’s most precious art treasures, among them some Pre-Columbian pieces that had never been shown abroad. Thus, once the project had been endorsed by the Mexican government, arrangements began both in New York and Mexico.45 Back in Mexico City from Jiquilpan. Rockefeller met Minister of Foreign Affairs Eduardo Hay and Alfonso Caso—director o f the Museum of Archaeology—to present the project and begin working on it. They would have only six months to complete it—a very tight schedule for a kind of exhibition that usually required more than a year of work to be properly prepared. To define the contents of the show Alfonso Caso sent Rockefeller a collection of Mexican Art & Life. a magazine sponsored by the Cardenas administration, whose aim was to promote Mexican arts, crafts, and monuments, as well as many other aspects of the nation’s life and traditions among the American public.46 Caso also sent in a collection of the Boletines de Arte published by Carta Blanca—a Mexican beer company—in order to see color reproductions for the anticipated catalogue.47

44 Ibid. 45 See The World of Art, “New York to See Mexican Art.” Sun (Lewiston, ME), 28 Feb. 1940, The Museum o f Modem Art Archives, NY: Department o f Public Information Scrapbooks and Records, 1929-1997,45 (hereafter cited as MoMA Archives, N Y : PI, 45)/Twenty Centuries o f Mexican Art (hereafter cited as TCMA). 46 See Mexican Art & Life (Mexico City: Dept. Autdnomo de Prensa y Publicidad. 1938-39). The magazine published seven numbers and its editor was Josd Juan Tablada. Among the contributors were Alfonso Caso, Gabriel Fernandez Ledesma. Manuel Toussaint, Francisco Diaz de Le6n. and Xavier Villaurrutia. See Howard Thomas Young, “Josd Juan Tablada: Mexican Poet” (Ph.D. diss., Columbia Univ., 1956), 39. 47 Alfonso Caso to NAR, 11 Oct. 1939, folder 1354, box 138, Personal Projects RG III 4L. NAR Papers/RF A/RAC. The actual name o f the periodical was: Boletin Mensual. Carta Blanca (Mexico City:

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

410

The original plan of activities was drafted that fall of 1939 at MoMA and it contemplated that Alfonso Caso would be named general director, in collaboration with three associate directors or curators.48 The four of them would be in charge of an equal number of sections, as follows: Ancient Art under Alfonso Caso; Colonial Art under Manuel Toussaint; Modem Art under Jose Clemente Orozco or Ignacio Asunsolo (at the end it was Miguel Covarrubias the chief of the section); and “Art Populaire” [s/c] under Roberto Montenegro.49 It is important to note that all these people had been involved in the foundation and development of the Mexican Art Renaissance discourse since the early 1920s. All of them had collaborated with Minister of Public Education Jose Vasconcelos during the Obregon administration, and some of them—like Caso. Toussaint. and Montenegro—had even worked in official positions. While others—like Asunsolo. Orozco, and Covarrubias—had received either official commissions and/or official sponsorship. In other words, all of them had experience and were aware of the art diplomacy objectives and its ways and means.

C(a. Commercial Distribuidora. ), and its editor was painter Carlos Orozco Romero. The Boletin was devoted to Mexican art or art in Mexico, and each year (or series) covered a specific period and contained colored reproductions. 4* Original plan o f activities for Mexican Exhibition at the Museum of Modem Art in 1940. drafted in pencil, folder 1354, box 138, Personal Projects RG III 4L, NAR Papers/RF A/RAC. It is worth noting that this plan would be drafted after the interview between Nelson A. Rockefeller and President Cdrdenas. 49 Ibid. Bear in mind that Roberto Montenegro was co-organizer of the first Exposition de Arte Popular (Exhibition o f Popular Art) in Mexico in 1921, during the celebration of the 100th anniversary o f the Consummation o f Independence (see chap. 1). Among Montenegro’s more recent experiences with popular art was the creation o f the collection for the National Museum o f Popular Arts that had recently opened at the new National Palace of Fine Arts in Mexico City. Montenegro also had published his ideas about Mexican popular art in his books Mascaras mexicanas (Mexico City: Talleres Grdficos de la Nacidn. 1926), and Pintura mexicana, 1800-1860 (Mexico City: Talleres Grdficos de la Nacidn, 1934). See Karen Cordero Reiman, “Desconstruyendo la “Escuela Nacional”: Diversas formas de abordar el arte popular en el arte mexicano posrevolucionario,” in Instituto de Investigaciones Estdticas, Arte, historia e identidad en America: Visiones comparativas. XVII Coloquio International de Historia del Arte, ed. Gustavo Curiel, Renato Gonzdlez Mello, and Juana Gutidrrez Haces, Estudios de Arte y Estdtica, no. 37 (Mexico City: UNAM-IIE, 1994), 2: 642-45.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er r ep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

411 According to the MoMA plan, a budget would be prepared by the Committee on Finances and the expenses of the show would be divided “50-50” between MoMA and the Mexican government. The heads of that committee would be, for the Mexican government, Ramon Beteta—under-secretary of foreign affairs—and for MoMA, John E. Abbott—vice president of the museum.30 Other tasks that had to be considered were the publication of a bilingual catalogue, the creation of a committee of sponsorship, and the design and production of publicity. By that fall of 1939 it was thought that the exhibition should be scheduled to open in the second week of March 1940. and thereafter it could be circulated to art museums in Chicago, San Francisco, and Philadelphia.31 So far. the aesthetic contents, the historical conceptualization, the diplomatic goal, the publicity strategy, and even the climate of tension and confusion in the relations between Mexico and the United States, that characterized the Mexican show for MoMA. were similar to those that had surrounded the organization of Mexican Arts for the Metropolitan Museum in 1929-1930 (see chap. 3). Nevertheless, there were some crucial differences that must be stressed. First and foremost, Mexican Arts did not include a PreColumbian section, and the Colonial section was barely represented by a few artworks. In contrast, the MoMA exhibition would have as its strongest point the display of Pre-

50 Original plan of activities for Mexican Exhibition at the Museum o f Modem Art in 1940, drafted in pencil, . folder 1354, box 138, Personal Projects RG III 4L. NAR Papers/RFA/RAC. 51 Ibid. It is relevant to observe that among the notes o f the draft letter to Alfonso Caso. a handwritten note indicated that for the present exhibition there was nobody “to advise Cdrdenas as Morrow advises [sic] Calles”—this is a reference to how Ambassador Dwight W. Morrow must have discussed with former President Calles the organization o f Mexican Arts in 1929-1930. The handwritten note comes from someone who was revising the letter that MoMA should send to Caso. The commentary, on the other hand, reveals that in the late 1930s Ambassador Josephus Daniels was not involved in the practice o f art diplomacy between the United States and Mexico.

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

412

Columbian “treasures” that had never been seen in the United States (fig. 6.1 ).32 Second, with respect to the historical conceptualization, in the eyes of MoMA the three-hundredyear Colonial era was not to a phase of cultural disruption, but as an integral part of Mexico’s art development—including pictorial and sculpture works, as well as photographs of representative churches and convents (figs. 6.2-4). Third, whereas in the preparation of Mexican Arts an American ambassador directly intervened, this time no American officials were involved in the arrangements. Fourth, in Mexican Arts the publicity campaign had been co-managed by the office of Ambassador Morrow, the Carnegie Corporation of New York (CCNY), and the American Federation of Arts, while in 1939-1940 all that responsibility would be in the hands of the MoMA publicity department.33 On the other hand, beyond the diplomatic parallels between Mexican Arts and the MoMA show, the latter one had another important antecedent in American Sources o f Modern Art. an exhibition of Pre-Columbian and modem Mexican and U.S. art that MoMA had held in 1933.34 American Sources o f Modern Art took place from 10 May to 30 June 1933 and it comprised 266 works borrowed from U.S. collections.35 A total of 233 works were Pre-

52 See Holly Bamet-Sanchez, “The Necessity o f Pre-Columbian Art: United States Museums and the Role o f Foreign Policy in the Appropriation and Transformation o f Mexican Heritage. 1933-1944” (Ph.D. diss., Univ. of California, Los Angeles, 1993), 116. 53 For a discussion about the construction o f a Mexican image through the exhibition, see Charity Mewbum, “Oil, Art and Politics: The Feminization of Mexico.” Anales del Instituo de Investigaciones Esteticas (Mexico City) 20, no. 72 (1998). 54 This exhibition would also be know as “Aztec, Incan and Mayan Art.” 55 The exhibition borrowed from New York and East Coast institutional and individual collections; among others: the American Museum o f Natural History, NY; Carnegie Institution, Washington. D. C.; Metropolitan Museum o f Art, NY; Museum o f the American Indian, Heye Foundation. NY; Museum o f Fine Arts, Boston; Peabody Museum o f Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University; United States National Museum, Washington, D. C.; the University o f Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia; Whitney Museum o f American Art. NY; Alfred H. Barr, NY; Anita Brenner, NY; Jean Chariot, NY; John. A.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er r ep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

413

Columbian pieces of sculpture, pottery, gold and silver, and textiles, most of them from the Maya, Aztec, and Inca cultures.36 The show also included thirty-three works by twelve contemporary artists, eight of them were American, and the other four were members of the Mexican School.37 The catalogue of the exhibition included an introductory essay, “American Sources of Modem A rt” by Holger Cahill who was the co

director of the exhibition. Cahill explained that “ancient American art” was a “major source of modem art.” and the purpose of the exhibition was to bring together examples of this art, and “to show its relation to the work of modem artists.”39 However. MoMA did not intend “to suggest” that American artists should turn to it as the source of native expression.” MoMA only intended to show the high quality of ancient American art, and to indicate that its influence is present in modem art in the work of painters and sculptors some of whom have been unconscious of its influence, while others have accepted or sought it quite consciously.60 Dunbar. NY; Elizabeth Cutter Morrow, Englewood, New Jersey; Abby Aldrich Rockefeller, NY; Max Weber, Great Neck, NY; Brummer Gallery, NY; Delphic Studios, NY; Downtown Gallery, NY; Gallery 144 West 13th Street. NY; Weyhe Gallery, NY. See American Sources o f Modern Art, exh. cat. (New York: MoMA. 1933). 56 Among other cultures included: from Mexico: Totonac. Toltec, Huaxtec, Olmec, Mixtec, Tarascan. Cholula; from Peru: Chavin, Huari, Cuzco, Nazca, Chimu, Paracas, Chancay, Tihuanaco; from Colombia: Chibcha. Quimbaya; and from Guatemala: Quiche, Quetzaltenango. For the complete list, see American Sources o f Modern Art, exh. cat. 57 The works included oil paintings, sculpture in wood and stone, watercolors, and pastels. The American artists were: Ben Benn. John Flannagan, Raoul Hague, Ann A. Morris. Marion Walton, Max Weber, Harold Weston, William Zorach; and the members o f the Mexican School were: Jean Chariot. Carlos M6rida, Diego Rivera, David Alfaro Siqueiros 58 Holger Cahill, “American Sources o f Modem Art,” in American Sources o f Modern Art, exh. cat., 5-21. 59 Ibid., 5. For contemporary reviews o f the exhibition, see Carlyle Burrows, “American Sources o f Modem Art Revealed in Museum Show.” New York Herald Tribune, 14 May 1933: Anita Brenner, “The Tail Wags the Dog,” Nation, 28 June 1933, 735-36; and, published two years after: Walter Pach. “NewFound Values in Ancient America,” Parnassus 7, no. 7 (Dec. 1935): 7-10. For a critical opinion, see Edward Alden Jewell, “Very Plump Lean Year,” NYT, 4 June 1933. 60 Cahill. “American Sources o f Modem Art,” 5.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

414

MoMA would offer an aesthetic view into Pre-Columbian art something that was innovative because this had been mostly studied from archeological and historical points of view. MoMA. nonetheless, recognized that in the early 1920s in Mexico people like Manuel Gamio. David Alfaro Siqueiros, Diego Rivera, Jean Chariot and Carlos Merida had started a movement to recover the appreciation of Pre-Columbian art.61 On the other hand, Cahill stated that the best Pre-Columbian art was equal to the art of Egypt or Mesopotamia.62 Accordingly, the high civilizations in ancient America were the Maya, the Aztecs, and the Incas; that explains why the exhibition was focused in presenting works from those cultures. In any case, MoMA was participating in an interest already expressed by other prestigious museums both in the United States and Europe.63 Beyond the antecedents of Mexican Arts and American Sources o f Modern Art the 1940 MoMA exhibition was even closer in time and conception to L 'Exposition d 'art mexicain ancien et moderne. This was an exhibition planned by French curator Andre Dezarrois in the late 1930s. and which—if it had not been for the beginning of World War II—would have been presented in Paris during the spring and summer of 1940.64 The Dezarrois projected exhibition was divided in six sections. The first one. Art ancien (Ancient Art), focused in the origins and development of Mexican art including prehistoric art as well as a selection of Pre-Columbian art from different cultures. The second section. Art colonial (Colonial Art), included civic and religious art objects, 61 Ibid., 8. 52 Ibid.. 9. 63 Ibid., 21. 64 “Exposition d’art Mexicain Ancien et Moderne,” Paris, Mai-Juin-Juillet 1940, typed draft in French, , folder 1354, box 138, Personal Projects RG III 4L, NAR Papers/RF A/RAC.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

415

giving preference to those pieces that reflected the Mexican character as opposed to objects that mimicked Spanish or European art. The third section, Naissance de Tart national (Birth of the National Art), comprised portraits and scenes from the sixteenth to the early nineteenth century. A fourth section, called Epanouissement de l’ecole de la peinture contemporaine (Blossoming of the Contemporary School of Painting), featured works of Diego Rivera, Jose Clemente Orozco, David Alfaro Siqueiros, and their contemporaries, as well as younger artists like Rufino Tamayo and Julio Castellanos. In this section. Dezarrois said, it was necessary to highlight the accomplishments of Mexican muralism—a movement that was still ignored in France.63 Dezarrois suggested that Rivera should have a whole room reserved for his works and the reproductions of his murals in Mexico.66 Meanwhile, the fifth section of the project, Art Populaire (Folk Art), was focused on the minor arts, something little known in Europe. The sixth section, called the Salle de blanc et noir (White and Black Gallery), was dedicated to lithography and engravings by artists like Jose Guadalupe Posada. And it also included sculptures by Mardonio Magana, Ignacio Asunsolo, Carlos Bracho, Federico Canessi, Luis Ortiz Monasterio, and German Cueto, as well as tapestries by Dolores Cueto. Finally, the sixth section, named Salle historique et de propagande (Gallery of History and Propaganda),

65 Dezarrois underlined that Mexican muralism was already well known across Europe. Even more, he noted that in the United States— where art matters were supposed to be behind than in France— there was a sincere appreciation for Mexican muralism that had materialized in several mural commissions to Rivera and Orozco. In this regard, Dezarrois strongly recommended that Rivera be given a mural commission in France. 66 Regarding the work o f the most recent Mexican artists, Dezarrois thought that it could be exhibited at the Museum o f Contemporary Foreign Schools o f the Jeu de Paume.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

416

displayed the development of the relations between Mexico and France, the life of French peoples living in Mexico, and Franco-Mexican art and literature.67 Regarding the organization of the show, Dezarrois recommended that the Organization Committee be constituted by Alfonso Caso as commissaire general (general director); either Jose Clemente Orozco or Diego Rivera as curator of modem painting; Manuel Toussaint as curator of Colonial painting; Roberto Montenegro as curator of folk art; Ignacio Asunsolo as curator of sculpture; Nunez y Dominguez as organizer of the historical section; and Rene Zivy as secretaire general du Comite mexicain a Paris (secretary-general of the Mexican Committee in Paris). The antecedents of this project went back to 1938 when Andre Dezarrois. in his role as conservateur des Musees Nationaux. charge des Ecoles Etrangeres (curator of foreign art at the [office of the] National Museums [of France]), proposed to the Mexican Embassy in France the presentation of an Ancient and Modern Mexican Art Exhibition at the Musee du Jeu de Paume in Paris. The proposal received the approval of the Mexican ambassador, Narciso Bassols, and it was sanctioned by the French Ministry of National Education, and by the General Direction of Fine Arts. Thereafter, the French Ministry of Foreign Affaires, having received funds from the Carnegie Endowment to finance the project, authorized Dezarrois to visit Mexico to start preparing the exhibition. By the summer of 1939 it was established that the Mexican show would be presented from 1 May to 1 July 1940. It was also noticed that since the exhibition was an official exchange between France and Mexico, an honorary committee should be formed, including the

67 Dezarrois’s proposal also included publications, lectures by specialists, and concerts at the Louvre School, the Mus6e de l’homme, and the Museum of Popular Art and Traditions.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

417

presidents of France and Mexico, as well as their respective ministers of Foreign Affairs; Education; and their ambassadors. In spite of the progress, in the early fall of 1939 the show had to be canceled due to the beginning of World War II. By that time, however, MoMA was already aware of and interested in holding this or a similar exhibition sometime in the future. During the summer, John McAndrew—director of the architecture department—had seen the project while traveling in Mexico, and back in New York he had recommended it to Alfred H. Barr, who, in turn discussed it with Nelson A. Rockefeller.69 Thus, once the cancellation in France was made official, personnel of the American Embassy in Mexico helped Rockefeller to obtain a copy of Dezarrois’s plan.70 A couple of weeks later the office of Rockefeller requested the French government’s authorization to take over the project, and asked Alfonso Caso to inform him as soon as the French response arrived in Mexico.71 Around the same time the trustees of MoMA voted unanimously to extend to the Mexican government an official invitation to send to the United States a comprehensive art collection “portraying the rich history of Mexico’s magnificent cultural development.”72 In this regard, Nelson A. Rockefeller informed Minister of Foreign Affairs Eduardo Hay that MoMA had decided to devote “its entire gallery space” to the display of the Mexican exhibition during the spring of 1940. The museum wished to 68 “Exposition d’art Mexicain Ancien et Moderne,” Paris, M ai-Juin-Juillet 1940, typed draft in French, , folder 1354, box 138, Personal Projects RG III 4L, NAR Papers/RF A/RAC. 69 Bamet-Sdnchez. “The Necessity o f Pre-Columbian Art,” 122. 70 NAR to Mr. Pierre Boal (Chancellor American Embassy in Mexico), 17 Oct. 1939, folder 1354, box 138, NAR III4L, Projects/RFA/RAC. 71 NAR to Alfonso Caso, 17 Oct. 1939, folder 1354, box 138, NAR III4L, Projects/RF A/RAC. 72 Note that there was no name assigned yet to the exhibition. It was only by mid-February 1940 that the title Twenty Centuries o f Mexican Art was to be proposed and approved.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

418

make such a distinction because “for the first time” the people of the United States would have the opportunity of seeing “a comprehensive review of the art and culture” of Mexico.73 Rockefeller, who wanted to expedite the process, was worried because he did not receive any reply from Mexico in weeks. By November he was increasingly anxious because there had already been leaks to the Mexican press about his private meeting with President Cardenas in Jiquilpan.74 By mid-November Rockefeller notified Roberto Montenegro that in case of more delays in the confirmation from the Mexican government he should start purchasing the popular art collection that should be included in the exhibition.75 A few days later Rockefeller began getting some answers. At the opening of the Picasso retrospective in MoMA. he met Miguel and Rosa Covarrubias, who informed him that the French Embassy had already approved the use of the Dezarrois’s project. Nonetheless, the Mexican government continued to be silent. Nelson A. Rockefeller had to write to Alfonso Caso asking why Minister of Foreign Affairs Hay had not answered the MoMA official invitation, and made clear that it was imperative to go on with the exhibition.76 The reason for the delay was that budget constraints had obliged the Cardenas administration to re-consider the co-sponsorship of the exhibition.77 Under these circumstances Caso proposed to Rockefeller postponing the

73 NAR to General Eduardo Hay, 20 Oct. 1939, folder 1354, box 138. NAR III4L, Projects/RF A/RAC. 74 See, for example, “Rockefeller desea invertir capital,” Excelsior (Mexico City), 3 Nov. 1939. 75 NAR to Roberto Montenegro, 13 Nov. 1939, folder 1354, box 138, NAR III4L, Projects/RF A/RAC. 76 NAR to Alfonso Caso, 20 Nov. 1939, folder 1354, box 138, NAR III4L, Projects/RF A/RAC.

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

419 exhibition for a while—at least six months—until things cleared up.78 Rockefeller disregarded that suggestion and wrote again to Minister Hay offering to send John E. Abbott—MoMA’s vice president—to make the necessary arrangements in Mexico City. In addition. Rockefeller warned Hay that given the hard constraints on time, if the Mexican government did not confirm its participation by 18 December 1939 the show would be canceled.79 Then Rockefeller let Caso know that he had also written to President Cardenas reminding him about their agreement in Jiquilpan:

When we planned to display a comprehsnive exhibition of Mexican ancient and modem culture at the Museum of Modem Art in New York, considering its positive effect on the understanding between our two countries.80

As a matter of fact. Miguel and Rosa Covarrubias had advised Rockefeller on sending that telegram to President Cardenas.81 Both of them, together with William Spratling, had been counseling Rockefeller about the ways and means of Mexican bureaucrats and had urged Nelson “to use all [his] personal influence” to get things done given the importance of the show.82 As long as the “ultimatum” tactic produced the long awaited response,

77 Walter Douglas to NAR. 27 Nov. 1939, folder 1354, box 138, NAR II14L, Projects/RF A/RAC. 78 Alfonso Caso to NAR, 8 Dec. 1939, folder 1354, box 138, NAR 1II4L, Projects/RF A/RAC. 79 NAR to Eduardo Hay, 12 Dec. 1939, folder 1354, box 138, NAR III4L, Projects/RFA/RAC. 80 “Cuando planeamos la exposicidn en que el museo de arte modemo de Nueva York presentaria el total de la culture mexicana antigua y modema en vista de la enorme importancia que esta representa para el mejor entendimiento entre los dos paises.” NAR to Alfonso Caso, 14 Dec. 1939. folder 1354. box 138, NAR I1I4L, Projects/RF A/RAC. 81 Miguel and Rose Covarrubias to Under-Secretary o f Foreign Affairs Ramdn Beteta, 15 Dec. 1939, folder 1354, box 138, NAR III4L, Projects/RF A/RAC. 82 Miguel and Rose Covarrubias and William Spratling to NAR, , folder 1354, box 138, NAR III4L, Projects/RF A/RAC. Bear in mind that ten years before William Spratling had played a similar role when he advised Ambassador Morrow on the Mexican Arts show and other art matters (see chap. 3).

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

420

Rockefeller recovered his sense o f humor and he could not help but note to his advisors that the telegrams “did the trick” because he received “wires from the President and Eduardo Hay the following Monday.”

By that time—late December 1939—John E. Abbott was already in Mexico City, and among his first activities he had met with Pablo Martinez del Rio. Roberto Montenegro. Jorge Enciso, Alfonso Caso. and Ambassador Josephus Daniels.84 Meanwhile. Roberto Montenegro had been wired $5,000 to begin purchasing the popular art collection for the show. Equally. President Cardenas had ordered the allocation of O f

funds to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in order to start working on the project. Then the establishment of three committees was proposed: an executive committee constituted by Minister of Foreign Affairs Hay and John E. Abbott; an honorary committee headed by Presidents Cardenas and Roosevelt, and including Mexico’s minister of public education, as well as Ambassador Josephus Daniels and Ambassador Castillo Najera. Finally, an organizing committee was formed by Alfonso Caso. Manuel Toussaint. Miguel Covarrubias, Roberto Montenegro, and Pablo Martinez del Rio as secretary. Regarding finances, the agreement was that the Mexican government would contribute with $15,000 to cover the acquisition of objects, manufacture of molds and models.

83 NAR to William Spratling, 20 Dec. 1939. folder 1354, box 138, NAR III4L, Projects/RF A/RAC. 84 Telegram, John E. Abbott to NAR, 20 Dec. 1939; telegram, John E. Abbott to NAR. 22 Dec. 1939. folder 1354, box 138, NAR III4L, Projects/RF A/RAC. 85 Pablo Martinez del Rio to NAR, 23 Dec. 1939, folder 1354, box 138, NAR 1II4L, Projects/RF A/RAC.

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

421 photographs, films, shipping to the border and return, and travel expenses of the Mexican employees that were going to travel to New York.86 As to prevent any other delays or uncertainty. Rockefeller would ask Monroe Wheeler—MoMA’s director of publications—to go to Mexico to supervise himself the edition and printing of the catalogue, and to help John E. Abbott in whatever was needed. In addition, Rockefeller instructed both Abbott and Wheeler that if any major question arose they should look for the assistance o f Walter Douglas. As an American resident fluent in Spanish, and representative of Rockefeller affairs in Mexico, Douglas was an expert in dealing with top-level officials in the government.87 About the same time Rockefeller took the opportunity of sending appreciative and encouraging notes to Alfonso Caso and Miguel Covarrubias. He thanked them for their commitment and dedication, and confided to Caso that he believed that the show would be “one of the most important and popular exhibitions ever held in New York City,” and that it would result in “a fuller appreciation by the American people of the richness of Mexico’s cultural history.”88 Although Rockefeller was being very prudent on the logistical side, on the political and diplomatic side he would be much more assertive and at times even enthusiastic. By late January 1940, he let Walter Douglas know that:

86 Bases for collaboration between the Mexican Government and the Museum o f Modem Art of New York, U.S.A., to arrange an Exposition o f Mexican Art in the Museum, signatories Eduardo Hay and John E. Abbott, executive vice president o f the Museum of Modem Art o f New York. Mexico City, 23 Dec. 1939, folder 1354, box 138, NAR III4L, Projects/RF A/RAC. 87 NAR to Walter Douglas, 27 Jan. 1940, folder 1354, box 138, NAR III4L, Projects/RFA/RAC. 88 NAR to Alfonso Caso, 27 Jan. 1940; NAR to Miguel Covarrubias, 27 Jan. 1940, folder 1354, box 138. NAR III4L, Projects/RFA/RAC.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

422

The Exhibition is assuming larger and larger proportions as times goes by and I really think it is going to be something of major importance from an international as well as a cultural point of view. We are now planning to open the show sometime in May and hold it over all summer for the World Fair’s crowds. I think it will be very popular and should be seen by at least several hundred thousand people. The newspapers and magazines seem to be very much interested in the show and I believe there will be a great deal of publicity in connection with it.89

Thus now that the operating aspect had been left in the hands of Abbott and Wheeler, Rockefeller began focusing on the publicity campaign. Sarah Newmeyer— MoMA’s publicity director—thought that Nelson, as president of the museum, was the appropriate person to announce the exhibition and make a statement about the cooperation between MoMA and the Mexican government—“the good neighbor policy, an so forth.”90 Newmeyer considered that to make that strategy work, she needed to go to Mexico and collect human-interest stories for publications like the Saturday Evening Post, the Ladies ’Home Journal, the Woman’s Home Companion, and Collier's. She thought that in Mexico her imagination would be stimulated by actually seeing the objects, the conditions under which they were produced, and all the “romantic, adventurous, dramatic flavor” that could be added to the exhibition. Newmeyer would work out the feature stories with pictures and send them to New York, and she could also produce newsreels and short-films of Pre-Columbian excavations. For instance, a “Technicolor short on the most romantic or dramatic skeleton plot may be worked out through some phase of the exhibition.”91 Newmeyer also found attractive collecting native songs or instrumental numbers, including both folk and modem popular music,

89 NAR to Walter Douglas, 27 Jan. 1940, folder 1354, box 138, NAR III4L, Projects/RFA/RAC. 90 Sara Newmeyer to NAR, 1 Feb. 1940, folder 1354, Box 138, NAR I1I4L, Projects/RFA/RAC. 91 Ibid.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

423

and let the dance-orchestras popularize them through the radio and the motion pictures “just before the opening o f the show.” She also recommended producing a radio series focused on the story qualities inherent in Mexican artworks, as well as the adventure and drama involved in the collection of the show—once again focusing on the Pre-Columbian art case. 92 The publicity of the Mexican show, however, should not be limited to printed and broadcasted music and stories. Newmeyer believed—as Frances Flynn Paine in 1928 at the Art Center (see chap. 3)—that it was necessary to produce Mexicanlike objects and souvenirs to be sold at regular stores across the country.93 In that vein it was proposed that, in association with leading New York fashion designers, “Mexican styles” be created for the spring and summer.94 The Mexican styles would be displayed in shop windows and presented in fashion shows just before the exhibition opened. There would also be motion picture reels on Mexican fashions, and women’s page tie-ins in syndicates and newspapers “all over the country.” As a program of special activities, the publicity department proposed that “An American or Mexican battleship should bring the entire

92 As part o f the publicity the department o f publications would issue three sets o f postcards— PreSpanish, Colonial, and Modem. This decision proved to be successful because, in general, the sale o f postcards at MoMA had become tremendously popular, growing from 2,797 in 1938-1939 to 122,234 in 1939-1940. Monroe Wheeler to AAR, 25 June 1940, file 113, box 8, AAR Papers/RFA/RAC. F ora discussion about the process o f aestheticization and appropriation o f Pre-Columbian art in the case o f Twenty Centuries, see Bamet-Sdnchez, “The Necessity o f Pre-Columbian Art,” 110-36; se also Mewbum, “Oil. Art and Politics: The Feminization o f Mexico.” 93 Since the foundation o f MoMA, A. Conger Goodyear— first president of the museum— had observed how important was to market art products. For that reason MoMA had developed sales o f exhibitions souvenirs at department stores. See Susan Noyes Platt, Art and politics in the 1930s: Modernism, Marxism, Americanism: A History o f Cultural Activism during the Depression Years (New York: Midmarch Arts Press. 1999), 202. 94 The fashion program would be conducted by Macy’s department store. Jack I. Straus (Acting President, R. H. Macy & Co. Inc.) to NAR, 1 Mar. 1940, folder 1354, box 138, NAR III4L, Projects/RFA/RAC. From MoMA the person in charge o f that program was the director o f the museum’s department of industrial design. NAR to Jack I. Straus, folder 1354, box 138, NAR III4L, Projects/RFA/RAC.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

424

exhibition to New York at one time.” The battleship could either 'leave from or arrive in New York on George Washington’s birthday,” which was about the date the exhibition would be shipped.95 Newmeyer’s publicity proposal was an early outline, but it reflected the interest of making the exhibition an occasion to present to the American public something positive and sympathetic about Mexico. The intention was—as Ambassador Morrow had declared in 1930—to change the American assumptions about another nation through the appreciation of something positive, like its art, music, and lifestyle. Because of that, Nelson A. Rockefeller appreciated Sarah Newmeyer’s approach, which was neither pretentious nor excluding, but "comprehensive and imaginative.”96 In fact, the use of congenial publicity would be a substitute for political propaganda and official speeches. A reason was that the anti-Mexico and anti-America feelings were still “running pretty high in both countries” and any political association could generate misunderstandings.97 Therefore, in the announcement of the exhibition it had to be clear that the event was “of an entirely cultural nature and has nothing to do with the political or economic relations” between Mexico and the United States. It was best to let know the American public “that the Museum initiated this Exhibition because of the quality and importance o f the art of Mexico.”98 It was also very important to avoid

95 “Tentative Publicity Program for Mexican Exhibition,” accompanying letter Sarah Newmeyer to NAR, 8 Nov. 1939. folder 1356, box 138, Personal Projects RG III4L, NAR Papers/RFA/RAC. 96 NAR to Sarah Newmeyer, 8 Nov. 1939, folder 1354, box 138, NAR II14L, Projects/RFA/RAC. 97 An example o f those misunderstandings was the rumor that the art treasures sent to MoMA would not return to Mexico. See “Ridfcula creencia sobre una pdrdida,” Excelsior (Mexico City), 7 June 1940.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

425

any misinterpretation about the cooperation of the Mexican government in the project. Some public or business interests could get the impression that the Cardenas administration was taking advantage to spread its political beliefs, or that the Roosevelt administration was using the show to promote the Good Neighbor Policy. After the success of the Mexican oil expropriation, and the restrained reaction from the American government, many American businessmen had concluded that the Good Neighbor Policy was a farce as far as Mexico was concerned. Thus, it was recommended that no declarations be made neither by Mexican nor by American authorities, until the exhibition had been announced by MoMA." Rockefeller had no doubts that the Roosevelt administration was supportive of the show, because as he had observed, there was no “hostility” toward Mexico from “the government quarters” as there certainly was in “business quarters.” Rockefeller’s only concern was that “the Mexican or American Governments” would want to take the publicity of the event “out of the Museum’s hands.” 100 Under those considerations it was agreed that the publicity campaign would be launched at the MoMA headquarters on 20 February 1940. Early that month, Newmeyer was in Mexico gathering the feature stories and she sketched the concepts to be stressed in the campaign. Among other aspects, it was important to note that MoMA was doing something that had never been done on such a large scale: to present a survey of the entire artistic culture of a nation. Regarding the contents pf the show, Mexico’s Colonial

98 NAR to John E. Abbott, 14 Feb. 1940, folder 1354, box 138, Personal Projects RG III 4L, NAR Papers/RF A/RAC. 99 Ibid. 100 Ibid.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

426

art should be highlighted, because it was little known abroad. It would be revealed that Mexican Colonial art was the unique fusion of the tradition brought by the Spaniards with the Mayan and Aztec traditions (fig. 6.5). Such a fusion would have been successful because dining the three-century Colony “nearly every Mexican was an artist.”101 All the objects—from shoes to furniture—were made in beautiful designs and colors, always enriched by ornamentation (figs. 6.6-8). Whereas in the case of Mexico's modem art the publicity should emphasize that it was the result of the fusion between modem European art and Mexican art (figs. 6.9-11). The work of Rivera. Orozco. Montenegro. Siqueiros, and Covarrubias, among others, proved that for a “second time” an outside influence had “reshaped native Mexican art.”102 As planned, on 20 February 1940 Nelson A. Rockefeller announced the Mexican exhibition at a press conference. He noted that after three and a half months of negotiations, a contract of cooperation had been signed between MoMA and the Mexican government. Rockefeller also stated that Twenty Centuries o f Mexican Art would be the most comprehensive exhibition of Mexican art “ever assembled anywhere, even in Mexico.”103 He explained that in Twenty Centuries some of Mexico’s greatest art and archaeological treasures would be seen for the first time abroad.104 He also took the

101 In the pencil corrections the romanticized view was stressed by adding that “[being artists] was and still is one o f the extraordinarily unique characteristics o f Mexican people.” 102 Sarah Newmeyer to NAR, 16 Feb. 1940. folder 1356, box 138, Personal Projects RG III4L, NAR Papers/RF A/RAC. 103 See “Extensive Show of Mexican Art to Open May 1,” New York Herald Tribune, 21 Feb. 1940. About the title Twenty Centuries o f Mexican Art, this had been agreed in Mexico in early February, and Abbott and Wheeler sent it to New York for approval. John E. Abbott to Alfred H. Barr. 15 Feb. 1940. folder 1354, box 138, Personal Projects RG III4L, NAR Papers/RF A/RAC. 104 See “Mexican Art Exhibit to Be Shown at New York Museum this Summer.” News (San Antonio. Texas), 21 Feb. 1940, MoMA Archives, NY: PI, 45/TCMA.

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

427

opportunity of thanking the people of Mexico for having lent the art of their nation, and pointed out that the goal of the exhibition was:

[To] contribute to a better understanding of the people and current life of Mexico at this time when there is such widespread interest throughout this country in our Latin American neighbors.105

At the announcement Rockefeller also recalled the good effects of previous Mexican shows at MoMA. as well as the rich collection of Mexican art held by the museum.106 Rockefeller scored that in the case of Twenty Centuries there would be an additional attraction for the public since they would be able to compare “Mexico's art of today against the background of its cultural past.”107 Rockefeller stressed the importance of appreciating cultural evolution, in this case through an interval o f twenty centuries. It was at that point that he underlined the human and diplomatic sides of the exhibition by saying that: To know the arts of Mexico is to know and understand them, for the two are so inseparably interwoven. One cannot come to know and love the arts of this country without developing a great warmth and affection for the people themselves. They are truly extraordinary people. 108

105 See “Mexican Art Show Will Be Held Here.” NYT. 21 Feb. 1940. 106 See “Twenty Centuries o f Mexican Art to Be Shown,” Washington Post. 3 Mar. 1940. MoMA Archives, NY: PI, 45/TCMA. The previous Mexican shows at MoMA were Diego Rivera’s one-man show (1931-1032) and American Sources o f Modern Art (1933). Regarding MoMA’s Mexican collection, by 1940 it was the museum’s third in extension, just after the American and the French ones. The collection included a great variety o f artists: Josd Guadalupe Posada, members o f he first generation o f muralists. the second generation, the TGP, and younger artists like Frida Kahlo. However, the collection consisted of less than forty works and most o f them were graphics. 107 In other words, a similar goal to the one intended in American Sources o f Modern Art. 108 See “Mexican Art Show Will Be Held Here.” NYT\ 21 Feb. 1940.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

428 Rockefeller praised the abilities of the Mexicans to create and live inside beauty, their love towards play, and their enormous imagination. The kind of qualities that he celebrated confirmed the stereotype of Mexico as a primitive, naive, and exotic country: it was lovely but not mature, it was a child. On the other hand. Rockefeller’s speech had a lot of references to the glorious and distant Mexican past, but there were no comments on Mexico’s contemporary history or society. 109 A few days after the exhibition had been announced. Frederick Keppel—still president of the CCNY—wrote a note to Nelson A. Rockefeller, reminding him that back in 1930 the corporation had been responsible for Mexican Arts: the first comprehensive exhibition of Mexican art in the United States.110 According to Keppel, he was the person who had “persuaded Dwight Morrow” of doing that show. Keppel was so eager to leave his own account for the record that he sent Rockefeller the only copy of the catalogue of Mexican Arts that he kept.111 After having looked at the catalogue. Rockefeller sent it back with a note containing a subtle comment, “I do hope that you will feel that the Museum of Modem Art’s Mexican Exhibition does justice to the movement which you initiated.”112 What this exchange of notes reveal is that two prominent institutions, the CCNY and MoMA were already disputing the credit of having pioneered the presentation of Mexican art exhibitions in New York and the United States. 109 It is worth noting that Rockefeller’s press conference was not only the first but also the main source about Twenty Centuries. Rockefeller’s speech contained the ideas and the information that would shape the press articles in the following weeks. 110 Frederick Keppel to Nelson A. Rockefeller, 1 Mar. 1940, folder 1354, box 138, Personal Projects RG III4L, NAR Papers/RF A/RAC. 111 Ibid. See Mexican Arts: Catalogue o f an Exhibition Organizedfor and Circulated by The American Federation o f Arts. 1930-193/, exh. cat. (N-P-: Southworth Press, American Federation o f Arts, 1930). 112 NAR to Frederick Keppel, 4 Mar. 1940, folder 1354, box 138, NAR III4L, Projects/RFA/RAC.

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

429

Meanwhile in Mexico it was organized a contest to choose the poster to convey the official image of Twenty Centuries o f Mexican Art. The announcement of the contest was published in the Mexican papers on 23 February, but oddly the deadline was placed on 11 March. The awards offered were as follows: the first place would receive $1,000; the second one $500; the third $250; and there would be five minor awards of $100 each one. These prizes would be awarded on 12 March, and selected works would be exhibited at the National Palace of Fine Arts. The jury was constituted by Adolfo Best Maugard, advertiser Federico Sanchez Fogarty, and Monroe Wheeler, director of MoMA’s publications department. The participating posters had to be sent to Gabriel Fernandez Ledesma, who was assisting Covarrubias in the modem section and had drafted the regulations of the contest. The subsequent results of the contest were bizarre and very questionable because the first place was given to Fernandez Ledesma himself, for a work entitled Shinca.m By now it was late February, and even though Twenty Centuries had been announced as all set. the truth was that the arrangements in Mexico were still erratic. So far. the most difficult problem was to coordinate and synthesize the whole exhibition. Monroe Wheeler observed that in early February, the four sections of the show were so separated in concept one from each other that it was as if they were four different

" J The second place was to Antonio Alvarez for Simbad: the third one was to German Homero for Arbol genealogico (Genealogical Tree). While, among the recipients o f the minor awards were the following artists: Guillermo Meza. Isabel Villaseflor. and Rafael Mufloz, these two were members o f the Taller de la Grdfica Popular. MoMA Archives, NY: PI, 45/TCMA. It is worth noting that since the beginning the contest seemed to be problematic. When the MoMA publicity department proposed the idea. Nelson A. Rockefeller himself telephoned Abbott and Wheeler in Mexico City, to ask them to consult with Mexican artists about the idea. After conducting the consultation, Abbott responded that although some artists believed that such a contest could be extremely controversial, the majority agreed that it was a good idea and that everyone should participate, except the best known artists, and it just happened that the winner was not only one o f the organizers but also a well-known painter. John E. Abbott to Alfred H. Barr, 15 Feb. 1940, folder 1354, folder 1354, box 138, NAR II14L, Projects/RFA/RAC.

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

430

shows.114 At that point there was no proposal yet on how the sections should be interrelated, and there was no idea of what artworks could best illustrate Mexican art continuity throughout the twenty centuries to be covered.113 Professor Antonio Castro Leal, who had been hired to write an explanatory introduction, would detect a similar lack of unity in the texts that the four curators provided for the catalogue. Thus the selections and writings had to be “rearranged to fit, or rather to elucidate, the unifying idea” of Twenty Centuries.116 The texts that Toussaint and Montenegro presented for the Colonial and popular sections, for instance, had to be rewritten several times.117 For the modem section Stanton Catlin—then a Harvard art history student—was hired to help Fernandez Ledesma in the elaboration of biographical notes.118 Monroe Wheeler believed that these problems were the result of not having a full-time director “forming a general concept and supervising, from day to day, the inter-relation of the four groups.” In this regard, Wheeler excused himself and Abbott, because they had had to face the complication of doing everything in two languages, two-measurement systems (inches and centimeters), and two notions about time and deadlines—‘The well-known Mexican sense of time (or lack of it).”119 But the problems were not restricted to the exhibition as a

114 to NAR. 6 Mar. 1940, folder 1354, box 138, NAR III4L, Projects/RFA/RAC. 1,5 Ibid. 116 Ibid. At the same time there were technical problems to print the catalogue in Mexico due to the lack o f appropriate ink and machines. John E. Abbott to Alfred H. Barr, 15 Feb. 1940, folder 1354, box 138, Personal Projects RG III4L, NAR Papers/RF A/RAC. 117 to NAR, 6 Mar. 1940, folder 1354, box 138, NAR III4L, Projects/RFA/RAC. 118 Ibid. See , “ Brief Biographies,” in Twenty Centuries o f Mexican Art. Veinte siglos de arte mexicano, exh. cat. (Mexico City: MoMA and INAH, 1940), 183-89.

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

431

whole, unfortunately there seemed to be more problems and delays within the sections, and more specifically with the Pre-Columbian and the modem ones. In the Pre-Columbian section conflicts erupted in early March when the population of the state of Oaxaca opposed that the Monte Alban site treasures be taken abroad— among them a gold pectoral of the God o f Death that had been found in Tomb no. 7 of Monte Alban (fig. 6.12).120 There were demonstrations at the Monte Alban ruins and at some point the local police had to intervene. In Alfonso Caso’s view, the situation was delicate because the press—particularly El Universal, a Mexico City daily—was arousing the people and the consequences could be serious.121 The problem went back to the early 1930s when the Monte Alban treasures had been discovered and removed to be on display in Mexico City (figs. 6.13—15). There were protests and in order to get them back, the state of Oaxaca had to sue the federal government. As a result, the Supreme Court ruled that archeological treasures were federal property, but they could return to Oaxaca and be in custody of a federal museum. In addition, the new legislation stipulated that archaeological treasures could be removed only with the written permission of the president of Mexico. And since that was something that MoMA had obtained from day

1,9 to NAR, 6 Mar. 1940, folder 1354, box 138, NAR 1II4L, Projects/RFA/RAC. 120 See “Las Joyas de Monte Albbn,” El Universal (Mexico City), 12 Mar. 1940: see also “Mexicans Opposed to Exhibiting Jewells,” Evening Journal, 13 Mar. 1940. 121 to NAR, 12 Mar. 1940, folder 1354, box 138, Personal Projects RG II14L, NAR Papers/RF A/RAC. Since February E l Universal had expressed strong preoccupation about the loan of “original and unique” Pre-Columbian pieces for the MoMA exhibition. The daily pointed out that “the most worthy part o f our collection” pieces would be “taken away from the National Museum o f Archaeology....with the usual risks o f deterioration for emergencies, missing, and unexpected circumstances.” The note added that it was not known “what warranties offered the committee in charge,” and it was also ignored when the “national possessions” would be back to Mexico. See “Exposicibn de ricas joyas de nuestro pals en Nueva York,” El Universal (Mexico City), 16 Feb. 1940.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

432

one, the Monte Alban incident was upsetting but did not go beyond being a press nuisance. 122 Meanwhile, regarding the arrangement of the modem section Miguel Covarrubias had been hesitant since the beginning. First, he was upset because he was not paid. He also thought that he was spending time, imperiling friendships, and delaying his own work.123 Second, Covarrubias had begun to work on his section later than Montenegro, Caso. and Toussaint. To make things worse the majority of the artists originally invited refused to exhibit and Covarrubias had to persuade them one by one.124 As a consequence of those difficulties, Covarrubias had to be extremely careful in selecting the work of the seventy artists that had finally accepted to be included. At the end the modem section would mostly feature the art production of the 1930s, at the expense of the seminal works of the 1920s.125 Monroe Wheeler, nonetheless, excused Covarrubias by noting that he was resolving in two months an exhibition for which MoMA usually dedicated six months of work.126

122 to NAR. 12 Mar. 1940, folder 1354, box 138, Personal Projects RG III4L, NAR Papers/RF A/RAC. About other problems in the Pre-Columbian section, see Paul to Alfred H. Barr, Cambridge, Mass., 6 Dec. 1939; Pablo Martinez del Rio (Departamento de Intercambio, UN AM) to NAR, Mexico City, 5 Jan. 1940, folder 1354, box 138, NAR III4L, Projects/RFA/RAC. 123 John E. Abbott to NAR. Mexico City, 2 Feb. 1940, folder 1354, box 138, NAR III4L, Projects/RFA/RAC. 124 John E. Abbott to Alfred H. Barr, 15 Feb. 1940, folder 1354, box 138, NAR I1I4L, Projects/RFA/RAC. 125 to NAR, 6 Mar. 1940, folder 1354, box 138, NAR II14L, Projects/RFA/RAC. About the contents o f the section, see Jean Chariot “Twenty Centuries o f Mexican Art,” American Magazine o f Art 33(1940): 441. 126 to NAR, 6 Mar. 1940, folder 1354, box 138, NAR UI4L, Projects/RFA/RAC.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

433

Regarding other arrangements, Twenty Centuries o f Mexican Art was insured for $1,280,000. Considering that many of the pieces were unique and the cost of the whole collection was so high, John E. Abbott assured the reporters that MoMA would have the greatest care and security in its transportation, handling, display, and return to Mexico.127 As scheduled, by the end of March the exhibition, which weighed three tons, left Mexico City. The collection was moved on a train guarded by Mexican federal troops up to the border where the United States took charge. On 11 April the collection would arrive in New York in three freight cars guarded by two Texas rangers and a Mexican museum official.128 In the following four weeks the collection was distributed on the three gallery floors of MoMA’s new building, as well as a good part of the sculpture garden.129 According to the installation master plan, John McAndrew was in charge, and each one of the sections would be divided among the staff. Dorothy Miller would install the Colonial art section (figs. 6.16-19). Whereas Miss Henrich would be responsible of the Colonial architecture section (figs. 6.20-21). Alfred H. Barr himself would coordinated the arrangement of the modem art section (figs. 6.22—31). While John McAndrew and Roberto Montenegro would organize the folk art section (figs. 6.32-35). Finally, Dorothy Miller and archaeologist George Vaillant would set up the Pre-Columbian section (figs.

127 See The World o f Art, “New York to See Mexican Art,” Sun (Lewiston, ME), 28 Feb. 1940. See also “Exposicidn de ricas joyas de nuestro pals en Nueva York,” El Universal (Mexico City), 16 Feb. 1940. See also “Mexicans Opposed to Exhibiting Jewels,” Evening Journal (Wilmington, Del.), 13 Mar. 1940; “Mexican Art Starts for New York Exhibit,” Evening Journal (Wilmington. Del.), 29 Mar. 1940, MoMA Archives, NY: PI, 45/TCMA. 128 See “Valuable Mexican Art Arrives Here,” Home News (12 Apr. 1940), MoMA Archives, NY: PI, 45/TCMA. 129 Ibid. About the MoMA new building’s dedication, see A. Conger Goodyear, The Museum o f Modern Art: The First Ten Years (New York, 1943).

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

434

6.36-39).130 In addition, McAndrew would design some singular details, like cactus plants along the aisles, or a Judas puppet in the entrance roof. Apparently, an exotic art deserved an extravagant installation. Alfred H. Barr, as director of the museum, would be responsible of preparing the text for the presentation of the show. His draft notes are a very valuable document because they reveal the perception of the Mexican art in New York by 1940.131 In effect, ten years after Edward Robinson, the classical art scholar that directed the Metropolitan Museum, had opposed the exhibition of Mexican art for considering it “the most atrocious lot of truck” that he had ever seen in the United States. Alfred H. Barr—the European-oriented director of MoMA—did not doubt for a second that Mexican art deserved to be exhibited at one of the most prestigious New York museums. Barr, however, was not naive in that regard. In his draft notes for the MoMA presentation he acknowledge that many Americans were still condescending toward Mexico simply because the United States had been “more stable politically, stronger in war, better organized industrially and commercially.” Barr refuted that position by observing that such “political and technological achievements” were great but had not produce “a civilization culturally superior to that of Mexico.” As a matter of fact, Barr believed that Twenty Centuries o f Mexican Art would prove Mexico’s cultural and artistic superiority vis-a-vis the United States.132 Barr argued that the Mexican advantage over

130 Memorandum. “Mexican Art: Installation Schedule,” by Alfred H Barr, Jr., Director Museum o f Modem Art, 15 Apr. 1940, folder 1354, box 138, Personal Projects RG III4L, NAR Papers/RF A/RAC. 131 Draft Preface, , , folder 1354, box 138, Personal Projects RG III4L, NAR Papers/RF A/RAC. An edited version o f these notes was published (unsigned) in the catalogue, see foreword o f the Museum o f Modem Art to Twenty Centuries o f Mexican Art, exh. cat.. 11- 12.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er r ep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

435

the United States was due to the mingling o f two great art traditions in the sixteenth century: the Spaniard and the Pre-Columbian. That fusion had been more than an art event, it had been the reunion of “the greatest empire of Europe with the most powerful empire of America.”133 With regard to the present, Barr noted that since 1925 Mexican muralism had become “the most important foreign influence upon American art.” 134 He explained that the Mexican Renaissance had been created by cultivated artists, familiar both with the art o f the past and the European avant-garde. Those artists had been to leave the comfort of their studios and go to paint public murals of social, political and historical content. Not surprisingly, the Mexican muralists succeeded in capturing the imagination of the Mexican people and by doing so they inspired and stimulated their American colleagues.133 But even if Mexican art had become well liked and respected, Barr admitted that Mexican folk art might still appear as something odd; nonetheless, “to those who know and love Mexico these forms of clay or paper are more than this: they are the souvenirs of a way of life which still preserves that gaiety, serenity and sense of human dignity which the world needs.”136

b2 Draft Preface. , < 1 1 Mar. 1940>, folder 1354, box 138, Personal Projects RG III4L, NAR Papers/RF A/RAC. 133 Barr must have been referring to the Aztec Empire. Draft Preface, . , folder 1354, box 138, Personal Projects RG III4L, NAR Papers/RF A/RAC. 134 Ibid. About Barr’s early views on modem Mexican art, see chap. 4. 135 Draft Preface, , , folder 1354, box 138, Personal Projects RG III4L, NAR Papers/RF A/RAC. Barr was referring to the experience o f Diego Rivera; about his opinion o f Rivera, see chap. 4.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

436

At the same time that the installation and the presentation were being prepared, Nelson A. Rockefeller was focused on the political angles of the exhibition. In March he sent telegrams to President Roosevelt and Secretary of State Cordell Hull, inviting them to form part of the group of official sponsors o f Twenty Centuries o f Mexican Art.137 The other sponsors included President Cardenas, Ambassador Daniels, Mexican Ambassador Castillo Najera, Minister of Foreign Affairs Eduardo Hay, and Minister of Public Education Vazquez Vela—all of them had already confirmed their participation.138 Edwin M. Watson, secretary of President Roosevelt, responded that the president could not accept the invitation to be one of the sponsors of the exhibition.139 Seemingly, President Roosevelt declined because Mexico was still a controversial topic in the eyes of the public opinion. Similarly, Secretary of State Hull replied that he could not accept the invitation either, because he would not be able to be an active sponsor. However, he stressed that art projects like Twenty Centuries o f Mexican Art would benefit relations among the American nations.140 It is important to note that weeks later, when the political climate had changed President Roosevelt would take the opportunity of praising the show in a radio speech.

136 Draft Preface, , , folder 1354. box 138, Personal Projects RG III4L, NAR Papers/RFA/RAC. The notes by Barr prove the impact o f the Mexican presence in New York, as we have seen in the previous chapters. 137 NAR to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, 12 Mar. 1940: NAR to Secretary o f State Cordell Hull, 12 Mar. 1940, folder 1354, box 138, NAR III4L. Projects/RFA/RAC. 138 Ibid. 139 Edwin M. Watson (Secretary to President Roosevelt) to NAR, 16 Mar. 1940, folder 1354, box 138, NAR III4L, Projects/RFA/RAC. 140 Secretary o f State Cordell Hull to Minister Eduardo Hay, 14 Mar. 1940, folder 1354, Box 138, NAR III4L. Projects/RFA/RAC.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e c o p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er r ep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

437

As scheduled, on 14 May took place the opening of Twenty Centuries o f Mexican Art.UI The event was a great success with thousands of guests that acclaimed the collection with enthusiasm.142 President Cardenas’s official delegate at the event was Ing. Enrique A. Cervantes, and among the special guests who attended the dinner party were the Mexican Consul in New York, Rafael de la Colina; curators Manuel Toussaint, Roberto Montenegro, Miguel Covarrubias, and Alfonso Caso; composer and conductor Carlos Chavez; Under-Secretary of Foreign Affairs Ramon Beteta; archaeologists George Vaillant and Herbert J. Spinden; Rene d’Hamoncourt; and Jose Clemente Orozco.143 Other Mexican guests who attended the celebration were modem art dealers Alberto Misrachi and Ines Amor, as well as art historian Justino Fernandez (fig. 6.40).144 That night Rockefeller honored and thanked the Mexican counterparts for their cooperation in the preparation of the exhibition.145 A few days later, on behalf of the MoMA trustees, Rockefeller would formally thank President Cardenas’s and Mexican people’s splendid cooperation.146

141 NAR to President LSzaro C&rdenas, 14 May 1940, folder 1354, box 138, NAR III4L, Projects/RFA/RAC. 142 Memorandum. Mr. H.R. Barbour to Major T.R. Armstrong, 4 June 1940, folder 1139, box 117, NAR III4L, Projects/RFA/RAC. 143 Lists o f “Guests who have been invited to dinner at the Museum of Modem Art before opening of Mexican Show, 14 May 1940—7:30 P.M.,” folder 1355, box 138, NAR III4L, Projects/RFA/RAC; President Ldzaro C&rdenas to NAR, 25 May 1940, folder 1354, box 138, NAR III4L, Projects/RFA/RAC. 144 See “Mexicans Honored in Museum Where their Art Is Seen,” New York Herald Tribune, 22 May 1940. 145 Patricia Coffin, “Nelson A. Rockefeller at Mexican Art Fete,” World-Telegram (New York), 22 May 1940. MoMA Archives, NY: PI, 45/TCMA. 146 Memorandum. Mr. H.R. Barbour to Major T.R. Armstrong, 4 June 1940, folder 1139, box 117, NAR III4L, Projects/RFA/RAC.

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

438 Twenty Centuries o f Mexican Art would remain open four months, and it would be attended not only by American, but also by the international public that was visiting— at the same time—the New York World’s Fair. That summer of 1940 the New York art scene would be dominated by Mexican art because at the same time that Twenty Centuries was on display, there were other Mexican exhibitions taking place around the city. The most important of them was the Exhibition and Sale o f Mexican Art at the Macy’s store galleries, from 20 May to 20 June. This show comprised 385 works, and among the artists represented were Diego Rivera, Jose Clemente Orozco. David Alfaro Siqueiros, Rufino Tamayo, and Dr. Atl.147 The exhibition was arranged by Alma Reed and it included oils, watercolors, lithographs, engravings, photographs, and even reproductions.148 Another Mexican collection was shown within the Latin American Exhibition o f Fine Arts that the United States New York World’s Fair Commission presented at the Riverside Museum from 23 July to 20 October. Although this show included five countries, the Mexican section constituted the largest and most interesting part with eighty works by the same artists that were participating at the MoMA and the Macy’s shows.149 A third exhibition o f Mexican art took place in the Bonestell Gallery, it was entitled Mexico Lithographs: The Taller de Grafica Popular First Complete Showing. Finally, there was an exhibition of “Mexicanist” painters, two of them

147 Other artists included were Emilio Amero. Raul Anguiano, Federico Cantu, Jean Chariot, Francisco Dosamantes. Marfa Izquierdo, Manuel Rodriguez Lozano, Leopoldo Mendez, Carlos Mdrida, Jos6 CMvez Morado, Gustavo Montoya, M£ximo Pacheco, Fermin Revueltas, Carlos Orozco Romero, Matfas Santoyo, and Cordelia Urueta. 148 See Exhibition and Sale o f Mexican Art, exh. cat, foreword by Alma Reed (New York: The Macy Galleries, 20 May-20 June 1940), Mexico, Latin America Artist Exhibition Catalogues, The Museum o f Modem Art Library, New York, New York (hereafter cited as MoMA Library). 149 Latin American Exhibition o f Fine Arts, exh. cat. (New York: New York World’s Fair Commission, Tri-Arts Press, 1940).

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er r ep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

439 Americans and another one a Latino, who, fascinated and inspired by Mexico’s native culture had executed sculptures, oils, and engravings. In such a context the success of Twenty Centuries o f Mexican Art was also the result of its own design. The pieces had been by aesthetic criteria, because the objective was to please the public. The Pre-Columbian section included an Olmec head, a ChacMool figure, and representations of Quetzalcoatl. In the Colonial section predominated the attractive estofados and some retablos as well. The modem section consisted of pieces from the late nineteenth century to 1940, including works by artists associated to the Escuela Nacional de Bellas Artes (ENBA; National School of Fine Arts), like Pelegrin Clave and Jose Maria Velasco; there were also works by some of the pioneers of modem art, like Jose Guadalupe Posada, German Gedovius, and Satumino Herran; and, certainly, works of the artists associated with the Mexican Art Renaissance. Finally, in the folk art section there was a rich variety of toys, textiles, pottery, and jewelry. Displaying such distinctive pieces from different historical periods required the formulation of discursive unity. In other words, a dialectic view of Mexican art history had to be avoided, because the purpose was not to see difference and contrasts, but similarities and continuity. But building that kind of continuity was not an easy task when the differences could be too obvious to the public. The Pre-Columbian section consisted of monochromatic stone sculptures and pottery, with primitive and mythological iconography. The Colonial section comprised elaborated sculptures in Mannerist and Baroque styles, rich in sober colors and gilded, and the iconography was religious— Roman Catholic to be more exact. Whereas the folk section displayed everyday use crafts

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er r ep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

440

elaborated in varied materials (pottery, wood, textiles), in multifarious designs and bright simple colors, with a naive iconography. Thus, since it was not possible to construct the so desired continuity with objective arguments, the discursive unity was created on abstract and imaginary concepts. These notions were of three kind: one, notions referred to the formal qualities of Mexican art; two, notions referred to the Mexican creativity; and three, notions referred to the history and the psyche of Mexican people. The formal qualities of Mexican art were synthesized in color. It was said that Mexican art had an especial “sense of color”; unique hues that were, nonetheless, difficult to describe because, after all. what were the Mexican colors? The earthy and monochrome ones of the Pre-Columbian sculpture and pottery? The dark, sober, and golden ones o f the Colonial estofadosl The brilliant, basic, and pure ones of the folk art? Or the mixed European-Mexican palette of the modem painters? The tacit consensus was that the real Mexican colors were the folk ones. Those sparkling tones were associated with the Mexican fiestas so liked by American tourists. Those were also the colors of the food, the fruits and the flowers. Those were the colors of Mexico’s exotic and tropical geography, if one overlooked that most of the Mexican territory is semiarid. In sum, the brilliant colors represented some o f the sentiments that were important for American people in those difficult but hopeful years: freedom and optimism. The notion about the Mexican sense of color was cultivated by romantic intellectuals and artists that had visited Old Mexico in the 1920s and 1930s. and it was a notion that the folk art dealers and collectors eagerly reproduced. On the other hand, the notion about Mexico’s artistic creativity had to do with the alleged “gifted craftsmanship” of Mexican visual artists. Their abilities to develop

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

441

designs and invent forms was very appealing because it seemed that they were a natural and unconscious process, not the result of artistic education. This idealization unnoticed that among Mexican craftsmen there had always been education, but not in the Western traditional terms. The transmission of artistic knowledge had been usually made through the families, communities or workshops. With regard to the notions of Mexico’s particular history and psyche, they were based on the contemporary cliches about the Mexican being (see chaps. 1 and 3). First, there was the cliche of Mexico’s history as constantly violent and bloody: from the Aztec sacrifices to the Spanish conquest to the wars of Independence and Revolution. It was assumed that Mexicans enjoyed killing each other and that they were permanently to fight. Paradoxically, at the same time, it existed the cliche that Mexicans were generous, friendly, dreamful and permanently in love people. About this, some commentators suggested that those historic and mental contradictions had generated an oscillation from tragedy, to humor, to nostalgia, that enriched the art produced throughout the twenty centuries. In effect, as in 1930 at the Metropolitan Museum in Twenty Centuries o f Mexican Art Mexico would be presented as a wonderful land of color, forms, and creativity. This time, however, the enthusiasm would go so high that even conservative critics, like Henry McBride, declared that the greatest treasury of Mexico was its art. In the words of McBride, the “true wealth” of Mexico was not its gold or its oil, but its “love of beauty.”150 In his idealistic analysis McBride contended that such an artistic wealth could be a powerful weapon in times of war, since the ability to win friends through beauty was

150 Henry McBride, “Viva Mexico!” Sun (New York), 18 May 1940, MoMA Archives, NY: PI, 45ITCMA.

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

442

more effective to conquer others than the best airplanes and guns were. McBride acknowledged, nonetheless, that for the Anglo-Saxon audience it was still difficult to understand that a nation of peasants and poor people, like Mexico, was so naturally talented for the appreciation and practice of the arts. McBride argued that Mexicans were able to “surround themselves with beauty in their daily living” because all of them , from the Indians, to the half-breeds [mestizos], to the peasants were “actual artists.” In contrast, the North Americans only preached and theorized about art, they did not live it as the Mexicans did.151 One o f the most complete and enthusiastic reviews was written by Anita Brenner, who did not hesitate to declare that Mexico was “America’s Greece.”152 Brenner, like Henry McBride, believed that Mexico was a country o f peasants who had found wisdom and beauty within their own sense of time and space, which was very different from that of the modem United States, and specially from that of modem New York. Brenner—as in the late 1920s—still liked to perceive a sort of timeless existence in Mexico: and she attributed to that feature the great patience and dedication showed by Mexican craftsmen and builders. Furthermore, Brenner thought that Mexican arts and architecture had been successful and were powerful because they had emanated and remained linked to the landscape. Mexican art, as opposed to European art, did not present human civilization as something different and better than the nature constituted by plants and animals. She

151 McBride, “Viva Mexico!” McBride accused modem civilization o f having mechanized the sensibility of countries like the United States. The price o f modem comfort and security, he said, had been the loss o f art, poetry, and ingenuity. 152 Anita Brenner, “Living Art o f Mexico,” NYT Magazine. 12 May 1940.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

443

insisted that “In Mexican art, as in other ancient cultures, man is continuous with nature.” Regarding modem Mexican art, Brenner thought that it was an attempt to re-create the Mexican essence in contemporary circumstances. In an attempt to reconcile modem and ancient art, she conjectured that the magnificent monumentality of post-revolutionary muralism was proper of a sort of primitive and native expression.133 Other critics, like Emily Genauer, were more moderate in their comments. Genauer seemed to be more interested in discussing the origins of Twenty Centuries o f Mexican Art. Genauer alleged that the comprehensive notion behind Twenty Centuries was inspired in an exhibition o f Italian art that Mussolini had sent to France in the mid1930s.154 In spite o f such a resemblance. Genauer would celebrate the good effects of the exhibition for the relations between Mexico and the United States; she had observed that:

[everybody] who saw the exhibition left it with a most profound respect for Mexico, for her rich artistic tradition, for the brilliance of her civilization, when our own land was a wilderness, for the versatility, inventiveness and gaiety of her peasant art...It’s the feeling American art lovers have long held for France and Italy.13:5

A few other reviewers, however, managed to distant themselves from the publicity and indiscriminate enthusiasm, and tried to be more critical about the event. Jean Chariot, fro example, noted that the MoMA releases to the press wrongly suggested that Mexican art was characterized by “gentleness and a love of fun and play.”136

153 Ibid. Another example o f this kind o f reviews in Edward Alden Jewell, “The Panorama o f Mexican Culture,” NYT. 19 May 1940. 154 Emily Genauer, “Mexican Exhibit Rich in Artistic Tradition,” World-Telegram. 18 May 1940, MoMA Archives, NY: PI, 45/TCMA. 155 Ibid.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

444

Equally, the installation o f the exhibition corroborated those premises by emphasizing the innocence and colorfulness of Mexican popular toys and costumes, and the alleged humor and inventiveness of Mexican modem artists. In Chariot’s view, such an approach was inaccurate and regrettable; it was “as if the vast Mexican panorama had been surveyed through a rose lorgnette.” In the context of World War II, Chariot pointed out that:

Considering the world today, so cruelly different from the optimistic world of yesteryear, the art of Mexico at its most severe scores a prophetic point; it would have been a more responsible performance is the present show had had courage enough to underscore it.137

Another nonconforming article was published in Time magazine on 27 May 1940.158 The Time review defined Twenty Centuries as a typical Rockefeller stratagem, and it wondered about the interests hidden behind the otherwise innocent Mexican exhibition. As antecedents, the note recounted how in 1938 MoMA had “decided to invade Paris” by showing the French people American art accomplishments in a comprehensive exhibition that MoMA organized at the Jeu de Paume Museum.139 The result of that show was so successful that—according to Time—MoMA felt confident in 156 Chariot “Twenty Centuries o f Mexican A rt” American Magazine o f Art 33 (1940): 441. 157 Ibid. 158 “Mexican Show,” Time (27 May 1940). 159 As early as 1936 MoMA was preparing this exhibition. The objective o f the show was to strengthen the friendship between United States and France. Minister o f National Education George Huisman to A. Conger Goodyear, 4 Feb. 1936, folder 110, box 8, AAR Papers/RF A/RAC. About the exhibition Abby Aldrich Rockefeller commented that it would have “a tremendous effect on the American people” even if it did not greatly impress “the more sophisticated and cynical French.” AAR to A. Conger Goodyear, 19 Mar. 1936, folder 105. box 8, AAR Papers/RF A/RAC. The show took place in the summer o f 1938, and it was the most important American show ever held in Europe, comprising 200 paintings from public and private collections produced in the past 270 years, as well as sections o f sculpture, graphic arts, architecture, photography and moving pictures. A. Conger Goodyear, to United States Ambassador in London, 21 Apr. 1938, folder 111, box 8, AAR Papers/RF A/RAC.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

445

wishing to show France the art achievements of other American republics. In that regard, the review revealed that in the summer of 1939 Nelson A. Rockefeller had been in Mexico City making arrangements for an exhibition o f Mexican art that MoMA would sponsor in Paris.160 The magazine asserted that “Halfway through his negotiations. World War II scotched the scheme. [And] Nelson A. Rockefeller decided to hold his Mexican exhibition in Manhattan instead.” From that moment on. the Mexican government, “encouraged by the curious eyes and pointing fingers of Museum of Modem Art experts, scoured Mexico’s museums, churches and mountain towns.”161 The Time review also criticized the size of the show by saying that the organizers had “hauled in enough paintings, statues and archaeological knick-knacks to fill the Museum of Modem Art three times over,” while the museum’s permanent collections were being stored in the basement. This was not only the largest exhibition of Mexican art ever held anywhere, but it was also the largest in the MoMA ten-year history. Nonetheless, after seeing the twenty centuries of art displayed, Time concluded that in Mexican art history there were only two constants. The first constant was that people had kept making “artistic mud pies, as their ancestors did 2,000 years ago.” And the second constant was a continual “love o f blood” as seen in Pre-Columbian sculpture. Colonial crucifixions, and the battles and struggles in the frescoes of Jose Clemente Orozco.162

160 Nelson A. Rockefeller would reply to Time that MoMA never contemplated holding Twenty Centuries o f Mexican Art in Paris. But he recognized that “representatives for the French government had been negotiating for some time for an exhibition o f Mexican Art to be held in Paris. They had drop the idea on account o f the war.” NAR to Time Magazine. 27 May 1940, folder 1356, box 138, NAR III4L, Projects, NAR Personal Projects, RAC. This Letter was published in Time on 17 June 1940. 161 “Mexican Show.” Time (27 May 1940). 162 Ibid.

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r. F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

446

Orozco’s fresco painting would be certainly present at MoMA, but in a rather innovative form. As in 1931, during the Rivera one-man show, in 1940 MoMA also wished to have some portable frescoes painted by design for Twenty Centuries o f Mexican Art. A committee including Alfred H. Barr, Stanton Catlin, and Mexican art dealers Ines Amor and Alberto Misrachi decided that Orozco was the best choice to execute such a project.163 Therefore, MoMA looked for Orozco who was in Jiquilpan painting a mural for the Gabino Ortiz Public Library.164 Once the museum had confirmed the offer Orozco interrupted his work at Jiquilpan and immediately moved to New York, where he would paint a portable fresco.165 On 4 May Orozco left Mexico, explaining to his sponsor in Jiquilpan that since the priority was to improve Mexico’s prestige in the context of international difficulties he would have to postpone the project in Jiquilpan and take the MoMA commission. Orozco was sure that President Cardenas would

163 Alejandro Anreus, Orozco in Gringoland: The Years in New York (Albuquerque: Univ. o f New Mexico Press, 2001), 120-21. For a discussion o f how Orozco’s work fitted within the broader program of Twenty Centuries o f Mexican Art. see James Oles, “Orozco at War: Context and Fragment in Dive Bomber and Tank (1940),” in Jose Clemente Orozco in the United States, 1927-1934, ed. Dawn Ades, Renato Gonzalez Mello, and Diane Helen Miliotes (Hanover, N.H.: Hood Museum o f Art, Dartmouth College; New York: Norton, 2002). 164 MacKinley Helm, Modern Mexican Painters (New York: Harper & Bros., 1941), 86-87. On 30 Apr. 1940, About the mural in Jiquilpan, see Carlos Mdrida, Frescoes in Palacio deJusticia and Jiquilpan by C. Orozco: An Interpretive Guide with 19 Reproductions, Mexican Art Series, no. 11 (Mexico City: Frances Toor Studios, 1943). 165 John E. Abbott sent a telegram to Orozco informing him that MoMA offered $2,500 plus traveling and living expenses in New York to paint a portable fresco o f 6 * 3 meters. In early April Orozco received a first check for $2,000. It is worth noting that Orozco at that time was personally conducting those sales, because the Delphic Studios had closed earlier that year, and since 1938 Orozco and Reed had broken their business relations, under very bad terms. See Clemente Orozco V., Orozco, Verdad Cronoldgica (Guadalajara, Jal., Mexico: EDUG, Univ. de Guadalajara, 1983), 388-89. See also Clemente to Margarita, 8 Jan. 1938; and Clemente to Margarita, 2 Apr. 1940, in Josd Clemente Orozco, Cartas a Margarita, 1921-1949, ed. Tatiana Herrera Orozco (Mexico City: Ediciones Era, 1987). 296, 299.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

447

approve such a decision given his great interest in the success of everything related to Twenty Centuries.l66 On 10 May 1940, just like nine years before at Rivera’s arrival, a group of officials from MoMA were waiting to welcome Orozco, who arrived only four days before the opening of Twenty Centuries,167 The following days Orozco, like the other Mexican guests, was mostly attending the receptions around the exhibition, and the otherwise loner even purchased a tuxedo to fit in such a smart atmosphere. Among other events, Nelson A. Rockefeller invited the mexicanada to have brunch at his family’s property in Tarrytown. A thrilled Orozco recounted that. “They took us on their yacht...and we saw their palaces. It is a huge property and there are [450! servants.” Seemingly, Orozco, like Rivera in the past, was captivated by the Rockefeller charm, and specially by the attention that Nelson was paying to him.168 But after all the goodwill partying, the wall for the fresco was not ready on time. On 21 May Orozco noted that everyone had been so busy with the opening that they had not even planned the construction of the portable wall. Finally, on 25 May Barr himself held a two-hour meeting with Orozco, an expert in metallic frames, another expert in mixing lime and sand, and two secretaries. Barr was being very careful in these arrangements because MoMA intended to circulate the fresco to other museums across

166 “En vista de que se trata de prestigiar a Mexico en los actuates momentos de dificultades intemacionales y tomando en cuenta que el trabajo de Jiquilpan no urge demasiado, aceptd la proposicidnV “He pensado que el sefior presidente [Lazaro C&rdenas] aprobahi mi resolucidn por tener el mismo mucho interns en el 6xito de esa manifestacidn de la cultura mexicana.” Orozco to Arquitecto Alberto Le Due, 4 May 1940, in Orozco V., Orozco, Verdad Crortoldgica, 390. 167 Clemente to Margarita, 10 May 1940, in Orozco, Cartas a Margarita, 300-01. 168 “Nos llevaron en su yate... y vimos sus palacetes. Es una propiedad enorme y hay ;450! sirvientes.” Clemente to Margarita, 21 May 1940, in Orozco, Cartas a Margarita, 301.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er r ep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

448 the United States.169 In order to facilitate the handling, packing, and transportation, the 2.7 x 5.4 meter wall would be divided into six separate panels. Those panels would be ready in two weeks, and then Orozco would have between three or four weeks to paint them—i.e., the work should be concluded by mid-summer.170 The last days of May, Orozco prepared some sketches that John E. Abbott—in his role as vice president of MoMA—would present to the trustees (fig. 6.41).171 The trustees’ approval was immediate and consensual, and Orozco had to conclude that in the museum he was very well liked.172 On the other hand, Barr seemed to be particularly delighted with the theme chosen for the fresco: “Dive Bomber and Tank.” It was by that moment that Sarah Newmeyer came to talk with Orozco about the corresponding publicity, which would mostly consist of articles and interviews.

In any case, she

proposed that the very day that Orozco began the fresco, reporters and photographers should come to MoMA to register the great event.174 On 10 June the panels were ready to be plastered, and Orozco calculated that everything would be set to start painting in a week. It was until 21 June—exactly six weeks after his arrival in New York—that Orozco would finally commence to work. Each of the six panels measured nine by three feet, they had been made with strong steel

169 Orozco himself was not sure about the idea o f circulating the piece because frescoes used to be extremely delicate. He observed that the portable murals that Rivera had made in 1931-1932 were in very bad conditions. Clemente to Margarita, 25 May 1940, in Orozco, Cartas a Margarita, 301-02. 170 Ibid. 171 Clemente to Margarita, 29 May 1940, in Orozco, Cartas a Margarita, 302-03. 172 “Lo que es en el museo estoy perfectamente parado.” Clemente to Margarita, 30 May 1940, in Orozco, Cartas a Margarita, 303-04. 173 Clemente to Margarita, 3 June 1940, in Orozco, Cartas a Margarita, 304-05. 174 Clemente to Margarita, 10 June 1940, in Orozco, Cartas a Margarita, 305-06.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

449 frames, and the plaster, which was the same as for regular walls, was held by a wire mesh.175 The panels were placed in the lobby of the museum, and the publicity department would be encouraging the public to come and see the Mexican master on task.176 Orozco—in contrast to Rivera or Siqueiros—did not like this kind of situations, Orozco felt like a “monkey eating his peanuts for the entertainment of children.” Thus, instead of interacting with the visitors he tried to keep his privacy behind some screen panels.177 Orozco would paint Dive Bomber and Tank with minimal assistance from Lewis Rubinstein, a professor of art at Vassar College, who would mix colors and paints for him.178 Orozco completed the fresco on 30 June, and in early July he was only waiting for the final payment—a total of $7,500 for the whole project—to return to Mexico. Dive Bomber and Tank was an allegory against war and the destructive character of modem technology. Just like he had done in Mexico in Revolution and in his 1930s Guadalajara murals, in Dive Bomber Orozco was continuing his criticisms of war and modem technology. Orozco, explained to the Herald Tribune that the theme of the fresco was ‘‘the subjugation of man by the machines of modem warfare.” However, to the rest of the press he would later say that there was no major significance involved but just painting and some moods. To the MoMA Bulletin he also said that the work needed no clarification, which could either mean that there was no subject (politics, ideology) to

175 Ibid. 176 Anreus, Orozco in Gringoland, 122. Note that when Rivera painted the portable frescoes for his 1931 show, he did it at a private studio that MoMA provided. Conversely, in 1933 at the RCA building he had to paint in front o f spectators, special guests, and some times even the press. 177 Anreus, Orozco in Gringoland, 122. 178 Rubinstein had studied fresco painting in Rome together with Rico Lebrun. Anreus, Orozco in Gringoland, 122. For details about the composition, see idem, 123-24.

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

450 discuss, or that the subject was so clear and loud that it did not require any further comment. In any case, MoMA insisted that Orozco write a description and some insights of Dive Bomber and Tank. The result was a twelve-page pamphlet ironically entitled Orozco “Explains, ” and which included not only Orozco’s explanations but also a series of photographs of the mural in progress.179 In the text Orozco openly rejected didactic attitudes toward modem art, and opted to validate the abstract nature of Dive Bomber by reasoning that: “A painting is a Poem and nothing else. A poem made of relationships between forms as other kind of poems are made of relationships between words, sounds, or ideas.” In that sense, the “interchangeable” quality of the six panels that constituted Dive Bomber proved that:

Each part of a machine may be by itself a machine to function independently from the whole. The order of the inter-relations between its parts may be altered, but those relationships may stay the same in any other order, and unexpected or • i sn expected possibilities may appear.

In the pamphlet Orozco also took the opportunity of repudiating the publicity approach in the dissemination of modem art. He was against the use of stories, anecdotes, biographies to attract and entertain the audience—just what Sarah Newmeyer had been doing with Twenty Centuries o f Mexican Art.m On the other hand, Orozco deplored that the public always wanted to receive “explanations” about art: “What the artist had in mind when he did it... What is the exact name of the picture, and what the artist means 179 Josd Clemente Orozco. “Orozco ‘Explains,’” The Bulletin o f the Museum o f Modern Art 4, vol. 7 (Aug. 1940). 180 Ibid. 181 Anreus, Orozco in Gringoland’ 126, 130

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

451 by that.” As if he was referring to Rivera’s kind of painting, Orozco lamented that indeed many pictures used to be “the illustration of a short story or of a thesis.” And as if talking about Siqueiros, he mentioned that other pictures like to deal with “social conditions, evils of the world, revolution, history and the like.” Thus Orozco—the lifelong anarchist—concluded his participation in Twenty Centuries o f Mexican Art by knocking the MoMA didactic and publicity approach to modem art the self-indulgent ignorance of its public, and the backward position of those artists—like his Mexican colleagues—who still wanted to do reformist or revolutionary painting. In spite of those and other criticisms, Twenty Centuries o f Mexican Art was an remarkable public and critical success that resonated throughout the United States and Latin America.182 For that reason, during the summer President Cardenas took the opportunity of broadcasting a “message of friendship” to all the American countries. His aim was to confirm the indivisible allegiance between Mexico and the United States and he also called for “continental solidarity.”183 In turn. President Roosevelt broadcasted a speech to commemorate the spirit of Twenty Centuries o f Mexican Art. Roosevelt asserted that the exhibition was a proof of the excellent relations between Mexico and the United States, and pointed out that the

182 Alfonso Caso was particularly aware of the importance o f promoting Mexican art among the most cultivated audience in the United States. See Alfonso Caso, foreword to “Bibliografla de las artes populares pldsticas de Mexico,” Memorias del Institute Nacional Indigenista (Mexico City) vol. I, no.2 (1950), 85. 183 “Cardenas Address Indicates Desire for Good Policy,” Graphics (Pine Bluff, Ark.), 28 June 1940, MoMA Archives, NY: PI, 45ITCMA. Note that during the summer o f 1940 other pro-Mexico events would take place in New York. At the World’s Fair in Queens the Cdrdenas administration was presenting an exhibition about the history o f the Mexican petroleum industry. About the W orld’s Fair, see Frank Monaghan, Official Guide Book o f the New York World’s Fair. 1939 (New York: Exposition Publications, 1939).

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n e r . F u rth er r ep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

452

United States had an altruistic interest in art and culture, regardless of nationality and ethnicity.184 In other words, the United States appeared as an all inclusive and nondiscriminatory power vis-a-vis Hitler’s Germany. 185 The role of MoMA as a socially and politically committed institution had been publicly defined since the celebration of its tenth anniversary and the dedication of its new building, on 10 May 1939.186 On that occasion, Nelson A. Rockefeller proposed that the trustees make “some statement of significance concerning the importance of the program of the museum to the broad, cultural development of our country.”187 In the context of international tensions that were threatening cultural freedom in the Western world, the importance of the new functions of the museum was emphasized. Since the arts had become essential in moments when security, liberty, and peace were seriously threatened, MoMA would be “a citadel” of democratic values.188 In 1940 and 1941 the democratic mission of the museum was confirmed by the trustees, who believed that MoMA was doing its part by increasing the interest of thousands of Americans in the arts o f today. At that time it was also stated that the

184 This was not the first time that President Roosevelt used an art event to prove the good relations between the United States and Mexico. In the spring o f 1939, when he was asked to talk for the radio on the celebration o f the MoMA tenth anniversary and the dedication o f its new building. President Roosevelt requested that in the broadcast were included “short addresses from government or museum officials in Canada and South America.” preferably from Mexico. Thomas Dabney Mabrey Jr. (Secretary and Executive Director, MoMA) to Edsel Ford, 27 Mar. 1939, folder 112, box 8, AAR Papers/RFA/RAC. 185 For a discussion about the emergence o f cultural pluralism, diversity and tolerance at this time, see Philip Gleason, “Americans All: World War II and the Shaping o f American Identity,” The Review o f Politics 43 (1981): 483-518. 186 Thomas Dabney Mabrey Jr. (Secretary and Executive Director, MoMA) to Edsel Ford, 27 Mar. 1939, folder 112, box 8, AAR Papers/RF A/RAC. 187 NAR to AAR, 18 Apr. 1939, folder 112, box 8, AAR Papers/RF A/RAC. 188 Draft o f Dedication new building, “For us the Living” , 3 pages, folder 112, box 8, AAR Papers/RF A/RAC. About the rescue o f works o f art from Hitler’s persecution, see Edward Alden Jewell, “The Creative Life vs. Dictatorship,” NYT, 13 Aug. 1939.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er r ep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

453

museum would bring the Western Hemisphere together by the appreciation and promotion of the “cultural achievements” of the twenty-one American Republics.189 It was also reported that Nelson A. Rockefeller had been called ‘"to Washington to head a new government defense bureau as Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs, which included cultural relations.” 190 As a result of the cooperation between the new Coordination of Inter-American Affairs (CLAA) and the State Department in the following months the Latin American cultural presence in the United States would sprout. They endorsed seminars of inter-American relations, courses on Latin America in colleges and universities, Pan-American principles were taught in schools, and clubs and associations were invited to establish exchanges with their equivalents in Latin America. Among all these activities art exhibitions and informative exhibitions began to take place.191 In the context of the fight against Fascism and the beginning of World War II, MoMA also felt obliged to extend its democratic actions toward Latin America. To achieve that goal MoMA implemented an art exchange program with the region that included exhibitions, publications, lectures, conferences, and contests.192 Thus between

189 Foreword by the president of the museum, in The Year's Work. Annual Report to the Board o f Trustees and Members o f The Museum o f Modern Art fo r the Year July 1. I940~June 30, 1941 , 3. 190 Report o f the Director, in The Year's Work, 5. In 1940 and 1941 MoMA did not limit its cultural relations program to Latin America, in fact, during that period it also presented the exhibition Britain at War, War Comes to the People, and it would circulate the show Art o f Australia. 191 Frank A. Ninkovich, The Diplomacy o f Ideas: U.S. Foreign Policy and Cultural Relations, 1938-1950 (Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1981), 41-42. For a critical point o f view o f the CIAA activities. See “Oral History Interview with Stanton Loomis Catlin,” (by Francis V. O’Connor, New York, 1 July-14 Sept. 1989), Oral History Project, Archives o f American Art, Smithsonian Institution (hereafter cited as OHP/AAA/SI).

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

454

1940 and 1945 MoMA circulated Latin American exhibitions across the United States, and sent U.S. exhibitions throughout Latin America. Seemingly, Twenty Centuries o f Mexican Art might be considered a prelude to the MoMA Latin American program.193 In this regard, some observers—like Mexican poet and cultural commentator Salvador Novo—pointed out that U.S. institutions were using Mexico as a “Trojan horse” to penetrate the rest of Latin America. He argued that Mexico’s historic anti-Yankee position, as well as its alleged cultural leadership in the continent, made it an ideal -i.e.. persuasive—channel to access South America.194 To strengthen its new Latin American program, MoMA would expand its Latin American permanent collection and library. In the summer of 1942 Alfred H. Barr. Jr. and Lincoln Kirstein, consultant on Latin American art. visited South American artists, museums and purchased paintings for the MoMA permanent collection. As a result, an exhibition composed of 270 Latin American works was displayed between 30 March and

192 The CIAA published a pamphlet entitled The Americas Cooperate fo r Victory where it recommended that the Latin American Republics be not underestimated. In the war effort it was essential to organize the Western Hemisphere resources •‘for the causes o f freedom.” The pamphlet recognized that in the Americas there were historic misunderstandings that had to be corrected—the other American Republics tended to have suspicions about the United States real motives. And meanwhile the Axis was trying to penetrate Latin America, the pamphlet pointed out that “Nazi and Fascist organizations were active in virtually every country, powerfully supported by the German, Italian and Japanese diplomatic missions. Only if the American Republics kept cooperating those conditions could be changed. See The Americas Cooperate fo r Victory (Washington, D.C.: Coordinator o f Inter-American Affairs Room A, Dept, o f Commerce, ), folder 9, box 15, series II Latin American Program, 1941-1948 (hereafter cited as LAP), The Museum o f Modem Art Archives, NY: Early Museum History: Administrative Records, 1930— 1963 (hereafter cited as MoMA Archives, NY: EMH). 193 Right after the closure o f Twenty Centuries, in September 1940, MoMA would present another exhibition of Latin American art, this one dedicated to Brazilian painter Candido Portinari. And as part o f the same event, a Festival o f Brazilian Music was presented. Press release: “Pan American Society Reception at the Museum o f Modem Art,” 11 Sept. 1940, folder 22.r Lectures and Special Events, 1940, box 11, series I Museum Matters 1930-1951 (hereafter cited as MM), MoMA Archives, NY: EMH. 194 See Salvador Novo, La vida en Mexico en el periodo presidencial de Lazaro Cardenas (Mexico City: Empresas Editoriales, 1964), 684.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

455

9 May 1943.195 Barr and Kirstein also purchased art books published in South America, as well as books on Latin American art, for the creation of a Latin American section within the MoMA library.196 On the other hand, during the early 1940s, a substantial number of the museum’s publications were distributed among Latin American associates. 197 Because of the increasing art exchanges with Latin America, MoMA assigned a staffer to work as a special liaison for Latin American activities and relations. At some point the museum even considered the creation of a Latin American Department to coordinate the Latin American work of the different departments, and carry out projects (exhibitions, film programs, publications, library exchanges) to Latin America. 198 •

In the early 1940s MoMA also held Latin American art programs sponsored by the federal government.199 In cooperation with the CIAA, MoMA applied exhibition techniques to support programs of the CIAA during the World War II.200 The museum

195 See Lincoln Kirstein. The Latin American Collection o f The Museum o f Modern Art (New York: MoMA, 1943). For antecedents o f Latin American art exhibitions in New York, see the following catalogues: Latin American Exhibition o f Fine and Applied Arts, exh. cat. (New York: New York World’s Fair Commission, Riverside Museum, 1939); and Latin American Exhibition o f Fine Arts, exh. cat. (New York: New York World’s Fair Commission, Tri-Arts Press, 1940). 196 Barr and Kirstein purchased current titles on art, architecture, civilization, and even literature, available at selected bookstores in Buenos Aires, Santiago, Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo, Bogotd, and Mexico City. See folder 20 Latin American Purchase Fund, box 16, series II LAP/MoMA Archives, NY: EMH. 197 For instance, by the end o f Twenty Centuries MoMA sent catalogues of the show to a select list o f museum directors and other persons interested in Latin American art. Wallace K. Harrison (director cultural relations division, CIAA) to John E. Abbott (executive vice president, MoMA), 9 Oct. 1941, folder 20 Latin American Purchase Fund, box 16, series II LAP/MoMA Archives, NY: EMH. 198 Memorandum, Luis Zulueta to Mrs. Hawkins, MoMA, 7 Oct. 1943, folder 1 Artists File, box 14, series II Latin American Involvement (hereafter cited as LAI), MoMA Archives, NY: EMH. 199 Report “Government Sponsored Activities o f the Museum in Relation to Latin America,” , by , folder 11 Government Projects, box 15, series II LAP/MoMA Archives, NY: EMH.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

456

arranged exhibitions whose objective was to make American citizens aware of how important Latin American resources and production were in times of war.201 More important, in October 1941 the CIAA and MoMA signed a contract-agreement to circulate in the United States exhibitions of art from the other American Republics. MoMA began by circulating nine Latin American exhibitions (three Pre-Columbian, three Colonial and three Contemporary) assembled from American museums collections. The itinerary was organized in three regions: East Coast, Western States, and Mid-West Circuit.203 From 12 February 1941 to 31 January 1942 the museum and the CIAA also circulated Three Exhibitions on American Art across Latin America; to accompany the exhibitions the organizers published 35,000 tri-lingual catalogues.204 These exhibitions of

200 About U.S. cultural diplomacy in the context of World War II, see Emily S. Rosenberg, Spreading the American Dream: American Economic and Cultural Expansion, 1890-1945, American Century Series (New York: Hill & Wang, 1982), 202-28. 201 MoMA prepared a series o f five “Informational Exhibitions” for the Coordinator’s Office entitled The Americas Cooperate. Those shows were presented by the Coordinator’s Office at railroad stations, libraries, city halls, etc. MoMA also presented an exhibition called Road to Victory: A Procession o f Photographs o f the Nation at War. Press release “Museum o f Modem Art Designs Five Small Exhibitions on Cooperation o f the Americas for National Circulation,” , folder 3.b Latin American Informational Exhibits, The Americas Cooperate, box 14, series II LAI, MoMA Archives, NY: EMH; Report “Government Sponsored Activities o f the Museum in Relation to Latin America,” , by , folder 11 Government Projects, box 15, series II LAP/MoMA Archives, NY: EMH. 202 The signatories were the Coordinator o f Inter-American Affairs, Nelson A. Rockefeller, and the executive vice president o f MoMA, John E. Abbott. Memorandum o f Agreement, made this 14th day of Oct., 1941, effective as o f the I st day o f Oct. 1941, between the United States o f America, by the Coordinator o f Inter-American Affairs, and the Museum of Modem Art, 11 West 53 Street, New York, N.Y., folder 5 Contract OEMcr-42. Nine Circulating Exhibitions, box 14, series II LAI, MoMA Archives, NY: EMH. 203 The exhibitions were presented between the fall o f 1941 and the summer o f 1942 in colleges, museums, and art galleries distributed in the states o f New York, Georgia, Florida, Virginia, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania Tennessee, Massachusetts, and Alabama. Contract No. OEMc-42, “Latin American Nine Circulating Exhibitions,” 22 Jan. 1943, folder 4.a. Contract OEMcr-42, box 14, series II LAI, MoMA Archives, NY: EMH. Before the end o f the itinerary the Pre-Columbian and Colonial sections had to be discontinued from circulation because their excessive weight made very expensive and problematic to circulate them. Ren6 d ’Hamoncourt (acting director, Art Division) to John Abbott, 4 Aug. 1942, folder 4.b. Contract OEMcr-42, box 14, series II LAI, MoMA Archives, NY: EMH.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

457

contemporary U.S. painting were presented in ten Latin American cities with a total attendance of 218,089 persons.205 In the fall of 1941 MoMA organized a Latin American Industrial Design Competition that received sixty-one entries from seventeen countries from which five winners were chosen and were brought to New York for periods of approximately three months.206 That year MoMA also set up a “Latin American Motion Picture Project,” the purpose of which was the production of non-theatrical motion pictures in Spanish, Portuguese and English, including documentary, travel, industrial subjects., etc, for distribution in North and South America. In addition to those special projects, it is important to note that the historical model developed for Twenty Centuries o f Mexican Art became so popular that in the early 1940s several Latin American countries proposed similar shows to be presented in MoMA, but that was to no avail. From an artistic point of view, the reason for that failure was that no other country in Latin America had an art history as consistent throughout the centuries as Mexico. In other words, some countries could have significant Pre-Columbian or Colonial expressions, but weak or nonexistent modem ones. Or vice versa, some countries had important modem art expressions, but none popular arts or none Pre-Columbian expressions, and so on. While from a political

204 It is worth noting that by 1941 the emphasis o f the cultural exchanges was going from antiNazi to pro-America and, implicitly, anti-European at large. Ninkovich, The Diplomacy o f Ideas, 42-43. 205 The specific records o f attendance were as follow: Bogotd, Colombia: 7,000; Caracas, Venezuela: 8,000; Havana, Cuba: 65,358; Quito, Ecuador: 42,829; Mexico City, Mexico: 19,985; Santiago, Chile: 22,767; Lima, Peru: 7,000; Buenos Aires, Argentina: 20,285; Montevideo, Uruguay: 18,294; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: 6,571. For a first-hand account o f the circulation o f the CIAA exhibitions in Mexico and South America, See “Oral History Interview with Stanton Loomis Catlin,” OHP/AAA/S1. 206 The winners were Romdn Fernando (Uruguay), Xavier Guerrero (Mexico), Bernard Rudofsky (Brazil), Julio Villalobos (Argentina), and Michael van Buren, representing himself, and E. Morley Webb and Klaus Grabe, co-winners (Mexico).

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

458

point of view, it seemed that no other country in Latin America had such a strategic position as Mexico, as to deserve a particular diplomatic treatment.

Thus, as we have seen. Twenty Centuries o f Mexican Art was a public, critical, and political success just as Mexican Arts had been in 1930. Twenty Centuries certainly contributed to solve the most immediate concerns. First, it switched into better terms the image of Mexico in the United States, and by doing that it helped preventing the escalation of anti-Mexico propaganda in the United States. Second, it showed to the world that Mexico had come together—using President Roosevelt’s words of February 1939—with the United States. Finally, it helped to break the public opinion deadlock around the oil expropriation, which would be finally solve in the early 1940s. On the other hand. Twenty Centuries temporarily fostered the consumption o f Mexican styles and traveling to Mexico.207 At any rate, Twenty Centuries o f Mexican Art would set a way of viewing Mexico that was reinforced by the popular media, specially the movies, in the 1940s and even into the 1950s: Mexico as a colorful and mysterious but safe and accessible land. With regard to the Mexican and the emerging Latin American art presence in New York, Twenty Centuries was a turning point for three reasons: First, it marked the ending of the two-decade presence of the Mexican Art Renaissance in New York; and second, it set up an art historical and museological paradigm that the Mexican state adopted and re

' 07 See Pemex Travel Club. Archaeology in Mexico Today (Mexico City: Petrdleos Mexicanos, ); idem, Mexico’s Western Highways: Including the Cities o f Toluca, Morelia, Patzcuaro, Uruapan, Guadalajara (Mexico City: Talleres Grdficos de la Nacidn, ). I thank Prof. James Oles for confirming me that these guides—published by Pemex, the new Mexican state oil company—were meant to create pro-Mexican feelings in the aftermath o f the oil expropriation.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er r ep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

459

exported to other countries in the following decades—mostly Western Europe; and third, it influenced the nature of the cultural exchanges between the United States and Latin America during World War II.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

460

Conclusions and Epilogue

At the end of the Mexican Revolution and World War I, most of the conflicts between Mexico and the United States reached the public arena through what was called antiMexico and pro-Mexico propaganda. The anti-Mexico campaign was directed against the new economic nationalism that threatened U.S. investments in Mexico, especially those in the oil sector. The anti-Mexico propaganda exploited the xenophobic fear about Mexico by claiming that the country was incapable of self-government due to its backwardness, political instability, corruption, and propensity to violence. The negative publicity was harmful because it affected Mexico’s attempt to reposition itself in the international scene between 1917 and 1927. fri response, the Mexican state developed a pro-Mexico campaign of its own; its main feature was the promotion of Mexico’s artistic and cultural riches. Consisting in lectures, newspaper articles, and art exhibitions, the pro-Mexico campaign reached audiences in South America, the United States, and occasionally Western Europe from the late 1910s to the end of the 1920s. The pro-Mexico publicity wanted to prove that even though most Mexicans were illiterate and appeared backward in their lifestyles and cultural costumes, they could be as intelligent, creative, and dedicated as their works of art evidenced. The Mexican ancestors had proved those qualities in the magnificent PreColumbian architecture, in the decoration of Colonial churches, and in the creation of multiple forms of folk art. Whereas in the present Mexican children and youth were proving the same qualities in their wonderful artworks executed under the Best Maugard Method and in the Open-Air Schools of Painting. The pro-Mexico argument was: If

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

461

Mexican people had been able to survive and adapt creatively to so many changes in life conditions throughout history, they could certainly do it again in modem times. After ten years of tensions between the anti-Mexico and the pro-Mexico propaganda, by the second half of the 1920s major changes in the U.S. policy toward Mexico and Latin America were favorable to the pro-Mexico ideas and to the eventual support of the Mexican art presence in New York. American intellectuals, foundations, bankers, and businessmen suggested cultural understanding with Mexico and Latin America as a solution to overcome decades of suspicion and resentment. The proposal was to study and adapt to Latin American psychology in order to foster the trust and loyalty needed to consolidate financial and commercial interests in the region. In that context, in the late 1920s the mission of Ambassador Dwight W. Morrow in Mexico was to stabilize the political environment and to ensure better conditions for American businesses. Morrow’s pragmatic approach would adopt some of the main features of the pro-Mexico campaign. He would be particularly fond of the promotion of Mexican art. because he believed that only art—in its simplicity and visibility—could restore the morals and the respect between Mexican and American peoples. For that reason, between 1928 and 1930 Ambassador Morrow became a leader in the promotion of Mexican arts, crafts, and archaeology among the American public. And because New York was the U.S. cultural and public opinion center, Morrow chose that city as the platform to launch the new pro-Mexico campaign. To make the program succeed. Morrow took advantage of the prime contacts that, as a former J. P. Morgan associate, he had developed with New York-based foundations, patrons, and art and educational institutions.

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

462

But before the official arrival of Mexican art in New York took place, there were some antecedents that prepared the terrain. As early as 1915-1916 Marius de Zayas brought from France the Cubist painting of Diego Rivera as well as Pre-Columbian sculpture and pottery. Those pioneering exhibitions were displayed at de Zayas *s New York galleries according to European avant-garde criteria. Back then Rivera was perceived as a member of the modem French school, and the Pre-Columbian objects were appreciated as primitivist art. In this regard, de Zayas was a forerunner in presenting PreColumbian sculpture and pottery as art, considering that before the 1920s Pre-Columbian collections in the United States were usually valued as archaeological objects, but not as art. De Zayas’s "Mexican" exhibitions attracted the attention of those New York modems who were searching for new American expressions, and who would be the hosts of Mexican art in the following decades. For those reasons. I believe that in the 1910s de Zayas set up the conceptual relation between Pre-Columbian and avant-garde that was one of the main features of the Mexican art presence in New York during the 1920s and 1930s. The work that Marius de Zayas started in the 1910s was continued by poet and art critic Jose Juan Tablada. who was another Mexican intellectual who had come o f age under the French cultural paradigm. During the early 1920s Tablada mostly concentrated on articulating and announcing the rise of the Mexican Art Renaissance. Being an employee of Mexico’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Public Education. Tablada worked as a pro-Mexico writer and speaker in different New York venues. By doing so, he was one of the first critics to assess the aesthetic and cultural values of Mexican art vis-a-vis the Western art tradition. Further. I think that Tablada’s laudatory

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

463

approach set up a popular style of appreciating Mexican art in New York. On the other hand, in the early 1920s there were other conditions propitious for the reception of Mexican art. Since the end o f World War I, progressive New York artists and critics were searching for new sources to construct modem American art. After having explored Native American expressions they were ready to study the Mexican school. That interest was reflected in the warm reception they gave to the exhibition of modem Mexican art at the Seventh Annual Show o f The New York Society o f Independent Artists in 1923. That was the first time that a group of Mexican artists exhibited in New York, and among the participants were some of the artists that would command the Mexican presence in the 1920s and 1930s, like Diego Rivera, Jose Clemente Orozco, David Alfaro Siqueiros, and Rufino Tamayo. I believe that the New York hosts were particularly appreciative of the Mexican exhibition because it coincided with their own search for a formula that combined American roots and modem language. As a result of the welcoming response, in the mid-1920s young Mexican artists were encouraged to move to New York in search of international experience; that group of artists was known as the "Mexican Art Invasion." Unfortunately, the majority of them could not position themselves in the New York art scene for different reasons: They did not know the protocol to access, they were still immature as artists, or they simply did not speak English. The few of them who managed to exhibit their work could not materialize a career because they did not know how to conduct themselves in the art market. Caricaturist Miguel Covarrubias was the only member of this first generation of Mexican artists who prospered in the New York scene. However, he did it working as illustrator for Jazz Age magazines like Vanity Fair and the New Yorker, and due to his ability to

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n e r. F u rth er r ep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

464

draw and illustrate with the perception and versatility of a non-national artist. Thus, in a strict sense, he was not a real representative of Mexican art in New York. By the end of the 1920s the remaining Mexican art ‘"invaders” were disappointed due to the excess of pro-Mexico official propaganda and the lack of real support. Soon most of them were back in Mexico. In any case, I contend that the most important outcome of this first episode is that despite their personal difficulties, the Mexican invaders found the New York scene very stimulating, and from then on they declared Paris obsolete. In the future New York would become their main international referent. The experience of the 1920s artists proved that to succeed in the New York scene, something more than sympathy and respect from progressive artists and critics was needed. The 1920s virtual invasion also proved that to “conquer” New York, neither good ideas nor hard work sufficed, because the New York scene was a sophisticated network that not everyone could access easily. As a matter of fact, most of the New York modernists who celebrated and encouraged the efforts of the Mexicans had not managed themselves to enter into the New York art market— let alone museums or prime collections. Instead, they were artists who mostly survived through their clubs and associations, like the Society of the Independents, or through the support of extraordinary patrons like Gertrude Whitney and Juliana Force. In other words. New York modem artists and critics, even with good intentions, had not the means to help their Mexican colleagues to get in. Thus, based on the data, I must conclude that the Mexican art presence in New York was not be fully successful until U.S. foundations and private patrons decide to endorse it in the late 1920s and early 1930s.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

465

By this time the Mexican art presence in New York would adopt two main forms: an institutional one and an independent or individual one. Both forms developed simultaneously, but they were not similar either in their objectives or in their methods. The institutional presence was, first and foremost, an ideological and propagandists event: It was the creation and dissemination of a nationalist discourse that exalted the continuity, greatness, and originality of Mexican art throughout the centuries. The objective of this discourse was to legitimize modem Mexico as a civilized, peaceful, and human society that deserved to be respected in the international scene and that could be trusted in terms of investments. In my opinion, the final objective of the discourse was the legitimization of post-revolutionary Mexico the publicity of cultural and artistic accomplishments. Conversely, the independent or individual presence was encouraged, but not necessarily supported by institutions. It seems that the institutions that publicized the Mexican Art Renaissance did not need a group of artists transforming, experimenting, radicalizing, or even worse, de-Mexicanizing the stabilizing model. That explains why while Mexican artists—as individuals—had to strive to find a place within the New York scene, Mexican art in the form of comprehensive show was reaching a major presence in New York museums. By the early 1930s, the sponsorship of Mexican art in New York switched from governmental to private hands. Just as Morrow had supported the arts and crafts shows, now the Rockefeller family would back modem Mexican painting shows. The Rockefeller patronage began with the creation of the Mexican Arts Association in 19291930. The goal of the association was to promote ‘‘friendship and cultural relations

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

466

between the people of Mexico and the people of the United States.” Among its activities, in the spring o f 1931 the Mexican Arts Association presented exhibitions of Jean Chariot, Paul O’Higgins, Joaquin Clausell, and Rufino Tamayo at the John Levy Gallery. Six months later, at the Museum of Modem Art (MoMA) the association sponsored a Diego Rivera one-man show to celebrate his work and the Mexican Art Renaissance in general. Rivera’s Communist background was not an obstacle for his success in New York because he had the support of three fundamental patrons. In the first place, Rivera had the social consent o f the Rockefellers, which headed the New York elite. In the second place, he had had the political approval of Ambassador Morrow. And. finally, he had the aesthetic validation of MoMA. I think that these powerful sponsors legitimized Rivera through a process of minimizing his political ideas and even his Mexican origins, and of maximizing his gifted, passionate and authentic personality, i.e., '‘genius.” This legitimization was effective because it convinced and attracted a wide number of people who had heard about Mexico's artistic greatness, and who was looking for a more humane identity in the context of the Great Depression. Somehow, the ideological cleansing produced a Rivera suitable for the needs and preferences of the American audience. This Rivera was more a poet than a social fighter, more a folklorist than a nationalist and. therefore, was extensively covered by the press. The journalists and the critics—persuaded, controlled, ignorant, or all three—acquiesced to reproduce that image of Rivera. That is how the press extolled Rivera’s technical accomplishments and his leadership not only in Mexican but in American art as well. Other factors that legitimized Rivera were success and fame themselves. In effect. Rivera’s muralism, its Mexican themes, and its pictorial style, made sense thanks to the success and fame that

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

467

they had given to Rivera. Notions of success and fame, according to the capitalist criteria, permeated the New York art world. The New York public certainly adored the romantic approach and made the Rivera show one of the best-attended event in the early years of MoMA: The 56.575 visitors surpassed by much the attendance to the Henri Matisse retrospective in 1931. Hence MoMA and the Rockefellers succeeded in making Rivera the toast of the town, but by doing so they created resentment among both New York and Mexican modem artists. Rivera was receiving a kind of attention and access that none of them had gotten in the 1920s and that they would definitely not get in the midst of the Great Depression. Seemingly, encouraged by the results of Rivera’s MoMA exhibition, the Rockefellers tried to push to the maximum the aestheticization and depoliticization of Rivera and Mexican art in general. In 1932 they would select Rivera to execute one of the most important art commissions at Rockefeller Center, a mural in the lobby of the RCA building—the central structure of the $120 million complex. Rivera, on the other hand, misinterpreted the opportunity and took the liberty of radicalizing the subject of his fresco. Thus he depicted contemporary men facing two options: one, the West’s destructive Fascism and decadent capitalism; and the other one, the East’s humane and progressive Communism. Rivera’s answer to such a dilemma was obvious, so the latter addition of a Lenin portrait to the composition was nothing else than the final touch in a strong dialectical materialist narrative. That kind of mural was too controversial for the Rockefellers and bad publicity for an office building like the RCA. Therefore, I presume that the subsequent cancellation of the project was not a complete a surprise to Rivera, who was aware of the risks involved.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

468

The more interesting part of the so-called Rivera-Rockefeller affair was the debate that followed the cancellation of the mural, because it conveyed central preoccupations among New York artists in the midst of the Great Depression. Some of them voiced their disapproval of foreign artists’ taking commissions away from American artists, saying that those foreigners were ungrateful, ignorant of American values and that their alien ideas were a ’‘pernicious influence” in the United States. In contrast, others condemned the censorship behind the cancellation and called for preserving cultural freedom. They said that the United States should remain a free land, unlike Nazi Germany where art was being censured. As a matter of fact, this kind of preoccupations would find a channel of expression in the Federal Art Project of the Works Progress Administration.1 Since the controversy around the mural threatened the leasing of office space at the RCA building, to remove the fresco seemed to be the only option. But even though that decision may have solved the real estate concerns, it only worsened the artistic and political controversy: Rivera and dozens of Mexican and American artists condemned the act as cultural vandalism. On the contrary, the New York Times, accused the Mexican artists of having provoked such an outcome by trying to impose in New York their grandiose visions of the Mexican Revolution, in consequence, patronage of Mexican art should stop at once. Thus the Rockefeller Center controversy would be adverse not only to Rivera and to Mexican mural commissions in the United States but also to the Mexican

1 About the mid- and long-term impact o f Mexican muralism in the United States, see Francis V. O ’Connor. "The Influence of Diego Rivera on the Art o f the United States during the 1930s and After,” in Diego Rivera: A Retrospective (New York: Detroit Institute o f Arts; Norton, 1986), 157-83; and Shifra M. Goldman, "Mexican Muralism: Its Influence in Latin America and the United States," in Dimensions o f the

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

469

art presence in New York. On the other hand, it is worth noting that the decision of dropping the patronage of Mexican art was made at a time when U.S.-Mexico relations had been stable for several years as a result of the Morrow-Calles agreement.2 In other words, the support was dropped when there was no further need of the art diplomacy. Given the limitations—aesthetic and political—of the institutional and the private patronage, some Mexican artists would decide to explore other routes for Mexican art in New York. During the 1930s these independent artists, among whom Orozco, Siqueiros, and Tamayo were prominent, developed alternative formulas that were either more radical, more experimental or more avant-garde expressions. By doing so. they would advance the definition of modem Mexican art in New York. The independents, nonetheless, had to compromise both with Mexican Art Renaissance events and New York institutions in order to get their projects through. The reason was that most New York institutions, galleries, collectors, critics, and public were expecting the Mexican artists to present Mexicanist work. Therefore. Orozco, Siqueiros, and Tamayo had to participate to some degree in the Mexicanist trend in order to survive or to get access to some exhibitions. In the late 1920s Orozco had to produce and sell revolutionary lithographs as a way of living. Siqueiros also had to offer some kind of Mexicanist work to Carl Zigrosser at the Weyhe Gallery in the early 1930s. And Tamayo had to include Tehuanas and Indianlike figures in his late 1930s paintings.

Americas: Art and Social Change in Latin America and the United States (Chicago: Univ. o f Chicago Press. 1994), 101-17. : About the 1930s “U.S.-Mexico detente,” see Alan Knight, U.S.-Mexican Relations, 1910-1940: An Interpretation, Monograph Series, no. 28 (San Diego: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies. Univ. o f California. 1987).

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

470

Another feature that the independent artists shared with Diego Rivera is that they would create their own myths. In effect, they felt the need of creating self-myths in order to be somebody within the art scene. They also created myths to build what they assumed were “perfect” career-models. For instance, Tamayo had an avant-garde model in mind; while Orozco had a genius and anarchist model; whereas Siqueiros and Rivera had both an avant-garde model and a radical model. In trying to fulfill these models the artists would tell lies and they would also make bad decisions. This was particularly notorious in the cases of Rivera and Siqueiros who many times contradicted themselves in their attempts to please comrades in Mexico and the United States. The key to understand such a behavior is that all of them shared a modernist belief in the artist as an individual genius that had to be super-human. Such a belief was only exacerbated by the New York modem scene where art marketing demanded the same from artists. For that reason, their dealers and representatives many times corroborated and added to the myths. Sometimes they did so having a specific commercial or political purpose in mind, while on other occasions they did it simply because they felt that they were helping their proteges to advance their careers. Alma Reed, for instance, exacerbated the Orozco myth in the early 1930s; Anita Brenner, inflated Siqueiros at the Casino Espanol in 1932; Elsa Rogo embellished Siqueiros's life story and even compare him to Van Gogh (the greatest myth of all) in her 1934 article for Parnassus: Frances Flynn Paine sanitized, whitened and depoliticize Rivera at MoMA in 1931; and Frank Crowninshield invented Tamayo’s esprit de race in 1927. It is interesting to note that this self-aggrandizement trend had been initiated by Jose Juan Tablada as publicist o f Mexican art in the 1920s in his story about the

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

471

"‘Mexican Invasion.” However, one must note that among the Mexicans who arrived in the 1910s or 1920s that trend was not common, neither Marius de Zayas nor Miguel Covarrubias played those games. It is possible that they were much more discreet in their self-presentation because they arrived to New York as caricaturists—a secondary field within the arts—and not as artists-artists. Besides, they were not intoxicated with the international celebrity associated with the 1920s muralism. In effect, the jealousy and competition between Rivera. Orozco, Siqueiros, and Tamayo took place in the context of the celebrity and legitimacy brought by muralism. Regarding the institutional patronage of Mexican art. this would re-emerge in 1940 at MoMA. after several years in the shadows. Once again, as during Ambassador Morrow's tenure, art was a tool to help stabilizing the U.S.-Mexico relations. Twenty Centuries o f Mexican Art was an art exhibition conceived to soothe the tensions between Mexico and the United States after the expropriation of Mexican oil in 1938. On this occasion, however, the art strategy was not implemented through the official channel of the U.S. Embassy but through the initiative of Nelson A. Rockefeller, president of MoMA. who sympathized with President Roosevelt's preoccupation in maintaining good relations between the United States and Mexico at the dawn of World War II. To some extent, Twenty Centuries o f Mexican Art was an updated version of Mexican Arts. But by including Pre-Columbian and Colonial art. Twenty Centuries was much more comprehensive than the 1930 show. In addition, it was the most extensive exhibition of Mexican art ever assembled either in Mexico or abroad, and it was also the largest exhibition ever presented at MoMA. The spectacular show was curated by a team of Mexican specialists and installed by the MoMA staff—all under the supervision of

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

472

Nelson A. Rockefeller. The exhibition was a critical and public success that resonated in New York, the United States, and Latin America. The consensus about the relevance of Mexican art was reflected in the press: Conservative critics such as Henry McBride proclaimed that Mexico’s true wealth was art; while liberal critics like Anita Brenner proclaimed that Mexico was the Greece of America. But in spite of its impact, Twenty Centuries marked the decline of the Mexican presence in New York. After 1940 the New York scene became increasingly interested in the arrival of European art refugees and the rise of the New York School of Painting. The first wave of exiles took place just after the invasion of Poland in September 1939. In the summer of 1940 a second wave of emigres arrived, including German, Austrian, French and Spanish citizens—many of whom were of Jewish descent. The expatriates were a group mostly constituted by members of the Bauhaus, German Expressionism, and Surrealism, and when they arrived in New York most of them had already attained international prestige.J Not surprisingly, they were well-received by the art, intellectual, and academic communities, and had the opportunity to continue their work in the United States almost immediately. Prime educational and cultural institutions. like MoMA itself, were ready to provide them means of support in exchange for their artistic prestige and experience.4 In such a welcoming atmosphere the European refugees became the new focus of attention for the U.S. artists. They served as role models for the still developing New York painters who wanted to build an all-American art movement. Somehow, the role

J That was the case o f people like Andre Breton. Salvador Dali, Max Ernst, Andre Masson, and Yves Tanguy.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n e r. F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

473

played in the 1920s and 1930s by the Mexican artists would now be covered by the French. German, and Spanish refugees. The European older brothers would encourage the spirit of experimentation and reinforce the sense of legitimacy among their younger American colleagues. The Old World expatriates would also contribute in broadening the risks taken by the New York galleries, in challenging the opinions of critics and scholars, and in capturing the public's imagination—i.e., seducing them into expanding their artistic tastes. Thus, by the end of World War II, everything was set up in the New York scene to start the first all-American avant-garde movement with an international impact: the New York School of Painting. The reassurance of the United States cultural identity in the aftermath of the war would result in a certain degree o f isolationism during the rest of the 1940s and most of the 1950s. Concurrently, there was an increasing repudiation of those works or artists who appeared to be anti-American or, even worse, to be Communist.3 For instance, when in 1949 Lincoln Kirstein tried to present the recent work of Siqueiros in New York, he found serious difficulties against the project. Kirstein would realize could not get a visa to enter the United States on the grounds that he was a Communist.6 This means that the new atmosphere rendered America less receptive to the

4 See Martica Sawin. Surrealism in Exile, and the Beginning o f the New York School (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 1995), vi, x-xi. 5 See Alfred H. Barr, “Is Modem Art Communistic?.” N YT Magazine, 14 Dec. 1952; rpt. in idem. Defining Modem Art: Selected Writings o f Alfred H. Barr, Jr., ed. Irving Sandler and Amy Newman (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1986), 214-19. 6 Lincoln Kirstein to Carlos Chavez. 20 Jan. 1949. exp. 41, caja 7, vol. II, sec. correspondencia personal. Fondo Carlos Ch&vez (hereafter cited as FCCH)/ Archivo General de la Nacion, Mexico City (hereafter cited as AGN). See also “Mexican Painter Barred,” NYT, 24 Mar. 1949.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

474

import and display of Mexican and Latin American art with political references.7 Conversely, the kind of Mexican art that was attractive in the mid- and late 1940s was Mexicanist work with a flavor of Surrealism or Abstractionism. The type of painting that the Galena de Arte Mexicano had been promoting since the late 1930s— with the support of conservative critics like McKinley Helm and some New York galleries.

During those years the Mexican art scene also experienced significant changes. To begin with, most of the artists who had tried their fortune in New York during the 1920s and 1930s had already returned to Mexico. And in subsequent years four major participants would die: Tablada in 1945, Orozco in 1949, Covarrubias in 1957, and Rivera also in 1957. On the other hand, regarding the art diplomacy, Mexico's priorities had shifted from the United States to Western Europe and other economically strategic regions. The goal, nonetheless, was still the same: to demonstrate that Mexico was not a land of Indians, revolutionaries, and peasants but a modem nation in process of economic expansion. Beginning in the administration of President Miguel Aleman (1946—1952), the recently created Institute Nacional de Bellas Artes (INBA; National Institute of Fine Arts) designed a body of international exhibitions that followed the pattern set by Mexican Arts and Twenty Centuries o f Mexican Art.9 The organizer of these traveling

7 Nonetheless, many critics, artists, intellectuals, and even conservative scholars and curators— like Alfred H. Barr himself—would defend the need of artistic freedom in modem art terms. See Alfred H. Barr, “Artistic Freedom,” College Art Journal (spring 1956); in Barr, Defining Modern Art. 220-25. 8 For a discussion about this episode, see Catha Paquette, "U.S. Perceptions o f Mexican Modem Art during the 1940s: The Case o f MacKinley Helm” (M.A. thesis, Univ. o f California, Santa Barbara, 1997).

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

475

exhibits was former painter Fernando Gamboa, who was acting as deputy director of the INBA.10 These shows were circulated throughout the 1950s and most of the 1960s. right through the period of modernization and industrialization better known as the ‘"Mexican miracle."11 In effect, the successive administrations of Adolfo Ruiz Cortines (1952-1958), Adolfo Lopez Mateos (1958-1964), and Gustavo Diaz Ordaz (1964—1970) kept exporting to the United States, as well as to Western and Eastern Europe, the image of a traditional but modem and civilized Mexico.12 The reason for this continuity was that the

9 About the cultural and social climate during the 1940s and early 1950s. see Salvador Novo. La vida en Mexico en el periodo presidencial de Manuel Avila Camacho, comp. Jose Emilio Pacheco, Memorias mexicanas (Mexico City: CNCA, INAH, 1994); idem. La vida en Mexico en el periodo presidencial de Miguel Aleman, comp. Jose Emilio Pacheco. Memorias mexicanas (Mexico City: CNCA, INAH, 1994). 10 Rene d ’Hamoncourt to Carlos Chavez. 4 Dec. 1952, exp. 22, caja 7, vol. II, sec. correspondencia OSM, FCCH/AGN. See “Recorrera el Mundo Nuestra Exposicion," Excelsior (Mexico City), 15 Dec. 1952. 11 See Francisco Reyes Palma. "Polos culturales y escuelas nacionales: El experimento mexicano. 1940-1953,” in Instituto de Investigaciones Esteticas, Arte, historia e identidad en America: Visiones comparativas. XVII Coloquio Internacional de Historia del Arte, ed. Gustavo Curiel. Renato Gonzalez Mello. and Juana Gutierrez Haces, Estudios de Arte y Estetica, no. 37 (Mexico City: UNAM-IIE, 1994), 2:821-27. 12 With regard to these exhibitions, see, for example. Art mexicain du precolombien a nos jours, exh. cat. (Paris: Musee national d’art modeme, 1952); Mexikansk konstfran forntid till nutid, exh. cat. (Stockholm: Liljevalchs konsthall. 1952); Exhibition o f Mexican Art from Pre-Columbian Times to the Present Day: Organized under the Auspices o f the Mexican Government, exh. cat. (London: Tate Gallery; Arts Council o f Great Britain. 1953); Sigvald Linne, Treasures o f Mexican Art: Two Thousand Years o f Art and Art Handicraft (Stockholm: Nordisk Rotogravyr, 1956); Exposicion de arte mexicano: Prehispanico, colonial, moderno, exh. cat. (Buenos Aires: Direccion General de Cultura, 1956); Art mexicain contemporain, peinture et gravure (Mexico City: INBA, SEP, 1958); Mexican Art: Pre-Columbian to Modern Times, exh. cat. (Ann Arbor: Univ. o f Michigan, 1958-59); Arte de Mexico: A traves de los siglos = Mexican Art: Throughout the Centuries, exh. cat. (San Antonio. Texas: Witte Museum: International Promotion o f Culture, [Mexican] Secretary o f Foreign Affairs, 1960); Iskusstvo meksiki ot drevneishikh vremen do nashikh dnei, exh. cat. (Moscow, 1960); Fernando Gamboa, ed., Iskusstvo Meksiki ot drevneishikh vremen do nashikh dnei, exh. cat. (Leningrad: Izd-vo Gos. Ermitazha, 1961); Chefs d'txuvre de I 'art mexicain. exh. cat. (Paris: Petit Palais, Ministere d’etat affaires culturelles, 1962); Fernando Gamboa, ed., Mexikanske mestervaerker; fra prae-colombiansk tid til idag, exh. cat. (Louisiana, Denmark, 1962); Masterworks o f Mexican Art, from Pre-Columbian Times to the Present, exh. cat. (Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum o f Art, 1963); Arte Messicana dall 'antichita ai nostri giorni, exh. cat. (Roma: Palazzo dell Esposizioni. Edizioni Abete, 1963); Mexican Art: Ancient, Modern, Popular, exh. cat.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

476

Mexican state kept presenting itself as the heir of the Mexican Revolution, thus it was in its interest to endorse and utilize the art discourse that best represented and legitimized the Revolution. In this regard, Octavio Paz pointed out that the Mexican post revolutionary state used the masks of progress, nationalism and social concern to preserve its power and advance its programs.13 But the self-congratulatory and populist strategy would not be free of criticism. In fact, two of the Mexican Art Renaissance forefathers. Dr. Atl and Diego Rivera, strongly opposed the program for considering it politically deceptive.14 Rivera, for example, claimed that the interests of the tourist industry were behind the Mexican international exhibitions. Further. Rivera accused Carlos Chavez, who was director of the INBA, of having sold out by excluding from these shows those works with political content contrary to the capitalist interests in Mexico.15 Meanwhile, in Mexico the patronage of Mexicanist murals increased dramatically during the same period of time.16 But despite the proliferation of mural commissions, the

(Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv Museum. Dizengoff House; sponsored by the Dept, for Cultural Relations of the Mexican Foreign Ministry, 1967); Mexican Art from Pre-Columbian Times to the Present Day. exh. cat. (Vancouver: Vancouver Art Gallery, 1966). 13 See Octavio Paz. "Re/Visions: Mural Painting,” in Essays on Mexicano Art (New York: Harcourt. Brace, 1993), 113-68. Originally published in Sabado (Mexico City) no. 43 (9 Sept. 1978). Regarding the cultural atmosphere of these years, see Salvador Novo, La vida en Mexico en el periodo presidencial de Adolfo R u t Cortines. 2 vols., Memorias mexicanas (Mexico City: CNCA, 1996); idem. La vida en Mexico en el periodo presidencial de Adolfo Lopez Mateos. 2 vols., Memorias mexicanas (Mexico City: CNCA, 1997-1998; idem. La vida en Mexico en el periodo presidencial de Gustavo Diaz Ordaz. 2 vols.. Memorias mexicanas (Mexico City; CNCA, 1998). 14 For an account o f the artistic and ideological position of Dr. Atl and Diego Rivera, as well as of Orozco. Tamayo. Siqueiros, and Covarrubias between the late 1940s and mid-1950s, see Selden Rodman, Mexican Journal: The Conquerors Conquered (New York: Devin-Adair, 1958), 18-66. 15 Report to Carlos Chavez, Director del INBA, about Diego Rivera’s lecture about the Mexican Exhibition in Paris, 20 Aug. 1952, exp. 99, caja 10, vol. IV, sec. correspondencia personal, FCCH/AGN.

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

477

nationalist movement as a whole was discrediting due to the rhetoric excesses and the lack of formal innovation. Most of the murals appeared to be superficial and anachronic in their subjects.17 Some observers noted that since the 1940s Mexican muralism was degenerating into a didactic and propagandists expression. Selden Rodman, among others, criticized the ‘‘exaggerated nationalism” that made “some Mexican intellectuals defend the spurious along with the genuine and close their eyes to what is better in other countries.”18 Conversely, other Mexican artists and intellectuals had started working in the “internationalization” of the Mexican art scene. In this regard, a Sociedad de Arte Modemo (Society of Modem Art) was founded in Mexico City in the mid-1940s. The president of the sociedad was Jorge Enciso, and among its most distinguished associates were artists Miguel Covarrubias. Carlos Merida, Juan Soriano, Adolfo Best Maugard, Jose Chavez Morado: photographer Manuel Alvarez Bravo; architect Luis Barragan; scholars Alfonso Reyes, Alfonso Caso, Justino Fernandez, Manuel Toussaint. and Daniel Rubin de la Borbolla; curator Fernando and Susana Gamboa; art critics Luis Cardoza y Aragon, Xavier Villaurrutia, Frances Toor, and Rafael Heliodoro Valle; art dealers Ines

16 During the administration o f Miguel Aleman the government sponsored eighty-four commissions and private patrons sponsored sixty-three commissions, making a total o f 147 commissions distributed in public and private buildings. During the administration o f Ruiz Cortines, the government sponsored 128 murals, and private patrons sponsored 146 works, making a total of 274 commissions. And during the Lopez Mateos administration, the government sponsored 198 murals, and private patrons sponsored 124 murals. Orlando S. Suarez, Inventarios del muralismo mexicano (Mexico City: UNAM. 1972), 389, quoted in Olga Saenz, "Ocaso de la Escuela Mexicana: Las Vanguardias," in Instituto de Investigaciones Esteticas, Estudios sobre arte: Sesenta anos del Instituto de Investigaciones Esteticas, ed. Martha Fernandez and Louise Noelle, Estudios de Arte y Estetica, no. 47 (Mexico City: UNAM. 1998), 551-64. Originally published in Mexico, 75 abos de Revolucion. Educacion, culturay comunicacion 1 (Mexico City: FCE, 1988), 551, 556, 559. 17 See Saenz. “Ocaso de la Escuela Mexicana: Las Vanguardias,” 335-58. 18 See Rodman. Mexican Journal. 49.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er r ep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

478

Amor and Maria Luisa Cabrera de Block; as well as patrons and collectors Maria Asunsolo. Marie R. Gomez, Carolina Amor de Fournier, and Princess Paula Poniatowska.19 The sociedad was created in response to the changes that were taking place in the international artistic arena, and its goal was to educate the Mexican public and to elevate its “cultural level.” because it believed that:

The extinction of the traditional European art centers....obliged Mexico—a country with an incredible artistic life and a unique personality—to assume the responsibility of protecting and promoting art. and by doing so it....[would] become a center of international culture.'

For that purpose, the sociedad would present in Mexico representative art examples from other countries as well as the best Mexican art. This program began in the summer of 1944 with the exhibition of fifty canvases and forty drawings of Picasso, borrowed from Mexican and American collections.21 This was the first avant-garde show of such a magnitude in a Latin American country, and for that reason the MoMA offered its assistance to the sociedad. The second exhibition—February 1945—was called Mascaras mexicanas (Mexican Masks) and it included 240 Pre-Columbian, Colonial and

19 See Sociedad de Arte M odemo. Mexico City, exp. 59, caja 11, vol. II, sec. correspondencia personal, FCCH/AGN. 20 “La extincion de los tradicionales centros artisticos de Europa ha creado para Mexico, que posee gran vitalidad artistica e inconfundible personalidad, y cuyas artes piasticas le han dado ya alto renombre en el mundo entero, la obligation de asumir, como deber propio, la tarea de proteger e impulsar el arte, convirtiendose en un centra de la cultura mundial.” See Folletin de la Sociedad de Arte Modemo. Mexico City, , exp. 59, caja 11. vol. II, sec. correspondencia personal, FCCH/AGN. 21 See Picasso. la Exposicion de la Sociedad de Arte Moderno. Mexico, junio de 1944. exh. cat. (Mexico City: Sociedad de Arte M odemo, 1944).

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

479

modem Mexican masks.22 Miguel Covarrubias and Jorge Enciso directed the project, and Fernando Gamboa was in charge of the installation. A third exhibition—May 1945— was dedicated to Manuel Alvarez Bravo’s photography.23 And finally, in February 1946. the sociedad held a show of European painting in Mexican collections.24 By the early 1950s a new generation of Mexican artists would try new art expressions at the expense of the so-called Mexican School. These expressions covered from Expressionism to Surrealism and Abstractionism, and many of them were brought by the European artists who arrived as refugees in Mexico since the late 1930s and throughout the 1940s.25 Among the European exiles—as in the case of New York—were people who had participated in avant-garde movements in Germany, England, and France, like Wolfgang Paalen, Alice Rahon, Remedios Varo, Leonora Carrington, Kati and Jose Homa. Luis Bufiuel, and Mathias Goeritz.26 Thus, even though Rivera and his younger followers kept producing Mexicanist murals, oils, and graphics, by the 1950s the

~ See Mascaras mexicanas. 2a Exposicion de la Sociedad deA rte Modemo. exh. cat.. (Mexico City: SEP, 1945). 23 See Manuel Alvarez Bravo. Fotografias, exh. cat. (Mexico City: Sociedad de Arte Modemo, 1945). 24 Obras maestras de la pintura europa en Mexico. IV Exposicion de la Sociedad de Arte Moderno, Mexico, febrero de 1946, exh. cat. (Mexico City: Sociedad de Arte Modemo. 1946). 25 About the Mexican roots o f the new generation, see Jorge Alberto Manrique, "Las contracorrientes de la pintura mexicana.” 257-67, in Instituto de Investigaciones Esteticas, El nacionalismo y el arte mexicano. (IXColoquio de Historia del Arte), Estudios de Arte y Estdtica, no. 25 (Mexico City: UNAM-IIE. 1986). Regarding the development o f the new generation, see Jorge Alberto Manrique, "El rey ha muerto: Viva el rey. La renovacion de la pintura mexicana,” in Instituto de Investigaciones Esteticas, Estudios sobre arte: Sesenta ados del Instituto de Investigaciones Esteticas, ed. Martha Fernandez and Louise Noelle, Estudios de Arte y Estetica, no. 47 (Mexico City: UNAM-IIE, 1998), 433-43. Originally published in Revista de la Un'tversidadde Mexico (Mexico City) 24, nos. 7-8 (Mar.-Apr., 1970): 5—35. 26 Among the refugees was a group o f Spanish painters, that was particularly influential on Mexican young artists. That group included Arturo Souto, Enrique Climent, Antonio Pelaez, Antonio

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

480 Mexican art scene was transforming into a more '‘cosmopolitan” space, especially after the emergence of commercial art galleries in Mexico City.27 Rivera. Siqueiros, and their followers loudly opposed the new state of affairs. They accused the innovators of being sold out and pro-foreign. Rivera even accused the FBI and the State Department of being promoting the new styles—mostly abstractionist—as a tool to depoliticize and demoralize the Mexican society.28 In contrast. Rufino Tamayo, who was still focused in developing his career overseas, became a sort of model for the independent stand of the new generation.29 Among the members of this group—now known as the Ruptura generation—were Jose Luis Cuevas. Manuel Felguerez, Vlady, Vicente Rojo, and Alberto Gironella. They would eventually take over the Mexican art scene, however, they would not do as well as the Mexican School at the international level.30 In Mexico they would be celebrated as innovators, but in New York and Europe they would be seen as minor—and usually belated—impersonators of metropolitan modem movements.

Rodriguez Luna, Francisco Moreno Capdevilla. Sdenz, "Ocaso de la Escuela Mexicana: Las Vanguardias," 555. 27 See Shifra M. Goldman. Contemporary Mexican Painting in a Time o f Change (Albuquerque: LTniv. o f New Mexico Press. 1995). 28 See Rodman. Mexican Journal, 60,95. For a discussion about the confrontation between the new generation and the Mexican School, see Goldman, Contemporary Mexican Painting in a Time o f Change. 29 As a matter o f fact Tamayo profited from this debate by presenting himself as someone who had been expelled from Mexico in the 1930s for not being in agreement with Rivera, Siqueiros and Orozco, and for opposing the Mexican government cultural policy. According to Tamayo, who had already enjoyed a huge retrospect an the National Palace o f Fine Arts in 1947, and who was taking mural commissions from the Mexican government in the early 1950s, he still was mistreated in Mexico for opposing those same aspects. Tamayo argued that for that reason he had to keep living abroad. J° F ora first-hand account, see Manuel Felguerez, "La Ruptura, 1935-1955," in Ruptura. 19521965, exh. cat. (Mexico City: Museo Carrillo Gil, 1988), 93-102; see also Alejandro IJgalde, "Jose Luis

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

481

In contrast. New York artists had already succeeded in attracting international attention to Abstract Expressionism and Action Painting, and subsequently to other domestic modem movements.31 In such a milieu there was neither time to pay aesthetic debts nor space to keep historical records: Everything appeared to be brand-new—the strokes, the colors, the compositions, the concepts, and the topics.32 Nobody seemed to care or even remember the presence of Mexican art in the 1920s and 1930s. In New York Mexican art fell from the spotlight to a second row in the 1940s and to semi-oblivion from the 1950s to the early 1980s. Some critics have argued that Mexican modem art was ostracized due to its political contents, and some museums would have relegated their Mexican works to the storage rooms.33 The fact is that in the 1980s the new wave of appreciation of Mexican art was mostly a retrospection into the Mexican Art Renaissance of the 1920s and 1903s/4 The 1980s romantic view over that period was a deluded nostalgia for a golden era when art genius, political commitment, and self-expression were said to prevail over shallow interests. This time, however, Frida Kahlo would be introduced as a leading figure of the

Cuevas y la renovacidn plastica en Mexico: 1950-1968” (B.A. thesis, Univ. Iberoamericana [Mexico City], 1993); and Ruptura. exh. cat. (Mexico City: Museo Jose Luis Cuevas, 2002). jl See Dore Ashton. The New York School: A Cultural Reckoning (Berkley: Univ. o f California Press. 1992); see also Irving Sandler, The Triumph o f American Painting: A History o f Abstract Expressionism (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1970). j2 See Max Kozloff. "American Painting during the Cold War.” in Pollock and after: The Critical Debate. ed. Francis Frascina. Icon Editions (New York: Harper & Row, 1985), 107-23; see also Eva Cockcroft. "Abstract Expressionism, Weapon o f the Cold War,” in idem, 125-33. 33 See. for example, Raquel Tibol, Orozco, Rivera, Siqueiros, Tamayo, Coleccion Testimonios del Fondo. no. 17 (Mexico City: FCE, 1974). A For a discussion of how and why the art exchanges between the United States and Mexico re started in the late 1970s and early 1980s, see Shifra M. Goldman, “Rewriting the History o f Mexican Art: The Politics and Economics of Contemporary Culture,” in Mexico: A Country in Crisis, ed. Jerry R.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n e r. F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

482 Mexican movement. After the commercial publication of Hayden Herrera’s doctoral dissertation, Frida Kahlo was discovered by New York circles and soon would be transformed into a cultural heroine.35 In that regard, leftist circles appropriated the image of Kahlo and exploited it as a symbol of their political causes; among these groups predominated feminist and Chicano movements, as well as some Latino and lesbian organizations. Within academic and intellectual cliques, the advocates of deconstruction and neocolonialist theory strongly sympathized with such interpretations and practices. On the other hand, another section of the public either sentimentalized or glamorized Kahlo’s life and work. As Octavio Paz observed, works like Herrera’s awakened the interest in Kahlo because they were '‘tailored to appeal to the current tastes of readers... eager to hear the intimate details of others’ lives.” but not necessarily "to get to the bottom of an enigma or re-create a character.”36 Thus, baby boomers read Frida’s tragic life according to the Van Gogh myth: to be real and great, modem artists must endure tragic existences, while the children of this audience—the so-called "X” and "Y” generations—associated her eccentricity with "hype” lifestyles and attitudes, giving birth to "cool” Frida—something similar to the 1970s "cool” Che Guevara. The Kahlo phenomenon not only affected the popular imagination, but it also had an impact on the New York art market. International auction firms like Christie's and Sotheby’s were particularly apt in taking advantage, raising into seven figures the sale of the formerly

Ladman (El Paso: Texas Western Press. Univ. o f Texas at El Paso, 1986), 96-115: see also Eva Cockcroft, “Mexico, MOMA and Cultural Imperialism,” Artworkers News 10, no. 7 (Mar. 1981): 12-15. 35 See Hayden Herrera, Frida: A Biography o f Frida Kahlo (New York: Harper & Row. 1983). j6 See Paz, “Re/Visions: Mural Painting,” 164-65.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n e r . F u rth er r ep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

483

ignored works of Kahlo. In 2002 the marketing of Frida Kahlo took another turn after the release of a Hollywood studio movie of her life.37 In the late 1980s Mexico’s art institutions also became interested in the Mexican Art Renaissance discourse and incorporated it into the government’s art diplomacy. The most remarkable example of this event was the presentation of the exhibition Mexico: Splendors o f Thirty Centuries at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in the fall of 1990.38 This show was organized by Mexican and New York art institutions, private companies, foundations, and official agencies. And it also brought together the participation of distinguished intellectuals, scholars, curators, critics, and officials from both sides of the border.j9 Surprisingly, among the main sponsors of the exhibition was Octavio Paz. who only a decade earlier had strongly criticized the Mexican state for using Mexican art to legitimize political positions and to mask capitalist economic agendas.40 More significant is the fact that Splendors o f Thirty Centuries was framed (as it had happened with similar art exchanges in the 1920s and 1930s) within an economic and political agenda: In this case, the liberalization of the Mexican economy and the preparation o f what would be the

’7 For a discussion o f the Kahlo phenomenon in New York, see Edward J. Sullivan, '‘Frida Kahlo en Nueva York.” in Las relaciones culturales entre America Latina y Estados Unidos despues de la guerra fria, ed. Ellen Spielmann (Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Berlin, 2000); about the same phenomenon in Mexico, see also Blanca Garduflo, ed., Pasion por Frida (Mexico City: INBA, Museo Estudio Diego Rivera, 1992). j8 See Mexico: Splendors o f Thirty Centuries, exh. cat. (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art: Boston: Little. Brown, 1990). '9 A critical perspective o f this event in Shifra M. Goldman, “Metropolitan Splendors,” New Art Examiner (Apr. 1991): 16—19. Regarding the political and economic use of international art exchanges in the 1980s. see Judithe Balfe, “Artworks as Symbols in International Politics," International Journal o f Politics, Culture and Society (winter 1987): 5-27. 40 Cf. Paz, “Re/Visions: Mural Painting,” 113-68.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n e r. F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

484

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).41 Once again, the goal was to prove to the world that Mexico was a civilized, sound, and mature nation: rich in ancient traditions and colorful expressions yet connected to modernity. In the aftermath of Splendors o f Thirty Centuries the revival of the Mexican Art Renaissance would become not only an institutional and official matter but also an international, popular, and even politically correct phenomenon. Thus, throughout the 1990s there was an increasing interest in the so-called Mexican School of Painting, and particularly, in the great deeds of Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo. In sum, the reappraisal of Mexican art had gone from the 1980s cult of Frida to a kind of neo-Mexicanism in the 1990s. The problem is that neither the "discovery” and internationalization of Kahlo nor the celebration of Mexican art generated real cultural understanding. That did not happen because the main aim had been to romanticize and to reproduce those episodes as modernist and/or nationalist epics. The general effect of such a revival was the propagation of similar kind of exhibitions and publications not only in New York, but across the United States. Europe, and Latin America. Thus the irony is that in spite of the hundreds of hours and myriad pages that scholars, critics, journalists, novelists, and graduate students have dedicated to the matter, the romantic vision about the Mexico’s primitive artistry and sensibility is very similar to the one developed during the 1920s and 1930s. It seems that the last twenty years of reassessment have been a mere confirmation of the old perceptions about Mexican art and culture.

41 See Jesus Velasco. "Reading Mexico, Understanding the United States: American Transnational Intellectuals in the 1920s and 1990s.” The Journal o f American History 86. no. 2 (Sept. 1999): 641-67.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

485

The notions that were created and reproduced—both in Mexico and in New York—to unify the discourse of the Mexican art history were abstract, idealistic, ambiguous and contradictory. Paradoxically, they were the result of an interest that, at best, could be sincere and profound, but at worst was misinformed, simplistic, and utilitarian. The New York public, critics, artists, and institutions attempted to appreciate, comprehend, and some times imitate or follow the Mexican artistic achievements. Nevertheless, it seems that in the contacts between Mexico and New York through most of the twentieth century, the preconceptions persisted and in the end they seem to have won.

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

486

Appendix A Solo Exhibitions of Mexican Artists in New York, 1910s-1940s

Year

Artist & Exhibition

Organizer & Location

1909

Marius de Zayas, Caricature Portraits

Little Galleries of the PhotoSecession

1910

Marius de Zayas, Les Boulevardiers

Little Galleries of the PhotoSecession

1913

Marius de Zayas, Absolute Caricatures

291 Galleries

1916

Pre-Columbian Sculpture and Pottery

Modem Gallery

1916

Diego M. Rivera, Cubist Paintings

Modem Galley

1918

Diego M. Rivera, Cubist Paintings

De Zayas Gallery

1919

Diego Rivera within the show The Evolution o f French Art: From Ingres and Delacroix to the Latest Modern Manifestations

Arden Gallery, arranged by Marius de Zayas

1919

Adolfo Best Maugard, Paintings

Knoedler Gallery

1924

Caricatures of Marius de Zayas within group exhibition of Picasso, Georges Braque, and Marcel Duchamp

Whitney Studio Club, selected and arranged by Charles Sheeler

1924

Miguel Covarrubias

Anderson Galleries

1925

Emilio Amero

The Drama Bookshop

1926

Carlos Merida

Valentine Dudensing Gallery

1926

Rufino Tamayo, Paintings, Watercolors, Drawings, and Woodcuts

Weyhe Gallery

1927

Luis Hidalgo, Wax Sculptures

Arden Gallery

1927

Rufino Tamayo

Frances Flynn Paine Gallery at the Art Center

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

487

1927

Diego Rivera

Weyhe Gallery

1928

Miguel Covarrubias

Valentine Dudensing Gallery

1928

Diego Rivera

Weyhe Gallery

1928

Jose Clemente Orozco

Ashram Club

1928

Jose Clemente Orozco

Galleries of Mari Sterner

1929

Angel Zarraga

Wildenstein Gallery

1929

Jose Clemente Orozco

Downtown Gallery

1929

Jose Clemente Orozco

Art Students League

1930

Jean Chariot

Art Students League

1930

Jose Clemente Orozco

Delphic Studios

1930

Maria Izquierdo

Frances Flynn Paine Gallery at the Art Center

1930

Carlos Merida

Delphic Studios

1930

Jose Clemente Orozco

Mural series for the New School for Social Research

1931

Jean Chariot

Mexican Month at John Levy Gallery

1931

Rufino Tamayo

Mexican Month at John Levy Gallery

1931

Joaquin Clausell

Mexican Month at John Levy Gallery

1931

Paul O’Higgins

Mexican Month at John Levy Gallery

1931

Jean Chariot

John Becker's Gallery

1931

David Alfaro Siqueiros's lithographs within the show Prints as Presents

Weyhe Gallery

1931

Diego Rivera

Museum of Modem Art

1932

Jean Chariot

John Becker’s Gallery

1932

Miguel Covarrubias

Valentine Dudensing Gallery

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

488

1932

Jean Chariot

John Levy Gallery

1932

Carlos Merida

John Beckers Gallery

1933

Diego Rivera

Museum of Modem Art

1933

Jean Chariot

John Levy Gallery

1933

Diego Rivera

Man at the Crossroads. mural at the RCA Building, Rockefeller Center

1933

Diego Rivera

Portrait o f America, mural series for New Workers School

1934

David Alfaro Siqueiros

Delphic Studios

1935

Jean Chariot. Copies of Chichen Itza Murals in Oil and Watercolor

Florence Cane School

1935

Jose Clemente Orozco, Graphic Work

Delphic Studios

1935

Emilio Amero

Julien Levy Galley

1937

Rufino Tamayo

Julien Levy Gallery

1937

Carlos Merida

George Passedoit Gallery. French Institute

1938

Frida Kahlo-Rivera

Julien Levy Gallery

1939

Rufino Tamayo

Valentine Gallery

1940

Federico Cantu

Morgan Gallery

1940

Jean Chariot

Bonestell Gallery

1940

David Alfaro Siqueiros

Pierre Matisse Gallery

1940

Rufino Tamayo

Valentine Gallery

1940

Jose Clemente Orozco

Dive Bomber and Tank, portable fresco. Museum of Modem Art

1941

Miguel Covarrubias, The Pageant o f the Pacific, Six mural panels painted

American Museum of Natural History

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

489 for the Pacific House of the San Francisco World’s Fair, 1939 1942

Rufino Tamayo

Valentine Gallery

1943

Jesus Guerrero Galvan

Julien Levy Gallery

1946

Rufino Tamayo

Valentine Gallery

1947

Rufino Tamayo

Pierre Matisse Gallery

1950

Rufino Tamayo

FCnoedler Gallery

Sources: Miscellaneous Art Exhibitions Catalog Collection, Archives o f American Art, Smithsonian Institution; Latin American Exhibition Catalogs Collection, Artists Files, and Galleries Files at the Museum o f Modern Art Library, New York, NY; American Art News’, Art News; Art Digest; and the New York Times.

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

490

Appendix B Group Exhibitions of Mexican Art in New York, 1910s—1940s

Year

Artists & Exhibition

Organizer & Location

1923

Society of Independent Artists of the City of Mexico

Seventh Annual Salon o f the New York Society o f Independent Artists. at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel

1924

Miguel Covarrubias, Jose Clemente Orozco. Luis Hidalgo

Whitney Studio Club

1925

Miguel Covarrubias. Carlos Merida, Maximo Pacheco. Julio Castellanos

Valentine Dudensing Gallery

1928

Mexican Fine Arts Exhibition

Art Center

1928

Mexican Applied Arts Exhibition

Art Center

1930

Mexican Arts

Metropolitan Museum of Art

1930

Exhibition o f Works o f Mexican Arts and Artists o f the Mexican School

Delphic Studios

1931

Exhibit by Contemporary Mexican Artists and Artists o f the Mexican School

Presented by the Delphic Studios at the Junior League

1931

Roberto de la Cueva del Rio and Agustin Jimenez

Delphic Studios

1931

Exhibition o f Indian and Colonial Art

Presented by Jose Juan Tablada at the Art Architectural League

1933

American Sources o f Modern Art

Museum of Modem Art

1934

Mexican Art

College Art Association

1935

Diego Rivera. David Alfaro Siqueiros, Jose Clemente Orozco, Carlos Merida, and others

Delphic Studios

1936

Exhibition o f Mexican Delegates to

A.C.A Gallery

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n e r. F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

491 the American Artists Congress 1937

Watercolors by Carlos Orozco Romero, Alfredo Zalce, Rufino Tamayo, and others

New School for Social Research

1937

Exhibition o f Mexican Crafts and Contemporary Prints and Paintings

Macy's Galleries

1938

Circulating Exhibitions o f Jose Clemente Orozco and Diego Rivera

Museum of Modem Art

1938

15 Contemporary Mexican Painters

Valentine Gallery

1939

Taller de la Grafica Popular

Pan-American Union and Instituto Norteamericano de Artes Graficas

1939

Latin American Exhibition o f Fine and Riverside Museum Applied Arts

1940

Twenty Centuries o f Mexican Art

Museum of Modem Art

1940

Exhibition and Sale o f Mexican Art

Macy's Art Galleries, in the context of Twenty Centuries o f Mexican Art

1940

Mexico Lithographs: The Taller de Grafica Popular First Complete Showing

Bonestell Gallery

1940

Exhibition o f Mexican Prints

American Art Today Pavilion at the New York World's Fair

1940

Latin American Exhibition o f Fine Arts

Riverside Museum

1941

Twelve Mexican Painters

Peris Galleries

1941

Exhibition o f Children’s Painting

Riverside Museum

1942

Taller de la Grafica Popular

Riverside Museum

1943

Taller de la Grafica Popular within the exhibition Art, a Weapon for Total War

New School for Social Research, organized by the Victory Workshop of the Artists League of America

1943

Taller de la Grafica Popular

Riverside Museum

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n e r. F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

492

1943

The Latin-American Collection o f the Museum o f Modern Art

Museum of Modem Art

1944

Taller de la Grafica Popular

School for Democracy

1945

Mexican Painting Exhibition

Knoedler Galleries, organized by the Galena de Arte Mexicano

1946

From Market Place to Museum

Grand Central Art Galleries

Sources: Miscellaneous Art Exhibitions Catalog Collection, Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution; Latin American Exhibition Catalogs Collection, Artists Files, and Galleries Files at the Museum o f Modern Art Library, New York, NY; Thomas J. Watson Library, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, NY; American Art Mews; A rt News; Art Digest; and New York Times.

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

493 Bibliography

Archival Sources Amherst College Library, Archives and Special Collections. Amherst. Massachusetts Dwight W. Morrow Papers Archives of American Art. Smithsonian Institution. New York. New York Miscellaneous Art Exhibitions Catalogues Collection Oral History Project: Stanton Loomis Catlin (1989) Mildred Constantine (1965) Rene d’Harnoncourt Papers. 1920-1983 Valentine Gallery Records. 1924-1948 Walter Pach Papers. 1883-1980 Archivo General de la Nacion. Mexico City, Mexico Fondo Carlos Chavez Fondo Presidente Alvaro Obregon Fondo Presidente Plutarco Elias Calles Columbia University Libraries. New York. New York Avery Architectural & Fine Arts Library Catalogues and Periodicals Collection Lehman Social Sciences Library Microfilm and Periodicals Collection Nicholas Murray Butler Library Interlibrary Loan Services Microfilm and Periodicals Collection Oral History Research Office "Reminiscences of Rene d'Harnoncourt." Carnegie Corporation Project (1968) "Reminiscences of Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller" (1952) “Reminiscences of Max Weber” (1958) "Reminiscences of Holger Cahill” (1957) "Reminiscences of Ben Shahn” (1956, 1957. and 1960) Rare Book & Manuscript Library Marius de Zayas Papers Carnegie Corporation of New York Archives Frederick Keppel Papers Frank Tannenbaum Papers Ripley Hitchcock Collection

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

494 The Getty Research Institute for the History of Art and the Humanities. Los Angeles. California Research Library, Special Collections Department © David Alfaro Siqueiros Papers. 1920-1991. bulk 1930-1936 Instituto Nacionai de Antropologia e Historia, Mexico City, Mexico Biblioteca del Museo Nacionai de Antropologia e Historia Periodicals Collection Catalogues Collection Instituto Nacionai de Bellas Artes. Mexico City, Mexico Museo de Arte Contemporaneo Intemacional Rufino Tamayo Fondo Documental Rufino Tamayo Clippings Collection Catalogues Collection The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York. New York Thomas J. Watson Library Scrapbooks. 1870-1931 Catalogues Collection The Museum of Modem Art Archives. New York. New York Administrative Records Department of Public Information Scrapbooks and Records. 1929-1997 Early Museum History: Administrative Records. 1930-1963 Personal Papers Abby Aldrich Rockefeller Albums. 1929-1940 A. Conger Goodyear Scrapbooks. 1929-1939 The Museum of Modem Art Library, New York. New York Exhibition Catalogues Collection Artists Files Galleries Files The New York Public Library. Humanities & Social Sciences Research Division. New York. New York General Research Division Catalogues Collection Periodicals Collection Microform Reading Room Miriam & Ira D. Wallach Division of Art. Prints and Photographs Art and Architecture Collection Rare Books & Manuscripts Division Bertram Wolfe Papers Carl van Vechten Papers

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er r ep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

495 Rockefeller Archive Center. Sleepy Hollow, New York Abby Aldrich Rockefeller Papers Nelson A. Rockefeller Papers Messrs. Rockefeller Collection General Education Board Universidad Nacionai Autonoma de Mexico. Mexico City, Mexico Hemeroteca Nacionai Newspapers and Magazines Collections Biblioteca Justino Fernandez del Instituto de Investigaciones Esteticas Periodicals Collection Catalogues Collection University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia. Pennsylvania The Walter H. & Leonore Annenberg Rare Book & Manuscript Library Carl Zigrosser Papers Yale University. New Haven, Connecticut Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library Yale Collection of American Literature Henry McBride Papers Alfred Stieglitz\Georgia O’Keeffe Archive

Published Primary Sources Arendt. Marion Lucile. The Historical Significance o f Mexican Art and Architecture. Publicaciones de la Secretaria de Educacion Publica. vol. 18. no. 3. Mexico City: Talleres Graficos de la Nacion. 1928. Atl. Dr. [Gerardo Murillo]. Las artespopulares de Mexico. 2 vols. Publicaciones de la Secretaria de Industria y Comercio. Mexico City: Editorial ”Cvltvra." 1922. Baigell. Matthew, and Julia Williams, eds. Artists against War and Fascism: Papers o f the First American Artists' Congress . New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers Univ. Press. 1986. Barr. Alfred H. Defining Modern Art: Selected Writings o f Alfred H. Barr. Jr. Edited by Irving Sandler and Amy Newman. New York: Harry N. Abrams. 1986. Beals. Carleton. Mexico: An Interpretation. New York: E. W. Huebsch. 1923. Best Maugard, Adolfo. Metodo de dibujo: Tradicion, resurgimiento y evolucion del ate mexicano. Mexico City: Dept. Editorial de la Secretaria de Educacion. 1923.

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

496 . A Methodfor Creative Design. New York: Knopf, 1926. Biddle. George. An American Artist's Story. Boston: Little, Brown. 1939. Brenner. Anita. Idols behind Altars. New York: Harcourt. Brace. 1929. Cabrera de Tablada. Nina. Jose Juan Tablada en la intimidad (con cartas y poemas ineditos). Letras. no. 15. Mexico City: Imprenta Universitaria. 1954. Cabrera. Luis. Lincoln Steffens, and Alberto J. Pani. Tres intelectuales hablan sobre Mexico. Mexico City, 1916. Chariot. Jean. The Mexican Mural Renaissance. 1920-1925. New Haven. Conn.: Yale Univ. Press. 1963. Calles. Plutarco Elias. Correspondencia personal, 1919-1945. Edited by Carlos Macias. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Economica. 1991. . Mexico before the World: Public Documents and Addresses o f Plutarco Elias Calles. Edited and translated by Robert Hammond Murray. New York: Academy Press. 1927. Cardenas. Lazaro. Epistolario de Lazaro Cardenas. El Hombre y sus Obras. Mexico City: Siglo Veintiuno Editores. 1974. Chase. Stuart. Mexico: A Study o f Two Americas. Illustrated by Diego Rivera. New York: Macmillan. 1931. Conde. Teresa del. ed. Jose Clemente Orozco, antologia critica. Cuademos de Historia del Arte. no. 13. Mexico City: Univ. Nacionai Autonoma de Mexico. Instituto de Investigaciones Esteticas, 1983. Covarrubias. Miguel. Negro Drawings. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 1927. ------------ . The Prince o f Wales and Other Famous Americans. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1925. Dewey. John. Impressions o f Soviet Russia and the Revolutionary World. Mexico-ChinaTurkey. New York: New Republic. 1929. Dillon. Emile Joseph. Mexico on the Verge. 2d ed. London: Hutchinson. 1922. ------------ . President Obregon: A World Reformer. London: Hutchinson. . Duffus. R. L. The American Renaissance. New York: Knopf, 1928.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

497 Edwards. Emily. Modern Mexican Frescoes: A Guide to all Mexican Frescoes. Mexico City: Central News. 1934. ------------. The Frescoes by Diego Rivera in Cuernavaca. Photographs by Manuel Alvarez Bravo. Mexico City: Editorial "Cvltvra,” 1932. Evans, Ernestine. The Frescoes o f Diego Rivera. New York: Harcourt. Brace. 1929. Fabela. Isidro. Los Estados Unidos contra la libertad, estudios de historia diplomatica americana. (Cuba. Filipinas, Panama, Nicaragua, Republica Dominicana). Barcelona: Talleres graficos "Lux.” 1920. Fernandez Ledesma. Gabriel. Juguetes mexicanos. Mexico City: Talleres Graficos de la Nacion. 1930. Fernandez. Justino. El arte moderno en Mexico: breve historia, siglos XIXy XX. Mexico City: J. Porrua e hijos. 1937. Frank. Waldo. America Hispana: A Portrait and a Prospect. New York: Scribner. 1931. ------------. Memoirs o f Waldo Frank. Edited by Alan Trachtenberg. : Univ. of Massachusetts Press. 1973. ------------. The Re-discovery ofAmerica: An Introduction to a Philosophy o f American Life. New York: Scribner. 1929. Gamio. Manuel. Forjando patria: (Pro-nacionalismo). Mexico City: Porrua Hnos.. 1916. Goodyear. A. Conger. The Museum o f Modern Art: The First Ten Years. New York. * 1943. Gorostiza. Jose. Epistolario (1918-1940). Edited by Guillermo Sheridan. Memorias Mexicanas. Mexico City: Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes, 1995. Gruening, Ernest. Many Battles: The Autobiography o f Ernest Gruening. New York: Liveright. 1973. ------------. Mexico and Its Heritage. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. 1928. Helm. MacKinley. Modern Mexican Painters. New York: Harper & Bros.. 1941. Herring, Hubert C., ed. Proceedings o f The Seminar on Relations with Mexico. Mexico City, January 1-10, 1927. Boston: Committee on Relations with Mexico. 1927.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

498 ------------. and Katharine Terrill, eds. The Genius o f Mexico: Lectures Delivered before the Fifth Seminar in Mexico, 1930. New York: Committee on Cultural Relations with Latin America. 1931. ------------. and Herbert Weinstock. eds. Renascent Mexico. New York: Covici. Friede: Committee on Cultural Relations with Latin America. 1935. Inman. Samuel Guy. Cultural Relations with Latin America. Philadelphia: Annals o f The American Academy of Political and Social Science. 1940. ------------. Intervention in Mexico. New York: Association Press. 1919. ------------. Problems in Pan Americanism. New York: George H. Doran. < 1921>. ------------. Ventures in Inter-American Friendship. New York: Missionary Education Movement of the United States and Canada. 1925. Inter-American Center Conference. Can the United States Retain Latin American Trade and Cultural Relations Against German. Italian, and Japanese Competition ? Washington. D.C.: George Washington Univ.. 1939 Johnson. Alvin. Notes on the New School Murals. New York: International Press. . Keppel. Frederick. The Foundation: Its Place in American Life. New York: Macmillan. 1930. ------------. Philanthropy and Learning with Other Papers. New York: AMS Press. 1967. ----------- . and R. L. Duffus. The Arts in American Life. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1933. Levy. Julien. Memoir o f an Art Gallery. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1977. McConnell. Burt M. Mexico at the Bar o f Public Opinion: A Survey o f Editorial Opinion in Newspapers o f the Western Hemisphere. New York: Mail and Express Publishing, 1939. McCullagh, Captain Francis. Red Mexico: A Reign o f Terror in America. New York: Louis Carrier. 1928. Manrique. Jorge Alberto, and Teresa del Conde. eds. Una mujer en el arte mexicano: Memorias de Ines Amor. Cuademos de Historia del Arte. no. 32. Mexico City: Univ. Nacional Autonoma de Mexico. Instituto de Investigaciones Esteticas. 1987.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e c o p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er r ep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

499 McBride. Henry. The Flow o f Art: Essays and Criticisms. Edited by Daniel Catton Rich. Henry McBride Series in Modernism and Modernity. New Haven. Conn.: Yale Univ. Press. 1997. Merida. Carlos. Modern Mexican Artists. Art Series. Mexico City: Frances Toor Studios. 1937. The Mexican Confiscations: Together with a Careful Survey o f the Present Revolutionary Trends in Mexico. : New York Herald-Tribune Newspaper Syndicate. Aug. 1938. Montenegro. Roberto. Mascaras mexicanas. Mexico City: Talleres Graficos de la Nacion. 1926. ------------ . Pintura mexicana. 1800-1860. Mexico City: Talleres Graficos de la Nacion. 1934. Monografa de Las escuelas de pintura al aire libre. Publicaciones de la Secretaria de Educacion Publica. Mexico City: Editorial "Cvltvra." 1926. Morrow Lindbergh. Anne. Bring Me a Unicorn: Diaries and Letters o f Anne Morrow Lindbergh, 1922-1928. A Helen and Kurt Wolff Book. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. 1971. Morrow. Elizabeth C. Casa Manana. Illustrated by William Spratling. Croton Falls. N.Y.: Spiral Press. 1932. ------------ . The Mexican Years: Leaves from the Diary o f Elizabeth Cutter Morrow. New York: Spiral Press. 1953. Novo. Salvador. La vida en Mexico en el periodo presidencial de Adolfo Lopez Mateos. 2 vols.. Memorias mexicanas. Mexico City: Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes. 1997-1998. ------------ . La vida en Mexico en el periodo presidencial de Adolfo Ruiz Cortines. 2 vols. Compiled by Antonio Saborit. Memorias mexicanas. Mexico City: Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes, 1996. ------------ . La vida en Mexico en el periodo presidencial de Gustavo Diaz Ordaz. 2 vols.. Memorias mexicanas. Mexico City: Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes. 1998. ------------ . La vida en Mexico en el periodo presidencial de Lazaro Cardenas. Mexico City: Empresas Editoriales. 1964.

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

500

------------ . La vida en Mexico en el periodo presidencial de Manuel Avila Camacho. Compiled by Jose Emilio Pacheco. Memorias mexicanas. Mexico City: CNCA. Institute Nacional de Antropologia e Historia. 1994. ------------ . La vida en Mexico en el periodo presidencial de Miguel Aleman. Compiled by Jose Emilio Pacheco. Memorias mexicanas. Mexico City: CNCA. Institute Nacional de Antropologia e Historia. 1994. Orozco. Jose Clemente. The Artist in New York: Letters to Jean Chariot and Unpublished Writings, 1925-1929. Translated by Ruth L. C. Simms. The Texas Pan American Series. Austin: Univ. of Texas Press. 1974. ------------ . Autobiografia. Mexico City: Ediciones Occidente. 1945. ------------ . Cartas a Margarita. 1921-1949. Edited by Tatiana Herrera Orozco. Mexico City: Ediciones Era. 1987. Orozco. Jose Clemente, and David Alfaro Siqueiros. Two Papers Presented at the American Artists' Congress, Feb. 15. 1936. for the Mexican Delegates by Orozco and Siqueiros (), 2-5. Pach. Walter. Ananias: or. The False Artist... New York: Harper & Bros.. 1928. ------------ . The Masters o f Modern Art. New York: B. W. Huebsch. 1924. Pani. Alberto J. Apuntes autobiograficos. 2 vols. Mexico City: Libreria de Manuel Porrua. 1950. Pemex Travel Club. Archaeology in Mexico Today. Mexico City: Petroleos Mexicanos. . ------------ . Mexico s Western Highways: Including the Cities o f Toluca. Morelia. Patzcuaro. Uruapan, Guadalajara. Mexico City: Talleres Graficos de la Nacion. . Porter. Katherine Ann. An Outline o f Mexican Arts and Crafts. Los Angeles: Young & McCallister. 1922. ------------ . The Collected Essays and Occasional Writings o f Katherine Ann Porter. New York: Delacorte Press 1970. Portes Gil. Emilio. Autobiografia de la Revolucion mexicana: Un tratado de interpretacion historica. Mexico City: Institute Mexicano de Cultura. 1964. Puig Casauranc. Manuel. Addresses Delivered by Dr. J. M. Puig Casauranc. Secretary o f Public Education o f Mexico: the 23 and 24 o f Mar., 1926, at Columbia

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

501

University, New York. Publicaciones de la Secretaria de Education Publica 9. no. 3. Mexico City: Talleres Graficos de la Nacion. 1926. Reed. Alma. Orozco. New York: Delphic Studios. 1932. ------------. Orozco. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. 1956. Rippy. J. Fred. Latin America in World Politics: An Outline Survey. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 1928. ------------. Jose Vasconcelos. and Guy Stevens. Mexico. American Policies Abroad. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. 1928. Rivas Mercado. Antonieta. 87 Cartas de amor y otros papeles. Edited by Isaac Rojas. Xalapa. Ver.. Mexico: Univ. Veracruzana. 1981. Rivera. Diego.. Obras. Vol. 2. pt. I: Textospolemicos 1921-1949: vol. 3: Correspondencia. Compiled by Acevedo. Esther. Leticia Torres Carmona, and Alicia Sanchez Mejorada de Gil. Mexico City: El Colegio Nacional. 1999. ------------. Raices politicos y motivos personales de la controversia Siqueiros-Rivera. Mexico City: Imprenta Mundial. 1935. ------------. and Bertram D. Wolfe. Portrait o f America. New York: Covici. Friede, 1934. ------------. Frances Toor. and Pablo O’Higgins. eds.. Monograjla. Obras de Jose Guadalupe Posada, grabador mexicano. Mexico City: Mexican Folkways. 1930. ------------. and Gladys March. Diego Rivera: My Art. My Life. New York: Citadel Press. I960. Saenz. Moises. and Herbert I. Priestley. Some Mexican Problems. Lectures on The Harris Foundation 1926. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. 1926. Schmeckebier. Laurence E. Modern Mexican Art. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press. 1939. Siqueiros. David Alfaro. Art and Revolution. Translated by Sylvia Calles. London: Lawrence and Wishart. 1975. ------------. Me llamaban el coronelazo: Memorias. Mexico City: Grijalbo, 1987. 3d ed. ------------. Palabras de Siqueiros. Edited by Raquel Tibol. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Economica. 1996.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

502

------------ . Textos de David Alfaro Siqueiros. Edited by Raquel Tiboi. Archivo del Fondo. no. 22-23. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Economica. 1974. ------------ . La Tracala: Mi respuesta a un gobierno fiscal-juez. Mexico City, 1962. Smith. Susan. Made in Mexico. Illustrated by Julio Castellanos. New York: Knopf, 1930. Spratling, William. File on Spratling: An Autobiography. Boston: Little. Brown. 1967. ------------ . Little Mexico. New York: Jonathan Cape & Harrison Smith. 1932. Starr. Frederick. Catalogue o f a Collection o f Objects Illustrating the Folklore o f Mexico. London: Pub. for the Folk-lore Society by D. Nutt. 1899. ------------ . Mexico and the United States: A Story o f Revolution, Intervention and War. Chicago: Bible House. . Tablada. Jose Juan. Historia del arte en Mexico. Mexico City: Editorial "Aguilas." 1927. ------------ . Cultura mexicana: Artes plasticas. periodos precortesiano, colonial y moderno. conferencia por Jose Juan Tablada. Caracas: "El Universal". 1920. ------------ . La feria de la vida: (Memorias). Mexico City: Ediciones Botas. 1937. ------------ . Las sombras largas: Memorias. Lecturas Mexicanas. 3a serie. no. 52. Mexico City: Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes. 1993. ------------ . Obras IV. Diario (1900-1944). Edited by Guillermo Sheridan. Mexico City: Univ. Nacional Autonoma de Mexico. Instituto de Investigaciones Filologicas. 1992. ------------ . La Babilonia de Hierro: Cronicas neoyorkinas. Edited by Esther Hernandez Palacios. Biblioteca UV/UNAM. Xalapa, Ver., Mexico: Univ. Veracruzana. 2000. Tamayo. Rufino. Textos de Rujino Tamayo. Compiled by Raquel Tibol. Textos de Humanidades. Mexico City: Univ. Nacional Autonomade Mexico. 1987. Tibol. Raquel, ed. Documentacion sobre el arte mexicano. Archivo del Fondo no. 11. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Economica, 1974. Thompson, Wallace. The Mexican Mind: A Study o f National Psychology. Boston: Little. Brown. 1922. ------------ . The People o f Mexico: Who They Are and How They Live. New York: Harper & Bros.. 1921.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er r ep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

503

------------ . Trading with Mexico. New York: Dodd. Mead, 1921. Vasconcelos. Jose. Obras Completas. 3 vols. Coleccion Laurel. Mexico City: Libreros Mexicanos Unidos. 1957-1959. ------------ . La raza cosmica: Mision de la raza iberoamericana. Barcelona: Agencia Mundial de Libreria. . ------------ . and Manuel Gamio. Aspects o f Mexican Civilization. Lectures on The Harris Foundation 1926. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1926. Velazquez Chavez. Agustin. Contemporary Mexican Artists. New York: Covici. Friede. 1937. ------------ . Indice de la pintura mexicana contemporanea. Index o f Contemporary Mexican Painting. Mexico City: Ediciones Arte Mexicano. 1935. ------------ . Pintura de caballete. Galena de arte mexicano: Exposicion colectiva. exh. cat. Mexico City: Ediciones Arte Mexicano. 1937. Velazquez Bringas. Esperanza. ed. Mejico ante el mundo: Ideologia del presidente Plutarco Ellas Calles. Biblioteca de Actualidades Politicas. Barcelona: Editorial Cervantes. 1927. ------------ . Pensadores y artistas. Mexico City: "Cvltvra." 1922. Walling. William E. The Mexican Question: Mexico and American-Mexican Relations Under Calles and Obregdn. New York: Robins Press. 1927. Whitney. Caspar. What's the Matter with Mexico? Our National Problems. New York: Macmillan. 1916. Wolfe. Bertram. Diego Rivera: His Life and Times. New York: Knopf, 1939. ------------. A Life in Two Centuries: An Autobiography. New York: Stein & Day Publishers. 1981. Zayas. Marius de. African Negro Art: Its Influence on Modern Art. New York: Modem Gallery. 1916. ------------ . How. When, and Why Modern Art Came to New York. Edited by Francis M. Naumann. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 1996. ------------ . and Paul B. Haviland. A Study o f the Modern Evolution o f Plastic Expression. New York: published by "291.” 1913.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

504

Zigrosser, Carl. A World o f Art and Museums. Philadelphia: Art Alliance Press, 1975.

Primary Source Catalogues 1923 Catalogue o f the Seventh Annual Exhibition o f The Society o f Independent Artists. exh. cat. New York: The Society. 1923. American Sources o f Modern Art. exh. cat. New York: Museum of Modem Art. 1933. Art mexicain contemporain. peinture et gravure: Exposition: Bordeaux. Paris. Lille. Lyon. Toulouse, exh. cat. Mexico City: SEP. INBA, 1958. Catalogo de la exposicion de artes mexicanas. exh. cat Mexico City: Editorial "Cvltvra," 1930. Catalogue o f Mexican Majolica Belonging to Mrs. Robert W. de Forest, exh. cat. New York: Hispanic Society of America, 1911. Circulating Exhibitions. 1938-1939. exh. cat. New York: Museum of Modem Art. 1938. Diego Rivera, exh. cat. New York: Museum of Modem Art. 1931. The Emily Johnston de Forest Collection o f Mexican Majolica. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. . 1918. Exhibition o f Mexican Art from Pre-Columbian Times to the Present Day: Organized under the Auspices o f the Mexican Government, exh. cat. London: The Tate Gallery; The Arts Council of Great Britain. 1953. Gamboa. Fernando, ed. Masterworks o f Mexican Art.jrom Pre-Columbian Times to the Present: Exhibition Sponsored by Adolfo Lopez Mateos and John F. Kennedy. Oct. 1963-Jan. 1964. exh. cat. Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum of Art. 1963. Kirstein, Lincoln. The Latin American Collection o f The Museum o f Modern Art. New York: Museum of Modem Art. 1943. ------------. Murals by American Painters and Photographers, exh. cat. New York: Museum of Modem Art. 1932. Latin American Exhibition o f Fine and Applied Arts. exh. cat New York: New York World's Fair Commission. Riverside Museum. 1939.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e c o p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er r ep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

505

Latin American Exhibition o f Fine Arts, exh. cat New York: New York World's Fair Commission. Tri-Arts Press. 1940. Mexican Arts: Catalogue o f an Exhibition Organizedfor and Circulated by The American Federation o f Arts, 1930—193I. exh. cat. N.p.: Southworth Press: American Federation of Arts. 1930. Portfolio o f Reproductions o f Mexican Frescoes by Diego Rivera. Notes by Je re Abbott. Berlin: Museum of Modem Art & Ganymed. 1933. Reed. Alma. ed. Exhibition o f Lithographs. Mural Studies. Photographs o f Frescos. Paintings. Drawings by Jose Clemente Orozco. Civic Auditorium. La Porte. Indiana. 6-29 April 1934. cat. exh. New York: Delphic Studios. 1934. Sociedad de Arte Modemo. Mascaras mexicanas. exh. cat. 2a Exposition de la Sociedad de Arte Modemo. Mexico City: Secretaria de Education Publica. 1945. Tamayo: 20 ahos de su labor pictorica. exh. cat. Mexico City: [NBA. Museo Nacional de Artes Plasticas. 1948. Twenty Centuries o f Mexican Art. Veinte siglos de arte mexicano. exh. cat. Mexico City: Museum of Modem Art. Institute Nacional de Antropologia e Historia de Mexico. 1940.

Secondary Sources Acevedo. Esther, et al. Guia de murales del centro historico de la ciudad de Mexico. Mexico City: Dept, de Arte de la Univ. Iberoamericana; CONAFE. 1984. Ades. Dawn. Renato Gonzalez Mello. and Diane Helen Miliotes. eds. Jose Clemente Orozco in the United States. 1927-1934. exh. cat. Hanover. N.H.: Hood Museum of Art. Dartmouth College: New York: Norton. 2002. Aguilar Camin. Hector, and Lorenzo Meyer. In the Shadow o f the Mexican Revolution: Contemporary Mexican History, 1910-1989. Austin: Institute of Latin American Studies, Univ. of Texas Press, 1993. Alanis. Judith, and Sofia Urrutia. Rufino Tamayo: Una cronologia, 1899-1987. Mexico City: INBA. Museo de Arte Contemporaneo Intemacional Rufino Tamayo. 1987. Alba, Victor. Coloquios de Coyoacan con Rufino Tamayo. Colection "Panoramas." no. 4. Mexico City: B. Costa-Amic, 1956.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n e r. F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

506

Alexander. Robert Jackson. Trotskyism in Latin America. Hoover Institution Publication, no. 119. Stanford. Calif.: Hoover Institution Press. Stanford Univ.. 1973. American Assembly. Cultural Affairs and Foreign Relations. Washington. D.C.: Columbia Books. 1968. Amory, Cleveland, and Frederic Bradlee. eds. Vanity Fair. Selections from America's Most Memorable Magazine: A Cavalcade o f the 1920s and 1920s. New York: Viking Press. 1960. Anderson. Mark Cronlund. Pancho Villa’s Revolution by Headlines. Norman: Univ. of Oklahoma Press. 2000. Anreus. Alejandro. Orozco in Gringoland: The Years in Hew York. Albuquerque: Univ. of New Mexico Press. 2001. Arenal. Angelica. Paginas sueltas con Siqueiros. Mexico City: Grijalbo. 1980. Art and Faith in Mexico: The Nineteenth-Century Retablo Tradition, exh. cat. Alburquerque: Univ. of New Mexico Press. 2001. Arte de las academias: Franciay Mexico, siglos XVII-XIX. exh. cat. Mexico City: Antiguo Colegio de San Ildefonso. 1999. Arte popular mexicano: Cinco siglos. exh. cat. Mexico City: Antiguo Colegio de San Ildefonso. 1996. Ashton. Dore. The New York School: A Cultural Reckoning. Berkley: Univ. of California Press. 1992. Azuela. Alicia. Diego Rivera en Detroit. Estudios y Fuentes del Arte en Mexico, no. 46. Mexico City: Univ. Nacional Autonoma de Mexico. Institute de Investigaciones Esteticas 1985. Baigell, Matthew. The American Scene: American Painting o f the 1930 s. American Art & Artists. New York: Praeger. 1974. Baetjer. Katharine, et al. The Jackson Pollock Sketchbooks in the Metropolitan Museum o f Art. 4 vols. New York: The Museum. 1997. Bargellini, Clara. Guia que permite captar lo bello: yesos y dibujos de la Academia de San Carlos. 1778-1916. Cuademos de Historia del Arte. no. 54. Mexico City: UNAM. Institute de Investigaciones Esteticas, Escuela Nacional de Artes Plasticas, 1989. Bamitz, Jacqueline. Twentieth-Century Art o f Latin America. Austin: Univ. of Texas

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

507 Press, 2001.

Becker. Jane S. Selling Tradition: Appalachia and the Construction o f an American Folk, 1930-1940 . Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press. 1998. Bemis, Samuel Flagg. The Latin American Policy o f the United States: An Historical Interpretation. New York: Harcourt. Brace & World. 1943. Bender. Thomas. New York Intellect: A History o f Intellectual Life in New York City, from 1750 to the Beginnings o f Our Own Time. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press. 1987. Berman. Avis. Rebels on Eighth Street: Juliana Force and the Whitney Museum o f American Art. New York: Atheneum. 1990. Berman. Edward H. The Influence o f the Carnegie, Ford, and Rockefeller Foundations on American Foreign Policy: The Ideology o f Philanthropy. Albany: State Univ. of New York Press. 1983. Blake. Casey Nelson. Beloved Community: The Cultural Criticism o f Randolph Bourne, Van Wyck Brooks, Waldo Frank, and Lewis Mumford. Cultural Studies of the United States. Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 1990. Boas. Franz. The Mind o f Primitive Man: A Course o f Lectures Delivered before the Lowell Institute, Boston. Mass.. and the National University o f Mexico, 19 IQ191 I. New York: Macmillan. 1924. Bodayla. Stephen D. Financial Diplomacy: The United States and Mexico. 1919-1933. Foreign Economic Policy of the United States. New York: Garland Publishing, 1987. Bradu. Fabienne. Antonieta (1900-1931). Vida y Pensamiento de Mexico. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Economica. 1993. Braun, Barbara. Pre-Columbian Art and the Post-Columbian World: Ancient American Sources o f Modern Art. New York: Harry N. Abrams. 1993. Britton. John A. Carleton Beals: A Radical Journalist in Latin America. Albuquerque: Univ. of New Mexico Press. 1987. ------------. Revolution and Ideology: Images o f the Mexican Revolution in the United States. Lexington: Univ. Press of Kentucky, 1995. Brown. Jonathan C. Oil and Revolution in Mexico. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press. 1993.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e c o p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er r ep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

508

. and Alan Knight, eds. The Mexican Petroleum Industry in the Twentieth Century. Symposia on Latin American Series. Austin: Institute of Latin American Studies. Univ. of Texas Press, 1992. Brown. Milton W. American Painting, from the Armory Show to the Depression. Princeton. N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press. 1955. Burrows. Edwin G.. and Mike Wallace. Gotham: A History o f New York City to 1898. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. 1999. Cardoza y Aragon. Luis. La nubey el reloj. Mexico City: Ediciones de la Univ. Nacional Autonoma de Mexico. 1940. . Pintura contemporanea de Mexico. Mexico City: Ediciones Era. 1988. 2d ed. Carr. Barry. Marxism & Communism in Twentieth-Century Mexico. Lincoln: Univ. of Nebraska Press. 1992. Chariot. Jean. Mexican Art and the Academy o f San Carlos, 1785-1915. Texas Pan American Series. Austin: Univ. of Texas Press. 1962. Chase. Mary Ellen. Abby Aldrich Rockefeller. New York: Macmillan. 1950. Chemow. Ron. Titan: The Life o f John D. Rockefeller, Sr. New York: Random House. 1998. Clifford. James. The Predicament o f Culture. Twentieth-Century Ethnography, Literature, and Art. Cambridge. Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press. 1988. Cohen. Warren I. East Asian Art and American Culture: A Study in International Relations. New York: Columbia Univ. Press. 1992. Collier. Peter, and David Horowitz. The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty. New York: Holt. Rinehart, and Winston. 1976. Conde. Teresa del. ed. Tamayo. Translated by Andrew Long and Luisa Panichi. A Bulfinch Press Book. Boston: Little. Brown. 2000. . et al. Los murales del Palacio de Bellas Artes. Mexico City: CNCA. Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes; Americo Arte Editores. 1995. . et al., Pablo O 'Higgins: Hombre del siglo X X . Mexico City: Univ. Nacional Autonoma de Mexico. Difusion Cultural, 1992. Com, Wanda M. The Great American Thing: Modern Art and National Identity. 19151935. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press. 1999.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er r ep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

509

Corredor-Matheos. Jose. Tamayo. New York: Rizzoli. 1987. Cox. Beverly J.. and Denna Jones Anderson, eds. Miguel Covarrubias Caricatures. exh. cat. Washington. D. C.: National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution Press. 1985. Craven. David. Art and Revolution in Latin America. 1910-1990. New Haven. Conn.: Yale Univ. Press. 2002. ------------ . Diego Rivera: As Epic Modernist. World Artists. New York: G. K. Hall. 1997. Cronon. E. David. Josephus Daniels in Mexico. Madison: Univ. of Wisconsin Press. 1960. Crowell. Merle, ed. The Last Rivet: The story o f Rockefeller Center, a city within a city, as told at the ceremony in which John D. Rockefeller Jr.. drove the last rivet o f the last building, Nov. 1, 1939. New York: Columbia Univ. Press. 1940. Curti. Merle. American Philanthropy Abroad: A History. New Brunswick. N.J.: Rutgers Univ. Press. 1963. Danly. Susan, ed. Casa Manana: The Morrow Collection o f Mexican Popular Arts. exh. cat. Albuquerque: The Mead Art Museum. Amherst College; Univ. of New Mexico Press. 2002. Debroise. Olivier. Diego de Montparnasse. Lecturas Mexicanas. no. 83. Mexico City: SEP. Fondo de Cultura Economica. 1985. ------------ . Figuras en el tropico, plastica mexicana. 1920—1940. Barcelona: Oceano. 1984. ------------ . Un banquete en Tetlapayac. videocassette. 101 min. (Mexico City: Oil + Water; Primercuadro. 1999). ------------ . et al. Modernidady modernizacion en el arte mexicano, 1920-1960. exh. cat. Aflos 20s/50s. Ciudad de Mexico. Mexico City: [NBA. Museo Nacional de Arte. 1991. ------------ . et al. Portrait o f a Decade. David Alfaro Siqueiros. 1930-1940. exh. cat. Mexico City: INBA. Museo Nacional de Arte. 1997. 1st English ed. DeConde. Alexander. Herbert Hoover's Latin-American Policy. Stanford Books in World Politics. Stanford. Calif.: Stanford Univ. Press. 1951.

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

510

"Degenerate Art ”: The Fate o f the Avant-Garde in Nazi Germany. Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum o f Art; New York : H. N. Abrams. 1991. De la patria criolla a la nacion mexicana, 1750—1860. exh. cat. Mexico City: Banamex; INBA; Patronato del Museo Nacional de Arte; UNAM. Instituto de Investigaciones Esteticas. 2000. Delpar. Helen. The Enormous Vogue o f Things Mexican: Cultural Relations between the United States and Mexico. 1920-1935. Tuscaloosa: Univ. of Alabama Press. 1992. Desmond. James. Nelson Rockefeller: A Political Biography. New York: Macmillan. 1964. Doss. Erika. Benton, Pollock, and the Politics o f Modernism: From Regionalism to Abstract Expressionism. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. 1991. Douglas. Ann. Terrible Honesty. Mongrel Manhattan in the 1920s. New York: Noonday Press. 1996. Downs. Linda Bank. Diego Rivera: The Detroit Industry Murals. New York: Detroit Institute of Arts; W.W. Norton. 1999. Dulles. John W. F. Yesterday in Mexico: A Chronicle o f the Revolution. 1919-1936. Austin: Univ. of Texas Press. 1961. Espinosa. J. Manuel. Inter-American Beginnings o f U.S. Cultural Diplomacy, 1936-1948. Cultural Relations Programs of the U.S. Dept, of State: Historical Studies, no. 2; Dept, of State Public. International Information and Cultural Series, no. 110. Washington. D. C.: Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. U.S. Dept, of State. 1976. Exposicion homenaje, Pablo O 'Higgins, artista nacional. exh. cat. Mexico City: INBA. Museo del Palacio de Bellas Artes. 1985. Faupel, Wilhelm, et al. Ibero-America y Alemania: Obra colectiva sobre las relaciones amistosas. desarme e igualdad de derechos. Edition especial de la Revista Politica. Berlin: Carlheymanns Verlag, 1933. Favela. Ramon. Diego Rivera: The Cubist Years, exh. cat. Phoenix. Ariz.: Phoenix Art Museum, 1984. Fell. Claude. Jose Vasconcelos: Los ahos del aguila (1920—1925): Educacion, cultura e iberoamericanismo en el Mexico postrevolucionario. Historia Modema y Contemporanea. no. 21. Mexico City: Univ. Nacional Autonoma de Mexico. Instituto de Investigaciones Historicas. 1989.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

511

Fey, Ingrid E., and Karen Racine, eds. Strange Pilgrimages: Exile, Travel, and National Identity in Latin America, 1800-1990s. Jaguar Books on Latin America, no. 22. Wilmington. Del.: Scholarly Resources. 2000. Folgarait. Leonard. Mural Painting and Social Revolution in Mexico, 1920-1940: Art o f the New Order. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge Univ. Press. 1998. Fosdick. Raymond B. Adventure in Giving: The Story o f the General Education Board. A Foundation Established by John D. Rockefeller. Based on an Unfinished Manuscript Prepared by the Late Henry F. Pringle and Katharine Douglas Pringle. New York: Harper & Row. 1962. ------------. A Philosophyfor a Foundation: On the Fiftieth Anniversary o f the Rockefeller Foundation. 1913-1963. New York: Rockefeller Foundation. 1963. ------------ . John D. Rockefeller, Jr.: A Portrait. New York: Harper & Bros.. 1956. ------------ . The Story o f the Rockefeller Foundation. New York: Harper. 1952. Frascina. Francis, ed. Pollock and after: The Critical Debate. Icon Editions. New York: Harper & Row. 1985. Frye. Alton. Nazi Germany and the American Hemisphere, 1933-1941. Yale Historical Publications Miscellany 86. New Haven. Conn.: Yale Univ. Press. 1967. Galindo. Hermila. La doctrina Carranzay el acercamiento indo-latino. Mexico City. 1919. Garcia-Noriega y Nieto. Lucia, et al. Miguel Covarrubias. Homenaje. exh. cat. Mexico City: Centro Cultural Arte Contemporaneo, 1988. Garcia Morillo. Roberto. Carlos Chavez: Vidayobra. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Economica. 1960. Garcia Riera. Emilio. Mexico visto por el cine extranjero. Biblioteca Era. Mexico City: Ediciones Era; Univ. de Guadalajara. Centro de Investigaciones y Ensenanzas Cinematograficas. 1987-. Garro. Elena. Memorias de Espaha 1937. Mexico City: Siglo Veintiuno Editores. 1992. Genauer. Emily. Rufino Tamayo. New York: Harry N. Abrams. 1974. Gilderhus. Mark T. Diplomacy and Revolution: U.S.-Mexican Relations under Wilson and Carranza. Tucson: Univ. of Arizona Press. 1977.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

512

Givner. Joan. Katherine Anne Porter: A Life. New York: Simon and Schuster. 1982. Glusker. Susannah Joel. Anita Brenner: A Mind o f Her Own. Austin: Univ. of Texas Press. 1998. Goldman. Shifra M. Contemporary Mexican Painting in a Time o f Change. Albuquerque: Univ. of New Mexico Press. 1995. ------------ . Dimensions o f the Americas: Art and Social Change in Latin America and the United States. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. 1994. Goldwater. Robert J. Rufino Tamayo. New York: Quadrangle Press. 1947. Gonzalez Cruz Manjarrez. Maricela. La polemica Rivera-Siqueiros: Planteamientos esteticos-politicos. 1934-1935. Mexico City: Museo Dolores Olmedo Patino. 1996. Greenough. Sarah, ed. Modern Art and America: Alfred Stieglitz and His New York Galleries. Washington. D.C.: National Gallery of Art: Boston: Bulflnch Press. 2000 .

Geduld. Harry M.. and Ronald Gottesman. eds. Sergei Eisenstein and Upton Sinclair: The Making and Unmaking o f Oue viva Mexico! Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press. 1981. Guilbaut. Serge. How New York Stole the Idea o f Modern Art: Abstract Expressionism, Freedom, and the Cold War. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. 1983. Hall. Linda B. Alvaro Obregon: Power and Revolution in Mexico, 1911-1920. College Station: Texas A&M Univ. Press. 1981. ------------ . Oil, Banks, and Politics: The United States and Postrevolutionary Mexico. 1917-1924. Austin: Univ. of Texas Press. 1995. Harr, John Ensor. and Peter J. Johnson. The Rockefeller Century. New York: Scribner. 1988. ------------ . The Rockefeller Conscience: An American Family in Public and in Private. New York: Scribner. 1991. Harris. Jonathan. Federal Art and National Culture: The Politics o f Identity in New Deal America. Cambridge Studies in American Visual Culture. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge Univ. Press. 1995.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

Harrison. Charles, et al. Primitivism. Cubism. Abstraction: The Early Twentieth Century. Modem Art: Practices and Debates. New Haven. Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, in association with the Open Univ., 1994. Hart. John M. Empire and Revolution: The Americans in Mexico since the Civil War. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press. 2002. Harten. Jurgen. Siqueiros/Pollock. Pollock/Siqueiros, exh. cat. vol. 1. : Dumont. 1995. Hemingway, Andrew. Artists on the Left: American Artists and the Communist Movement. 1926-1956. New Haven. Conn: Yale Univ. Press. 2002. Herman. Donald L. The Comintern in Mexico. Washington. D.C.: Public Affairs Press. 1974. Hemer. Irene, ed. Diego Rivera: Paraiso perdido en Rockefeller Center. Mexico City: Edicupes. 1990. Herrera. Hayden. Frida: A Biography o f Frida Kahlo. New York: Harper & Row. 1983. Hibbard. Howard. The Metropolitan Museum o f Art, New York. London: Faber & Faber. 1980. Hobsbawm. Eric J. Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme. Myth. Reality. Cambridge. Eng.: Cambridge Univ. Press. 1995. 2d ed. ------------. and Terence Ranger, eds. The Invention o f Tradition. Cambridge. Eng.: Cambridge Univ. Press. 1993. Hoff. Joan. American Business & Foreign Policy. 1920-1933. Lexington: Univ. Press of Kentucky. 1971. Homer. William Innes. Alfred Stieglitz and the American Avant-Garde. Boston: New York Graphic Society, 1977. Howe. Irving, and Lewis A. Coser. The American Communist Party: A Critical History. Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Era of the New Deal. New York: Da Capo Press. 1974. Hurlburt. Laurance P. The Mexican Muralists in the United States. Albuquerque: Univ. of New Mexico Press. 1989. Hyland, Douglas. Marius de Zayas: Conjurer o f Souls. Lawrence: Spencer Museum of Art. Univ. of Kansas. 1981.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er r ep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

514

Ibarra, Gabriela, and Heman Gutierrez. Plutarco Elias Calles y la prensa norteamericana (1924-1929). Mexico City: Secretarfa de Hacienda y Credito Publico, 1982. Instituto de Investigaciones Esteticas. Las academias de arte: (VII Coloquio Internacional en Guanajuato). Estudios de Arte y Estetica, no. 18. Mexico City: Univ. Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, 1985. ------------. Arte y espacio. X IX Coloquio Internacional de Historia de Arte. Edited by Oscar Olea. Estudios de Arte y Estetica, no. 43. Mexico City: Univ. Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, 1997. ------------. Arte, historia e identidad en America: Visiones comparativas. XVII Coloquio Internacional de Historia del Arte. 3 vols. Edited by Gustavo Curiel. Renato Gonzalez Mello, and Juana Gutierrez Haces. Estudios de Arte y Estetica, no. 37. Mexico City: Univ. Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, 1994. ------------. El Arte y la vida cotidiana. XVI Coloquio Internacional de Historia del Arte. Edited by Elena Estrada de Gerlero. Estudios de Arte y Estetica, no. 36. Mexico City: Univ. Nacional Autonoma de Mexico. 1995. ------------. Arte y violencia. XVIII Coloquio Internacional de Historia del Arte. Edited by Arturo Pascual Soto. Estudios de Arte y Estetica, no. 38. Mexico City: Univ. Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, 1995. ------------. Los discursos sobre el arte. XV Coloquio Internacional de Historia del Arte. Edited by Juana Gutierrez Haces. Estudios de Arte y Estetica. no. 35. Mexico City: Univ. Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, 1995. ------------. Encuentros y desencuentros en las artes: XIV Coloquio Internacional de Historia del Arte. Edited by Pablo Escalante Gonzalbo. Estudios de Arte y Estetica, no. 34. Mexico City: Univ. Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, 1994. . Estudios sobre arte: Sesenta ahos del Instituto de Investigaciones Esteticas. Edited by Martha Fernandez and Louise Noelle. Estudios de Arte y Estetica, no. 47. Mexico City: Univ. Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, 1998. . La iconograjia en el arte contemporaneo: (Coloquio Internacional de Xalapa). Estudios de Arte y Estetica, no. 16. Mexico City: Univ. Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, 1982. . (In)disciplinas: Estetica e historia del arte en el cruce de los discursos. XXII Coloquio Internacional de Historia del Arte. Edited by Lucero Enriquez. Estudios de Arte y Estetica, no. 50. Mexico City: Univ. Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, 1999.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

515

------------ . El nacionalismo y el arte mexicano. IX Coloquio de Historia del Arte. Estudios de Arte y Estetica, no. 25. Mexico City: Univ. Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, 1986. ------------. Orozco: Una Relectura. Mexico City: Univ. Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, 1983. ------------ . Patrocinio, coleccion y circulacidn de las artes. XX Coloquio Internacional de Historia del Arte. Edited by Gustavo Curiel. Estudios de Arte y Estetica, no. 46. Mexico City: Univ. Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, 1997. ------------ . Tiempoy arte. XIII Coloquio Internacional de Historia del Arte. Estudios de Arte y Estetica, no. 33. Mexico City: Univ. Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, 1991. Ives, Colta Feller, and Susan Alyson Stein, eds. The Lure o f the Exotic: Gauguin in New York Collections. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art; Yale Univ. Press, 2002 .

Joaquin Clausell y los ecos del impresionismo en Mexico, exh. cat. Mexico City: CNCA, Patronato del Museo Nacional de Arte 1995. Johnson, Alvin Saunders. Pioneer's Progress: An Autobiography. New York: Viking Press, 1952. Joseph, Gilbert M., Catherine C. LeGrand, and Ricardo D. Salvatore, eds. Close Encounters o f Empire: Writing the Cultural History ofU.S.-Latin American Relations. Durham: Duke Univ. Press. 1998. Josephson, Emanuel M. Rockefeller, “Internationalist, ” the Man who Misrules the World. New York: Chedney Press, 1952. Kantor, Sybil Gordon. Alfred H. Barr, Jr., and the Intellectual Origins o f the Museum o f Modern Art. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2002. Kaplan, Marcos. Formacion del Estado nacional en America Latina. Buenos Aires: Amorrortu Editores, 1983. Kardon, Janet, ed. Craft in the Machine Age, 1920-1945. The History of TwentiethCentury American Craft, no. 3. New York: Harry N. Abrams; American Craft Museum, 1995. ------------ . Revivals! Diverse Traditions, 1920-1945. The History of Twentieth-Century American Craft, no. 2. New York: Harry N. Abrams; American Craft Museum, 1994.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

516

Karetnikova, Inga. Mexico according to Eisenstein. Albuquerque: Univ. of New Mexico Press, 1991. Karp, Walter. The Center: A History and Guide to Rockefeller Center. New York: American Heritage; distributed by Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1982. Katz, Friedrich. The Secret War in Mexico: Europe, the United States and the Mexican Revolution. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1981. Kert, Bernice. Abby Aldrich Rockefeller: The Woman in the Family. New York: Random House, 1993. Klehr, Harvey. The Heyday o f American Communism: The Depression Decade. New York: Basic Books, 1984. Klehr, Harvey, et al. The Secret World o f American Communism. Annals of Communism. New Haven. Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, 1995. ------------ . The Soviet World o f American Communism. Annals of Communism. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, 1998. Knight, Alan. U.S.-Mexican Relations. 1910-1940: An Interpretation. Monograph Series, no. 28. San Diego: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, Univ. of California. 1987. Krauze, Enrique. Caudillos culturales en la Revolucion Mexicana. Mexico City: Siglo Veintiuno Editores, 1990. ------------ , Jean Meyer, and Cayetano Reyes. La reconstruccion economica. Historia de la Revolucion Mexicana, 1924—1928, no. 10. Mexico City: El Colegio de Mexico, 1977. Krenn, Michael L. U.S. Policy toward Economic Nationalism in Latin America, 19171929. America in the Modem World, Studies in International History. Wilmington. Del.: Scholarly Resources, 1990. Krinsky, Carol Herselle. Rockefeller Center. London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1978. Lagemann, Ellen Condliffe. The Politics o f Knowledge: The Carnegie Corporation, Philanthropy, and Public Policy. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1992. The Latin American Spirit: Art and Artists in the United States, 1920-1970. New York: Bronx Museum of the Arts; Harry N. Abrams, 1988. Lears, T. J. Jackson. No Place o f Grace: Antimodernism and the Transformation o f American Culture, 1880-1920. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1994.

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

517

Lozano Herrera, Ruben. Jose Juan Tablada en Nueva York: Busqueday hallazgos en la cronica. Mexico City: Univ. Iberoamericana, 2000. Lozano, Luis-Martin, et al. Diego Rivera: Art & Revolution, exh. cat. Mexico City: INBA; Landucci Editores, 1999. ------------ , and Mayo Graham, eds. Mexican Modern Art, 1900-1950, exh. cat. Ottawa: National Gallery of Canada, 1999. Lynes, Russell. Good Old Modern: An Intimate Portrait o f the Museum o f Modern Art. New York: Atheneum, 1973. Manero, Antonio. Mexico y la solidaridad americana: La doctrina Carranza. Madrid: Editorial-America, 1918. Manrique, Jorge Alberto. Arte y artistas mexicanos del siglo XX. Mexico City: Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes, 2000. ------------ . Una vision del arte y de la historia. Vol 4. Edited by Margarito Sandoval and Martha Fernandez. Estudios y Fuentes del Arte en Mexico, no. 69. Mexico City: Univ. Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, 2000-2001. Marlor, Clark S. The Society o f Independent Artists: The Exhibition Record 1917-1944. Park Ridge, N.J.: Noyes Press, 1984. Mamham, Patrick. Dreaming with His Eyes Open: A Life o f Diego Rivera. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 2000. Marquardt, Virginia Hagelstein, et al. Art and Journals on the Political Front. 19101940. Gainesville: Univ. Press of Florida, 1997. Marquis, Alice Goldfarb. Alfred H. Barr Jr.: Missionary for the Modern. Chicago: Contemporary Books, 1989. Matute, Alvaro. La carrera del caudillo. Historia de la Revolucion Mexicana. 1917— 1924, no. 8. Mexico City: El Colegio de Mexico, 1988. May, Antoinette. Passionate Pilgrim: The Extraordinary Life o f Alma Reed. New York: Paragon House, 1993. McMurry, Ruth Emily, and Muna Lee. The Cultural Approach, Another Way in International Relations. Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press. 1947. Mellquist, Jerome. The Emergence o f an American Art. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1942.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

518

Mendieta Alatorre, Angeles. Tablada y la gran epoca de la transformacion cultural. La Honda del Espfritu; Cuademos de Lectura Popular, no. 19. Mexico City: Secretaria de Education Publica, 1966. Mentz, Brigida von, et al. Empresarios alemanes: El Tercer Reich y la oposicion de derecha a Cardenas. 2 vols. Coleccion Miguel Othon de Mendizabal, no. 11. Mexico City: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropologia Social, 1988. ------------. Los pioneros del imperialismo aleman en Mexico. Ediciones de la Casa Chata, no. 14. Mexico City: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropologia Social, 1982. Mexico en la obra de Jean Chariot, exh. cat. Mexico City: CNCA, Colegio de San Ildefonso, 1994. Mexico: Splendors o f Thirty Centuries, exh. cat. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art; Boston: Little, Brown, 1990. Meyer, Jean, Enrique Krauze, and Cayetano Reyes. Estado y sociedad con Calles. Historia de la Revolucion Mexicana, 1924-1928, no. 11. Mexico City: El Colegio de Mexico, 1981. Meyer, Lorenzo. El conflicto social y los gobiernos del Maximato. Historia de la Revolucion Mexicana, 1928-1934, no. 13. Mexico City: El Colegio de Mexico, 1980. ----------- . Mexico y los Estados Unidos en el conflicto petrolero (1917-1942). Coleccion Centro de Estudios Intemacionales. Mexico City: El Colegio de Mexico, 1981. ------------, Rafael Segovia, and Alejandra Lajous. Los inicios de la institucionalizacion. Lapolitica del Maximato. Historia de la Revolucion Mexicana, 1928-1934, no. 12. Mexico City: El Colegio de Mexico, 1981. Pablo O 'Higgins, artista nacional, exh. cat. Mexico City: INBA, Museo del Palacio de Bellas Artes, 1985 Pablo O 'Higgins: Un compromiso plastico, exh. cat. Mexico City: Museo Dolores Olmedo Patifio, 1995. Myers, Bernard Samuel. Mexican Painting in Our Time. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1956. Navarrete, Sylvia. Miguel Covarrubias: Artista y explorador, exh. cat. Galena coleccion de arte mexicano. Mexico City: CNCA, Direction General de Publicaciones, 1993.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

519

Nicolson, Harold. Dwight Morrow. New York: Harcourt, Brace. 1935. Nielsen, Waldemar A. The Big Foundations. A Twentieth Century Fund Study. New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1972. ------------ . The Golden Donors: A New Anatomy o f the Great Foundations. New York: E. P. Dutton, Truman Talley Books, 1985. Niblo, Stephen R. War, Diplomacy, and Development: The United States and Mexico, 1938-1954. Latin American Silhouettes. Wilmington, Del.: Scholarly Resources, 1995. Ninkovich, Frank A. The Diplomacy o f Ideas: U.S. Foreign Policy and Cultural Relations, 1938-1950. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1981. Oles, James. South o f the Border: Mexico in the American Imagination, 1914—1947. exh. cat Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1993. Oettinger, Marion. Folk Treasures o f Mexico: The Nelson A. Rockefeller Collection. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1990. Orozco V., Clemente. Orozco, Verdad Cronologica. Guadalajara, Jal., Mexico: EDUG. Univ. de Guadalajara, 1983. Ortiz Gaitan, Julieta. Entre dos mundos: los murales de Roberto Montenegro. Serie especial. Mexico City: Univ. Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Instituto de Investigaciones Esteticas, 1994. Otras rutas hacia Siqueiros: Un simposio organizado por Curare. Mexico City: INBA; Curare, Espacio Crftico para las Artes, 1996. Pablo O ’Higgins: Un compromiso plastico, exh. cat. (Mexico City: Museo Dolores Olmedo Patifio, 1995). Paz, Octavio. Essays on Mexican Art. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1993. Pells, Richard H. Radical Visions and American Dreams: Culture and Social Thought in the Depression Years. New York: Harper & Row, 1973. Morrill. Penny C., et al. William Spratling and the Mexican Silver Renaissance: Maestros de Plata, exh. cat. New York: H. N. Abrams; San Antonio Museum of Art, 2002. Ortiz Angulo, Ana. La pintura mexicana independiente de la Academia en el siglo XIX, Coleccion cientifica, no. 302. Mexico City: INAH, 1995.

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

520

Pike, Fredrick B. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Good Neighbor Policy: Sixty Years o f Generally Gentle Chaos. Austin: Univ. of Texas Press, 1995. ------------. The United States and Latin America: Myths and Stereotypes o f Civilization and Nature. Austin: Univ. of Texas Press, 1992. Platt, Susan Noyes. Art and Politics in the 1930s: Modernism, Marxism, Americanism: A History o f Cultural Activism during the Depression Years. New York: Midmarch Arts Press, 1999. ------------. Modernism in the 1920s: Interpretations o f Modern Art in New Yorkfrom Expressionism to Constructivism. Studies in the Fine Arts: Criticism, no. 17. Ann Arbor, Mich.: UMI Research Press, 1985. Pollock, Orozco, and Siqueiros, exh. cat. New York: Washburn Gallery, 21 Jan.-28 Feb., 1998. Posada y la prensa ilustrada: Signos de modernizacion y resistencias, exh. cat. Mexico City: Patronato del Munal, INBA, 1996. Prignitz, Helga. El Taller de Grafica Popular en Mexico, 1937-1977. Translated by Elizabeth Siefer. Mexico City: INBA, CENIDIAP, 1992. Quintanilla, Lourdes. Liga de Escritores y Artistas Revolucionarios (LEAR). Serie Avances de Investigation, Centro de Estudios Latinoamericanos no. 43. Mexico City: Univ. Nacional Autonoma de Mexico. Facultad de Ciencias Politicas y Sociales, 1980. Ramirez, Fausto. Cronica de las artes plasticas en los ahos de Lopez Velarde (19141921). Cuademos de Historia del Arte, no. 53. Mexico City: Univ. Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Instituto de Investigaciones Esteticas, 1990. Reaves, Wendy Wick. Celebrity Caricature in America, exh. cat. New Haven, Conn.: National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution; Yale Univ. Press, 1998. Reed, John. Insurgent Mexico. New York: Simon & Schuster, Clarion Books, 1969, rpt., 1st ed. 1914. Reich, Cary. The Life o f Nelson A. Rockefeller: Worlds to Conquer, 1908-1958. New York: Doubleday, 1996. Reyes Palma, Francisco. Un proyecto cultural para la integracion nacional, periodo de Calles y el maximato, 1924—1934. Historia social de la education artistica en Mexico, notas y documentos, no. 3, Cuademos del CIEDA. Mexico City: SEP, Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes, 1984.

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

521

------------ , et al. Pablo O'Higgins: De estetica y soberania. Mexico City: Fundacion Cultural Maria y Pablo O'Higgins; Comite Editorial Gobiemo del Distrito Federal, 1999. Richmond, Douglas W. Venustiano Carranza’s Nationalist Struggle, 1893-1920. Lincoln: Univ. of Nebraska Press, 1983. Rochfort, Desmond. Mexican Muralists: Orozco, Rivera, Siqueiros. : Laurence King, 1993. Rockefeller Center. The Story o f Rockefeller Center. New York: Select Printing, 1942. Rockefeller Foundation. Annual Report, 1951. New York: Rockefeller Foundation, 1952. Rodman, Selden. Mexican Journal: The Conquerors Conquered. New York: DevinAdair, 1958. Romero Keith, Delmari. Historiay testimonios: Galeria de Arte Mexicano. Mexico City: Ediciones Galeria de Arte Mexicano, 1985. Rosenberg, Emily S. Financial Missionaries to the World: The Politics and Culture o f Dollar Diplomacy, 1900-1930. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1999. ------------ . Spreading the American Dream: American Economic and Cultural Expansion, 1890-1945. American Century Series. New York: Hill & Wang, 1982. Ruptura, exh. cat. Mexico City: Museo Jose Luis Cuevas, 2002. Ruptura, 1952-1965, exh. cat. Mexico City: Museo de Arte Alvar y Carmen T. de Carrllo Gil; Monclova, Coahuila, Mexico: Museo Biblioteca Pape, 1988. Rufino Tamayo, Myth and Magic, exh. cat. New York: Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, 1979. Rufino Tamayo: Pinturas, exh. cat. Madrid: Centro de Arte Reina Sofia, 1988. Saborit, Antonio. Los exilios de Joaquin Clausell. Mexico City: Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes, 1996. ------------ , ed. Una mufer sin pais: Las cartas de Tina Modotti a Edward Weston y otros papeles personales. Mexico City: Cal y Arena, 2001. Said, Edward W. Culture and Imperialism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1993. ------------ . Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books, 1978.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

522

Saint-Gaudens, Homer. The American Artist and His Times. New York: Dodd, Mead, 1941. Sawin, Martica. Surrealism in Exile, and the Beginning o f the New York School. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1995. Scott, William B., and Peter M. Rutkoff. New York Modern: The Arts and the City. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1999. Schmidt, Henry C. The Roots o f ‘Lo M e x ic a n o S e lf and Society in Mexican Thought, 1900-1934. College Station: Texas A&M Univ. Press. 1978. Schmitt, Karl M. Communism in Mexico: A Study in Political Frustration. Austin: Univ. of Texas Press, 1965. Schuler, Friedrich E. Mexico between Hitler and Roosevelt: Mexican Foreign Relations in the Age ofLazaro Cardenas, 1934—1940. Albuquerque: Univ. of New Mexico Press, 1998. Schwartz, Lawrence H. Marxism and Culture: The CPUSA and Aesthetics in the 1930s. Literary Criticism, National Univ. Publications. Port Washington, N.Y.: Kennikat Press. 1980. Seldes, George. World Panorama, 1918-1933. Boston: Little, Brown, 1933. Shaplen, Robert. Toward the Well-Being o f Mankind: Fifty Years o f the Rockefeller Foundation. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1964. Sheridan, Guillermo. Los Contempordneos ayer. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Economica, 1985. Smith, Robert Freeman. The United States and Revolutionary Nationalism in Mexico, 1916-1932. Chicago: Chicago Univ. Press, 1972. Sosa Elizaga, Raquel. Los codigos ocultos del cardenismo: Un estudio de la violencia politico, el cambio socialy la continuidad institucional. Mexico City: Plaza y Valdes Editores; Univ. Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, 1996. Spenser, Daniela. The Impossible Triangle: Mexico, Soviet Russia and the United States in the 1920s. American Encounters/Global Interactions. Durham: Duke Univ. Press, 1999. Stein, Philip. Siqueiros: His Life and Works. New York: International Publishers. 1994.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

523

Stout, Joseph Allen. Border Conflict: Villistas. Carrancistas, and the Punitive Expedition, 1915-1920. Fort Worth: Texas Christian Univ. Press, 1999. Strauss Neuman, Martha. El reconocimiento de Alvaro Obregon: Opinion americanay propaganda mexicana (1921-1923). Seminarios Facultad de Filosofia y Letras. Mexico City: Univ. Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, 1983. Suarez Arguello, Ana Rosa, ed. En el nombre del Destino Manifiesto: Guia de ministros y embajadores de Estados Unidos en Mexico, 1825—1993. Mexico City: Institute Mora, SRE, 1998. Suckaer, Ingrid. Rufino Tamayo: Aproximaciones. Col. El Horcon. Mexico City: Editorial Praxis, 2000. Tannenbaum, Frank. Peace by Revolution: Mexico after 1910. Illutrated by Miguel Covarrubias. New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1933. Tenorio, Mauricio. Mexico at the World's Fairs: Crafting a Modern Nation. New Historicism, no. 35. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1996. Tibol, Raquel. David Alfaro Siqueiros. Coleccion Un mexicano y su obra. Mexico City: Empresas Editoriales, 1969. ------------ . Orozco, Rivera, Siqueiros, Tamayo. Coleccion Testimonies del Fondo. no. 17. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Economica, 1974. ------------ . Siqueiros, introductor de realidades. Coleccion de Arte, no. 8. Mexico City: Univ. Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Direction General de Publicaciones, 1961. ------------ . Siqueiros: Viday obra. Coleccion Metropolitana, no. 28. Mexico City: Dept. del Distrito Federal, 1974. ------------, ed. Rufino Tamayo: 70 Ahos de Creadon, exh. cat. Mexico City: INBA, Museo de Arte Contemporaneo Intemacional Rufino Tamayo, 1987. ------------, et al. Los murales del Palacio Nacional: Diego Rivera. Mexico City: Institute Nacional de Bellas Artes; Americo Arte Editores, 1997. Tomkins, Calvin. Merchants and Masterpieces: The Story o f the Metropolitan Museum o f Art. New York: Henry Holt, 1989. Toor, Frances. Mexican Popular Arts. Mexico City: Frances Toor Studios, 1939. Wald, Alan M. The New York Intellectuals: The Rise and Decline o f the Anti-Stalinist Leftfrom the Thirties to the Eighties. Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 1987.

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

524

Weaver, Warren, ed. U.S. Philanthropic Foundations: Their History, Structure, Management, and Record. New York: Harper & Row, 1967. Westheim, Paul. Tamayo: A Study in Esthetics. Translated by Mariana Frenk. Mexico City: Artes de Mexico, . Whiting, Cecile. Antifascism in American Art. New Haven. Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, 1989. Widdifield, Stacie G. The Embodiment o f the National in Late Nineteenth-Century Mexican Painting. Tucson: Univ. of Arizona Press, 1996. Williams, Adriana. Covarrubias. Edited by Doris Ober. Austin: Univ. of Texas Press. 1994. Wood, Bryce. The Making o f the Good Neighbor Policy. New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1961. Yankelevich, Pablo. Miradas australes: Propaganda, cabildeo y proyeccion de la Revolucion Mexicana en el Rio de la Plata, 1910-1930. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Estudios Historicos de la Revolucion Mexicana; Secretaria de Relaciones Exteriores, 1997. Zabludovsky, Jacobo. Siqueiros me dijo. Mexico City: Editorial Novaro, 1974. Zim, Larry, et al. The World o f Tomorrow: The 1939 New York World's Fair. New York: Harper & Row, 1988.

Articles and Chapters Andrews. Gregg. '‘Roberto Haberman, Socialist Ideology, and the Politics of National Reconstruction, 1920-25.” Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos 6, no. 2 (summer 1990): 189-211. Azuela, Alicia. “£/ Machete and Frente a Frente: Art Committed to Social Justice in Mexico.” Art Journal 52, no. 1 (spring 1993): 82-87. ------------. “Public Art, Meyer Schapiro and Mexican Muralism.” The Oxford Art Journal 17, no. 1 (1994): 55-59. Bailey, Craig R. “The Art of Marius de Zayas.” Arts Magazine 53, no. 1 (Sept. 1978): 136-44.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

525

Balfe, Judithe. “Artworks as Symbols in International Politics.*’ International Journal o f Politics, Culture and Society (winter 1987): 5-27. Bloch. Lucienne. “On Location with Diego Rivera.” Art in America 74. no. 2 (Feb. 1986): 102-23. Bohn. Willard. "The Abstract Vision of Marius de Zayas.” The Art Bulletin 62. no. 3 (Sept. 1980): 434-52. Brading. David A. “Manuel Gamio and Official Indigenismo in Mexico." Bulletin o f Latin American Research 7. no. 1 (1988): 75-89. ------------ . "Monuments and Nationalism in Modem Mexico." Nations and Nationalism 7, no. 4 (2001): 521-31. Brown. Jonathan C. "Why Foreign Oil Companies Shifted Their Production fro Mexico to Venezuela during the 1920s.” The American Historical Review 90. no. 2 (Apr. 1985): 362-85. Bruere. Henry. "Constructive Versus Dollar Diplomacy." The American Economic Review 13. no. I (Mar. 1923): 68-76. Cabrera. Luis. "Los problemas trascendentales de Mexico." In Revolucion e historia en la obra de Luis Cabrera, edited by Eugenia Meyer. 193-219. Vida y Pensamiento de Mexico. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Economica. 1994. Caso. Alfonso. Foreword to "Bibliografia de las artes populares plasticas de Mexico.” Memorias del Insituto Nacional Indigenista (Mexico City) vol. 1, no.2 (1950). Chariot. Jean. "Twenty Centuries of Mexican Art.*’ American Magazine o f Art 33 (1940): 398—404. 440-41. Clark. Jr.. J. Reuben. "The Oil Settlement with Mexico.” Foreign Affairs 6 (July. 1928): 600-14. Clarke. R. W. “The Influence of Fuel on International Politics.” Journal o f the British Institute of International Affairs 2. no. 3 (May, 1923): 107-18. Clifford. James. "Histories of the Tribal and the Modem." Art in America 73. no. 4 (1985): 164-77.211.215. Cockcroft. Eva. "Mexico. MOMA and Cultural Imperialism." Artworkers News 10. no. 7 (Mar. 1981): 12-15.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

526

Cordero Reiman. Karen. "Para devolver su inocencia a la Nation (apuntes para el origen y desarrollo del Metodo Best Maugard)." 9-21. In Abraham Angely su tiempo, exh. cat. Mexico City: SEP Cultura., Institute Nacional de Bellas Artes. . Cumberland. Charles C. "The Jenkins Case and Mexican-American Relations." Hispanic American Historical Review 31. no. 4 (Nov. 1951): 586-607. Debroise. Olivier. “The Shared Studio." In Ferrer. Elizabeth, ed. The True Poetry: The Art o f Marla Izquierdo. exh. cat. New York: Americas Society Art Gallery. 1997. Delpar. Helen. “Frank Tannenbaum: The Making of a Mexicanist. 1914-1933." The Americas 45 (Oct. 1988): 153-71. ------------ . “Goodbye to the ’Greaser': Mexico, the MPPDA. and Derogatory Films. 1922-1926.” Journal o f Popular Film and Television 12 (spring 1984): 34—41. D'Harnoncourt. Rene. “Loan Exhibition of Mexican Arts." Metropolitan Museum Bulletin 25 (Oct. 1930): 210-17. Dominguez, V. “The Marketing of Heritage.” American Ethnologist 13 (1986): 546-55. Earle. Edward Mead. “The New Mercantilism." Political Science Quarterly 40. no. 4 (Dec.. 1925): 594-600. Ellis. L. Ethan. “Dwight Morrow and the Church-State Controversy in Mexico." Hispanic American Historical Review 38. no. 4 (Nov.. 1958): 482-505. Evans. Robert [Freeman. Joseph], “Painting & Politics: The Case of Diego Rivera." New Masses (lan. 1932). Fernandez. Justino. "Contemporary Painting and Sculpture." In The New Architecture in Mexico. edited by Esther Bom. New York: The Architectural Record. W. Morrow. 1937. Gilderhus. Mark T. "The United States and Carranza." The Americas 29 (1977): 214-31. Glad. Paul W. "Progressives and the Business Culture of the 1920s." The Journal o f American History 53. no. I (June 1966): 75-89. Gleason. Philip. "Americans All: World War II and the Shaping of .American Identity." The Review o f Politics 43 (1981): 483—518. Goldman, Shiffa M. "Las creaturas de la America Tropical: Siqueiros y los murales chicanos en Los Angeles." Revista de Bellas Artes (Mexico City) (Jan.-Feb. 1976): 38-46.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

527

------------."Metropolitan Splendors.” New Art Examiner (Apr. 1991): 16-19. ------------. "Rewriting the History of Mexican Art: The Politics and Economics of Contemporary Culture." In Mexico: A Country in Crisis, edited by Jerry R. Ladman. El Paso: Texas Western Press. Univ. of Texas at El Paso. 1986. Hale. Charles A. ‘Trank Tannenbaum and the Mexican Revolution.” Hispanic American Review 75. no. 2 (May 1995): 215—46. Harrison. Helen A. "John Reed Club Artists and the New Deal: Radical Responses to Roosevelt's ‘Peaceful Revolution.'” Prospects 5 (1980): 241-68. Hemer. Irene. "Siqueiros/ Pollock: Redes.” In 9 obras maestras de David Alfaro Siqueiros: Siqueiros/Pollock. Pollock/Siqueiros, exh. cat. Mexico City: Galena Arvil. 1995. Horn [Horr], Axel. "Jackson Pollock: the Hollow and the Bump.” Carleton Miscellany (summer 1966): 80-87. Horn. James J. "Did the U.S. Plan Invasion of Mexico in 1927?” Journal o f Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 15. no. 4 (Nov.. 1973): 454—71. ------------. "El embajador Sheffield contra el presidente Calles.” Historia Mexicana 20. no. 78 (1970): 265-84. ------------. "U.S. Diplomacy and ‘The Specter of Bolshevism' in Mexico (1924-1927).” The Americas 32. no. 1 (July. 1975): 31-45. Hurlburt. Laurance P. "The Siqueiros Experimental Workshop: New York. 1936."Art Journal 35. no. 3 (spring 1976): 237-46. Ignasias. C. Dennis. "Propaganda and Public Opinion in Harding's Foreign Affairs: The Case for Mexican Recognition.” The Journalism Quarterly 48 (spring 1971): 4152. Kane. N. Stephen. “American Businessmen and Foreign Policy: The Recognition of Mexico, 1921-1923.’'’ Political Science Quarterly 90. no. 2 (summer. 1975): 293313. ------------. “Bankers and Diplomats: The Diplomacy of Dollar in Mexico. 1921-1924.” Business History Review 47. no. 3 (autumn 1973): 335-52. ------------. "Corporate Power and Foreign Policy: Efforts of American Oil Companies to Influence United States Relations with Mexico. 1921-1928.” Diplomatic History I. no.2 (spring 1977): 170-98.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er r ep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

528

Karl. Barry D.. and Stanley N. Katz. "Foundations and Ruling Class Elites.*’ Daedalus 116. no. 1: Philanthropy, Patronage, Politics (winter 1987): 1-40. Keppel. Frederick. Foreword to March. Benjamin. China and Japan in Our Museums. New York: American Council Institute of Pacific Relations. 1929. Kirstein. Lincoln. “Siqueiros: Painter and Revolutionary.” Magazine o f Art 37. no. 1 (Jan. 1944): 22-27, 34. Knight. Alan. "Racism. Revolution, and Indigenismo: Mexico. 1910—1940.” In The Idea o f Race in Latin America, 1870-1940. edited by Richard Graham. 71-113. Critical Reflections on Latin America. Austin: Univ. of Texas Press, 1990. Koppes. Clayton R. “The Good Neighbor Policy and the Nationalization of Mexican Oil: A Reinterpretation.” The Journal o f American History 69. no. I (June 1982): 6281. Kozloff. Max. “The Rivera Frescoes o f Modem Industry at the Detroit Institute of Arts: Proletarian Art under Capitalist Patronage.” Artforum 12 (1974). Lacy, Elaine C. "The 1921 Centennial Celebration of Mexico's Independence State Building and Popular Negotiation.*’ In / Viva Mexico! ; Viva la independencia! : Celebrations o f September 16. edited by William H. Beezley and David E. Lorey. 199-232. Latin American Silhouettes. Wilmington. Del.: SR Books. 2001. Lewis. Stephen E. "The Modem Gallery and American Commodity Culture." Modernism/ Modernity 4. no. 3 (Sept. 1997): 67-91. Linsley, Robert. "Utopia Will Not Be Televised: Rivera at Rockefeller Center.” The Oxford Art Journal 17. no. 2 (1994): 48-62. Little. Douglas. "Antibolshevism and American Foreign Policy. 1919-1939: The Diplomacy of Self-Delusion.” American Quarterly 35, no. 4 (autumn 1983): 37690. Lynch. Jr., James B. “The Language of Tamayo.” In Tamayo, exh. cat. Phoenix. Ariz.: Phoenix Art Museum and Friends of Mexican Art. 1968. Macias Richard. Carlos. "Diplomacia y propaganda mexicana en Estados Unidos (1920— 1924).” Eslabones (Mexico City) no. 2 (July-Dee. 1991). Marquardt. Virginia Hagelstein. “Art on the Political Front in America. From The Liberator to Art Front:' Art Journal 52. no. 1 (spring 1993): 72-81.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

529 ------------ . "New Masses and John Reed Club Artists. 1926-1936: Evolution of Ideology, Subject Matter, and Style.” The Journal o f Decorative and Propaganda Arts 12 (spring 1989): 56—75. McCoy. Garnett. "The Rise and Fall of the American Artists’ Congress.” Prospects 13 (1988): 325-39. Melzer. Richard. "The Ambassador Simpatico: Dwight W. Morrow in Mexico 19271930.” In Ambassadors in Foreign Policy: The Influence o f Individuals on U.S.Latin American Policy, edited by C. Neale Ronning and Albert P. Vannucci. New York: Praeger. 1987. Mewbum. Charity. "Oil, Art and Politics: The Feminization of Mexico.” Anales del Instituo de Investigaciones Esteticas 20, no. 72 (1998). Meyer. Lorenzo. "El primer tramo del camino.” In Historia General de Mexico. 2:1183— 1271. Mexico City: El Colegio de Mexico. 1978. Meyer. M. "The German Conspiracy of 1915.” The Americas 23 (1966): 79-89. Morrow. Dwight W. “Who Buys Foreign Bonds.” Foreign Affairs 5 (Jan. 1927): 217-32. Morrow. Elizabeth C. "Our Street in Cuernavaca.” American Mercury 23 (Aug. 1931): 411-18. Mullin. Molly. "The Patronage of Difference: Making Indian Art ’Art.' Not Ethnology.” Cultural Anthropology: Journal o f the Society fo r Cultural Anthropology 7. no. 4 (1992): 395^124. Nelken. Margarita. "Ensayo de exegesis de Rufino Tamayo.” Cuadernos Americanos (Mexico City) 84, no. 6 (Nov.-Dee. 1955): 237-55. O’Connor. Francis V. "The Influence of Diego Rivera on the Art of the United States during the 1930s and after,” 157-83. In Diego Rivera: A Retrospective. New York: Founders Society, Detroit Institute of Arts, in association with W. W. Norton, 1986. Park. Marlene, and Gerald E. Markowitz. Introduction to Democratic Vistas: Post Offices and Public Art in the New Deal. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press. 1984. Phillips. Sandra S. "The Art Criticism of Walter Pach.” 65. no. 1 (Mar. 1983): 106—21. Ramirez. Fausto. "Hacia la gran exposicion del Centenario de 1910: El arte mexicano en el cambio de siglo.” In 1910: El arte en un aho decisivo. La exposicion de artistas mexicanos. exh. cat. Mexico City: INBA. Museo Nacional de Arte. 1991.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er r ep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

530

Renau. Jose. “Mi experiencia con Siqueiros.” Revista de Bellas Artes (Mexico City) (Jan.-Feb. 1976): 3-25. Reyes Palma. Francisco. “Mythical Structures in Perceptions of 20th Century Mexican Art.” Curare (Mexico City), no. 9. 2a epoca (fall 1996) [Journal online]. http://www.laneta.apc.org/curare/mvth.htlm. 20 Apr. 2002. Richardson. William. “The Dilemmas of a Communist Artist: Diego Rivera in Moscow. 1927-1928.” Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos 3. no. 1 (winter 1987): 49-69. Rippy, J. Fred. “A Bond-Selling Extravaganza of the 1920’s.” The Journal o f Business o f the University o f Chicago 23. no. 4 (Oct. 1950): 238—47. Saborit. Antonio. "Objects that Hide Universes.” In Tina Modotti & Edward Weston: Mexican Years, edited by Jose Antonio Rodriguez and Antonio Saborit. New York: Throckmorton Fine Art. 1999. Schmidt. Henry C. “The American Intellectual Discovery of Mexico in the 1920’s.” South Atlantic Quarterly 73. no. 3 (summer 1978): 335-51. Seldes. George. “The Truth about Mexico.” In idem. You Can't Print that! The Truth behind the Mews 1918-1928. New York: Payson & Clarke. 1929. Sherwell. Guillermo. “Tendencies of Modem Art in Mexico.” American Magazine o f Art 13 (1922): 301-03. Slade. Edmond J. W. “The Influence of Oil on International Politics.” Journal o f the British Institute o f International Affairs 2. no. 6 (Nov.. 1923): 251-58. Smith. Daniel M. “Bainbridge Colby and the Good Neighbor Policy. 1920-1921.” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review 50. no. 1 (June. 1963): 56-78. Smith. Michael M. ''Carrancista Propaganda and the Print Media in the United States: An Overview of Institutions.” The Americas 52, no. 2 (Oct. 1995): 155-74. Smith. Robert Freeman. “The Formation and Development of the International Bankers Committee.” The Journal o f Economic History 23. no. 4 (Dec., 1963): 574—86. ------------. “Thomas W. Lamont and United States-Mexican Relations.” Harvard Library Bulletin 15, no. 1 (Jan., 1967): 49-58. ------------. “The Morrow Mission and the International Committee of Bankers on Mexico: The Interaction of Finance Diplomacy and the New Mexican Elite.” Journal o f Latin American Studies 1. no. 2 (Nov.. 1969): 149-66.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m is s io n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er r ep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

531

Steele. Richard W. '‘The Great Debate: Roosevelt, the Media, and the Coming of War. 1940-1941.” The Journal o f American History 71. no. 1 (June 1984): 69-92. Sullivan, Edward J. “Frida Kahlo en Nueva York.” In Las relaciones culturales entre America Latina y Estados Unidos despues de la guerra fria. edited by Ellen Spielmann. Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Berlin, 2000. Tenorio. Mauricio. “The Cosmopolitan Mexican Summer. 1920-1949.” Latin American Research Review 32. no. 3 (1997): 224—42. ------------ . “Stereophonic Scientific Modernisms: Social Science between Mexico and the United States. 1880s-1930s.” The Journal o f American History (Dec. 1999): 1156-87. Tibol. Raquel. “Tamayo y su vuelo del reflejo al suefio.” 9-44. In Rufino Tamayo: Del refiejo al sueho, 1920-1950. exh. cat. Mexico City: Fundacion Cultural Televisa. Centro Cultural Arte Contemporaneo, 1995. Triani. Eugene P. “Harding Administration and Recognition of Mexico.” Ohio History 75. no. 2-3 (spring-summer 1966): 137-48. Ulloa. Berta. “La lucha armada (1911-1920).” In Historia General de Mexico, vol. 2 (Mexico City: El Colegio de Mexico. 1978). Velasco. Jesus. "Reading Mexico. Understanding the United States: American Transnational Intellectuals in the 1920s and 1990s.” The Journal o f American History 86, no. 2 (Sept. 1999): 641-67. Yankelevich, Pablo. “En la retaguardia de la Revolucion Mexicana: Propaganda y propagandistas mexicanos en America Latina. 1914-1920.” Mexican Studies/ Estudios Mexicanos 15, no. 1 (winter 1999): 43—49.

Periodicals Mexico Boletin Mensual, Carta Blanca Los Contempordneos Cuadernos Americanos Excelsior Forma. Revista de Artes Plasticas El Maestro Mexican Art & Life Mexican Folkways Mexico Moderno

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

532

Nuestro Mexico Revista de Revistas Ulises El Universal El Universal Uustrado

United States American Art News American Magazine o f Art Art and Archaeology Art Digest Art News Arts Arts Weekly Bulletin o f The Museum o f Modern Art Century Magazine Creative Art Harper's Magazine International Studio Metropolitan Museum Bulletin Modern Monthly Nation New Masses New Republic New Yorker New York Evening Post New York Herald Tribune New York Sun New York Times Parnassus Pro-Mexico Scribner’s Magazine Survey: Graphic Number Time Magazine Vanity Fair Workers Age

Unpublished Theses and Dissertations Alvarez. Ruth Moore. "Katherine Ann Porter and Mexican Art.” 3 vols. Ph.D. diss.. Univ. of Maryland. 1990.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

533

Baick, John S. “Reorienting Culture: New York Elites and the Turn toward East Asia.” Ph.D. diss., New York Univ., 1998. Bamet-Sanchez, Holly. “The Necessity of Pre-Columbian Art: United States Museums and the Role of Foreign Policy in the Appropriation and Transformation of Mexican Heritage, 1933-1944.” Ph.D. diss., Univ. of California, Los Angeles, 1993. Bealle, Penny Joy. “Obstacles and Advocates: Factors Influencing the Introduction of Modem Art from Germany to New York City, 1912-1933: Major Promoters and Exhibitions.” Ph.D. diss., Cornell Univ., 1990. Birss, Emst. “ 'New York, at First, Did Not See...’: Modem Art, the Public, and the Stieglitz Circle, 1913-1916.” M.A. thesis, Univ. of Alberta (Canada), 1995. Christopulos, Diana K. “American Radicals and the Mexican Revolution, 1900-1925.” Ph.D. diss., State Univ. of New York at Binghamton, 1980. Fein, Seth. “Hollywood and United States-Mexico Relations in the Golden Age of Mexican Cinema.” Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Texas at Austin, 1996. Lopez, Rick Anthony. ''Lo mas mexicano de Mexico: Popular Arts, Indians, and Urban Intellectuals in the Ethnicization of Postrevolutionary National Culture, 19201972.” Ph.D. diss., Yale Univ., 2001. Mabardi. Sabine Fadia. “Diego Rivera between Modernities: Strategies, Negotiations, and Shared Categories.” Ph.D. diss., Simon Fraser Univ. (Canada), 1999. Markle, Walter Greer. “Diego Rivera’s Portrait o f America: Marxism and Montage.” Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Oregon, 1999. McCarthy, Laurette E. “Walter Pach: Artist, Critic, Historian, and Agent of Modernism.” Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Delaware, 1996. Melzer, Richard Anthony. “Dwight Morrow’s Role in the Mexican Revolution: Good Neighbor or Meddling Yankee?” Ph.D. diss., Univ. of New Mexico, 1979. Oles, James Douglas. “Walls to Paint on: American Muralists in Mexico, 1933-1936.” Ph.D. diss., Yale Univ., 1995. Paquette, Catha. “U.S. Perceptions of Mexican Modem Art during the 1940s: The Case of MacKinley Helm” (M.A. thesis, Univ. of California, Santa Barbara, 1997). Ramirez-Garcia, Mari Carmen. “The Ideology and Politics of the Mexican Mural Movement: 1920-1925.” 2 vols. Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Chicago, 1989.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

534

Rushing, William Jackson III. “Native American Art and Culture and the New York Avant-Garde. 1910-1950.” Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Texas at Austin, 1989. Runk. Eva Epp. “Marius de Zayas: The New York Years.” M.A. thesis, Univ. of Delaware, 1973. Shannon. Helen Marie. “From "African Savages' to ‘Ancestral Legacy’: Race and Cultural Nationalism in the American Modernist Reception of African Art.” Ph.D. diss.. Columbia Univ.. 1999. Stocking, Jr.. George Ward. “American Social Scientists and Race Theory: 1890-1915.” Ph.D. diss., Univ. o f Pennsylvania, I960. Tyler, Francine. “Artists Respond to the Great Depression and the Threats of Fascism: The New York Artists’ Union and its Magazine ‘Art Front’ (1934-1937).” Ph.D. diss., New York Univ., 1991. Ugalde, Alejandro. “Jose Luis Cuevas y la renovation plastica en Mexico: 1950-1968.” B.A. thesis. Univ. Iberoamericana (Mexico City), 1993. ------------. “The Presence of Mexican Art in the Museum of Modem Art of New York during the Decade o f 1930.” M.A. thesis. Columbia Univ., 1994. Williams, Reba White. “The Weyhe Gallery between the Wars, 1919-1940.” Ph.D. diss.. City Univ. of New York, 1996. Woods, Kenneth Flint. “Samuel Guy Inman: His Role in the Evolution of Inter-American Cooperation.” Ph.D. diss., American Univ.. 1962. Young, Howard T. “Jose Juan Tablada, Mexican Poet.’’ Ph.D. diss.. Columbia Univ., 1956. Zelman. Donald Lewis. “American Intellectual Attitudes toward Mexico 1908-1940.” Ph.D. diss., Ohio State Univ., 1969.

R e p r o d u c e d w ith p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n er . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

535

Illustrations

Because of copyright restrictions, the illustrations have been included only in the copies of this manuscript at Columbia University.

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y rig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

NOTE TO USERS Copyrighted materials in this document have not been filmed at the request of the author. They are available for consultation at the author’s university library.

536-580 This reproduction is the best copy available.

IMI'

R e p r o d u c e d with p e r m issio n o f th e co p y r ig h t o w n e r . F u rth er rep ro d u ctio n p roh ib ited w ith o u t p e r m issio n .

Mexican art in New York Alejandro Ugalde - PDFCOFFEE.COM (2025)

References