David Beagle

The mural, Man at the Crossroads, is the center of the conflict between Diego Rivera and the Rockefellers.  Rivera was commissioned to paint a mural to be displayed at Rockefeller Center, and included in his work a depiction of Lenin, which, of course, displeased the Rockefellers.  After Rivera and the Rockefellers were unable to reach an agreement, Rivera was paid, but his mural was removed and destroyed.

Two questions came to mind when I heard about this controversy: Why did this conflict even begin? Why did it have to end with the destruction of the mural?  It’s no surprise that the Rockefellers would be pro-capitalist. And Rivera was not subtle about his own political views, as I saw in the works of his displayed in the MoMA exhibit.  So, why did the Rockefellers and Rivera agree to work together in the first place if disagreements could be so easily expected?

What makes the ending of this situation the “wrong result” is the destruction of the mural.  Artists are entitled to their own vision, and should be allowed to develop it however they please when they work for themselves.  However, when hired by a patron, artists are also under some obligation to whoever is paying them.  While I disagree with the Rockefellers’ assessment of the mural and their decision to not have it finished and displayed true to the artist’s intentions, I cannot deny their rights.  The Rockefellers were not wrong in not wanting to have artwork that they disagreed with to be made with their money, and Rivera certainly was not wrong in wanting to stay true to his art.  And so, if the Rockefellers’ did not pay Rivera, and if Rivera was allowed to keep the mural, there would not have been quite as much controversy.

While the history of the mural controversy is interesting, it is not necessary to know this story or the general history of the Rockefeller Center when visiting or evaluating it.  The Rockefeller Center, like any other work of artistic and cultural significance, has an intrinsic value as a piece of art and culture that it can be assessed through without outside information.  But, although it’s not necessary, having some knowledge of the history or context of a work does offer different ways to look at a piece, and gives the viewer a more in-depth understanding of it.