Did Diego Rivera deserve to have his design destroyed?

In 1932, Norman Rockwell, as well as the other member’s of the prestigious Rockefeller family, petitioned Diego Rivera in the hopes that he would create a mural for their building. Normal Rockwell initially decided that an artistic mural would create an atmosphere of culture that would legitimize the otherwise banal business tower. Initially, the project looked like it would be a success. However, when Rockefeller and the press found out that Diego Rivera had created a portrait of communist leader Vladimir Lenin in the mural, they were infuriated. America was strongly capitalist at the time, only a few years past the great depression that struck in 1932. Clearly, a picture of a communist leader on a building that symbolized great commerce and personal wealth would be contradictory and embarrassing. Faced with pressure from the elites in Manhattan, Norman Rockefeller eventually decided to hand Rivera the lump sum of his artistic dues, send him on his way, and destroy any evidence of his mural in Rockefeller Center.

I think the question of whether the removal of the mural was the right result or the wrong result is hard to answer. While we live in a society that values every person’s right to think and voice his or her opinions, it seems unfair to say that removing the mural was the wrong thing. If this mural were painted today, many of us in support of freedom of expression would still find the communist imagery unappealing. Communism is a system that most Americans identify as restrictive and oppressive. American’s experience with Soviet communism during the Cold War tends to make them less receptive to images of Lenin being plastered in public. However, it doesn’t take away from the fact that Diego Rivera simply presented his personal view and was within his right in doing so. Essentially, the question of the removal’s fairness cannot be answered like a math equation; there is a lot of gray area.

Although there may not be a clear verdict on the removal’s case, it is clear that the Rockefeller’s are at fault. They knew well before enlisting the help of Rivera that he was a staunch supporter of communism and displayed communist imagery in his work. With that knowledge, they still gave him the task of beautifying their building, and placed no restrictions on what he could make. Rivera, although controversial, clearly was within his rights in making the images of Lenin and John D. Rockefeller boozing in a nightclub. Were his images provocative? Of course they were. However, he was an artist and an activist and was merely using this canvass to convey an idea. If Rockefeller didn’t anticipate Rivera’s antics, he was either misinformed or naïve. In the end, he destroyed what would have been a stunning piece of art because it made his company look bad. Rivera, although daring, did not deserve to have his work removed.