Rivera, An Artist Not A Sheep

To attribute wrong and right to an artistic action is essentially the same as forging a moral association with the usually sinuous aspects of art.  Diego Rivera was an artist who essentially penciled the lines of political and social commentary into the universe of art; his works fully imagine a reality with a communistic edge.  Although Rivera was paid and followed closely in his creation of the mural – to say what Rivera did as ultimately wicked erroneously illustrates art as something that can be controlled and somehow still have meaning.  Once aspects of art are controlled, they lose their connection to the artist – this connection is what keeps art alive and fashions a similar emotion out of the audience. Rivera may have been suffocated with what the Rockefellers wanted; therefore he withdrew any sense of obligation to the patrons and instead followed his obligations to artistic purposes.  Conversely, Rivera may have had this intention from the beginning – thus calling for the huge negative response.  It is, consequently, easy to ascertain that Rivera was the villain in this scandal – but it is not necessarily true.

It was no secret that Rivera was aligned with communists and had an agenda with his paintings – as there is a strong connection with the proletariat in most of his works.  Diego Rivera could never be the right person to be a mouthpiece for the achievements and prophesies of American capitalism.  The combination of the capitalist ideals of the Rockefellers and the communist ideologies of Rivera turned out volatile, resulting in the destruction of the art.  Although I believe Rivera to be innocent, as he was justly acting on artistic principles, I condone the destruction of the mural.  It is in the rights of the Rockefellers, as patrons, to forge their own vision in their building.  I believe that in every possible permutation, there would have been controversy – because of Rivera’s ideals.   In most circumstances, the removal of art to retain peace is an unfortunate but necessary evil – and this is one of those circumstances.

This extensive history of Rockefeller Center is embedded into the structural integrity of the buildings, however the commercialism of the center overwhelms any visitor.  Rockefeller Center of the present involves the catering to the tourist by the capitalist and eliminates the need for the experience to involve history.  As a child, I went to Rockefeller Center uninspired by the tall tree, the lights, and the performances – it was completely false, a synthetic stimulus that attempted to diffuse joy out of every pore.  Is the history necessary to experience Rockefeller Center as its creators imagined it?  It is not.  The state of the area is largely commercialized, unwilling to relay any significant meaning. Rivera brought a controversial edge to the area; however his mark on it remains covered by the ornamental lights and giant trees.  That is not to say that it isn’t rewarding to uncover the history behind Rockefeller Center; it invigorates the space with deeper substance than the frivolities of what it has now come to encompass.