Diego Rivera’s misguided judgement.

Diego Rivera’s murals were not compatible with societal views at the time, and thus its no surprise that they were torn down after the controversy that they caused. Abby Rockefeller was a big supporter and fan of Rivera’s murals and she convinced her son Nelson Rockefeller to commission Rivera to create something for one of the buildings at the center.  When providing plans for approval of the mural, there was absolutely no depiction of alcohol or any hint of communism in the painting. Yet when it came time to design the mural itself, Rivera decided to depict Lenin, Trotsky on one side and alcohol and Rockefeller on the other, in his mural Man at the Crossroads.

It’s necessary to realize that at this time, anti-communistic attitudes were widespread in United States. Prohibition was abolished with the 21^st amendment in 1933, but was still often associated with crime and sin, at least by the Churches in the U.S. Despite this, Rivera still openly depicted a communist leader and the consumption of alcohol by a Rockefeller, in his public mural, and because it was painted on Rockefeller property, it could have been seen to reflect their views as well.  Rivera was depicting things that were seen as wrong and unnecessary by some members of society and thus the mural sparked much controversy.  However, tearing it down completely might have been going too far. Yes it depicted sights and objects considered to be against the views of U.S. but that’s no excuse to destroy the whole art piece. I believe at one point or another there was a desire to move the painting somewhere else, and this would have been a much better alternative. Rather than destroying the piece, simply relocate it and design a new one in its place.

Although he did not deserve to get hismural destroyed, the culpability lies with Rivera, and his choice of design and detail in the mural itself.  That’s not to say that the mural was bad in any way, or that it doesn’t deserve to be called art. It just simply wasn’t right for the time period during which it was painted or for the area in which it was constructed. Although the idea of free speech and expression arises with this topic, it’s also worth noting that by designing the mural, he was not only representing himself, but a whole family, and some might even say a whole city, with his art work. He was asked to design something fitting for the community and failed to do so.  He was asked to take down the offensive image, and although he tried to fix the work by balancing it out with a portrait of Abraham Lincoln, it was unfitting to depict a communist leader in a capitalist country to begin with, at least at that time.