Diego Rivera was hired by the Rockefellers to paint a mural in a lobby of a Rockefeller Center building, but his mural was destroyed because he painted Lenin. I understand that Rivera was very expressive of his beliefs and that he didn’t hide his communistic philosophy. However, he should have followed the ideology “when in Rome, do as the Romans do.” Rivera was painting in one of the biggest pro-capitalistic cities of the world. He should have understood that by painting a picture of Lenin, he would face controversy from the public and the Rockefeller family who were one of the biggest examples of the success of capitalism. He should have tried to please his audience. Rivera also depicted Nelson Rockefeller in a club drinking. The Rockefellers were famous for supporting the prohibition publicly but drinking secretly. Rivera’s mural would tarnish that image and it was only right for his mural to be destroyed. Rivera made the mistake of offending his own boss who was paying him.

The decision that Nelson Rockefeller made to destroy Rivera’s mural was correct. Rivera should have expected this from the beginning since he knew that Lenin’s picture would offend many in America and trying to taint his own boss’s image would be a bad idea. However, Rockefeller was somewhat at fault also for asking Rivera to paint for him. Rivera was a famous communist but Rockefeller ignored that and tried to separate Rivera’s beliefs from his works. In reality, a person’s views become apparent in all of the works they do. Rockefeller shouldn’t have hired Rivera because even though he was a great artist, he was too risky to paint a public mural in New York City.

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.

Money is the root of all evil. Although not entirely true, the preceding statement bears great relevance to the world of art. Money can often work as a corruptive force in the lives of artists. Some of our favorite musical talents grow in the underground scene, where our fandom begins. We wish them success but also to be cautious of the negatively transformative power of money. However, upon “blowing up,” their messages are often tainted by industry executives who wish to make the music more marketable. Then we accuse them of “selling out.” Diego Rivera underwent an almost analogous situation. Rivera built a reputation as an extremely talented artist. Thus, the esteemed Rockefeller family commissioned a Rivera mural to be placed in their great, forthcoming center. The Rockefellers should have taken the message of his other pieces into consideration, though. Murals such as “Liberation of the Peon” and “Uprising” display his clear support for the working class. In his mural Rivera stayed true to his message, and did not “sell out,” a commendable action. Still, Rockefeller was not wrong in his decision to remove the mural. Not only was he the patron of the piece, but the center was also being built in his name. Therefore, any message in the mural would reflect directly on him. Destroying the mural was also his right, but it definitely displayed a lack of character and appreciation for art on his part. I am sure he could have easily had it removed and transported at Rivera’s expense.

Personally, genuineness is of the utmost importance to me. In fact there is no principle I value more. Thus, knowing the history of the mural controversy is absolutely necessary when evaluating Rockefeller Center. Rockefeller’s decision to have the mural removed may cause visitors to question the purpose of other features of the center.

Diego Rivera was commissioned to paint a mural on the ground floor wall of Rockefeller Center.  Rockefeller wanted the mural to make people stop and think.  Rivera started to paint a mural called Man at the Crossroads.  The mural depicted people drinking alcohol (Rockefeller was pro-prohibition), pictures of cells (cells depicted STDs), and Vladimir Lenin (an easily recognized communist).  All of this led Rockefeller to order the removal of the mural from Rockefeller Center, and rightfully so.  I think that it was unnecessary to completely destroy the mural, but it definitely should have been removed.  A center of capitalism with a mural depicting communism.  A mural depicting cells of sexually transmitted diseases.  This particular mural had no place in Rockefeller Center.

There were photos taken of the mural before it was destroyed.  Rivera used the money he got from Rockefeller to re-create the same mural in Mexico City, where it was welcomed.  He named this mural, Man, Controller of the Universe.  He continued to use the money that he got from Rockefeller to keep on re-painting the same mural over and over again in different places until the money ran out.

I don’t believe that it is necessary to know the history of the mural controversy when visiting Rockefeller Center.  The fact that a mural was supposed to be there does not really natter, the fact is, there’s no mural now.  It would be irrelevant to imagine a mural there, because there never will be.  Also, Rockefeller Center does not need to have a mural; it is a work of art in itself.  Millions of people walk through Rockefeller Center and I’m sure that very few of them know about the mural controversy, but they still go.  I didn’t know about the mural controversy until a week ago, and I’ve been going to Rockefeller Center my entire life.  There are so many aspects of Rockefeller Center that a person goes there to see.  There’s the statue of Atlas, the stature of Prometheus, the ice-skating rink, the flags, the RKO building, Radio City Music Hall, the beautiful Christmas Tree, and much more.  That’s the only important thing to know about Rockefeller Center, not some information about a non-existent mural.

The removal and destruction of Rivera’s mural at Rockefeller Center was wrong. I blame Rockefeller’s low confidence level for the murals destruction. I believe Rockefeller was too worried about the opinion of the location’s visitors and fellow Americans rather than considering the message that the Communistic mural stood for. This mural was intended to represent social, political, industrial, and scientific possibilities in the 20^th century. The background of the mural included a large May Day demonstration of workers marching with red banners (Communistic symbol). The controversy arose over the featured leader of the demonstration, Lenin. Rockefeller asked Rivera to feature an American in the mural, but Rivera and his aides refused.

When considering whether this mural should’ve remained, I can’t help but to compare the situation to that of the Statue of Liberty. Built in France, the statue resides in New York City as arguably the largest representation of freedom in America. Despite it being built somewhere else, the message it carries and the worth it has to Americans remains unchanged. The same should go for the mural. The mural, as a single entity, represents all four categories and the uncertainty that lies ahead in the 20^th century. I can’t imagine the cultural and historical significance it would’ve had after the Cold War and the containment of Communism if it hadn’t ben destroyed. It was not only a spectacular piece of art, but a metaphorical memento of America’s influence in history.

Looking at the images by Diego Rivera in MoMA made it obvious why he was hired to paint a mural in Rockefeller Center. His paintings teem with life and feeling, and the humanity that shines through them. Even more haunting works, such as “Frozen Assets” portray human emotion in a single image. As the wealthy put away their assets, the poor are “put away” under the exponential growth of the city.  In a center meant to reflect the movement, cluster, and life of the city, such art would fit in beautifully and reflect its spirit. It would seem as if nothing could go wrong for Rockefeller’s vision, except for one distinct fact.

Diego Rivera had an agenda on his mind.

While the main essence of Rockefeller center is the hustle and bustle of capitalism, Rivera was a staunch communist, disgusted by what he saw as depravity in the city.  When asked to paint he accepted, and gave in a sketch that was approved. However, he deviated from the original, intending to send his own message to New York. His viewpoint can be clearly seen in images and recreations of the original. On one half of the painting, there is war and strife, with images of venereal disease, and the prohibitionist Rockefeller enjoying a drink. On the other, Lenin sits and brings together a peaceful crowd of people. Despite warnings and threats, Rivera refused to change the offending details, and the mural was destroyed.

Was it correct to destroy a work of art as beautiful, though agitating, as Rivera’s “Man at the Crossroads?” While it is a shame to have a masterpiece destroyed, the decision was sound. Rivera was commissioned to paint a specific vision, and even provided a sketch that passed scrutiny. He gave in a “faulty product,” which did not match what his customer requested. He brought the destruction of the mural upon himself. What could Rivera have hoped to accomplish? Action along these lines would have inevitably been taken. It seems that his ultimate goal was the news and discussion once the conflict came to light.

I believe that the fuss surrounding Rivera’s “Man at the Crossroads” created more interest and intrigue than could ever have been generated by a more politically correct painting. I have heard of Rivera prior to reading Delirious New York and visiting MoMA because of this very reason. I’ve never previously heard of the artist whose mural ultimately filled the void. If any lesson can be taken from the whole ordeal, it is that while art is lasting, the stories behind it bring it to light.  For this reason, it is greatly beneficial to know the history behind the art and construction of sites such as the Rockefeller Center. It brings a human and tangible feel to an otherwise imposing building mass. Rockefeller and Rivera were human, and their human desires and ambitions are what led to Rockefeller Center’s present incarnation. Neglecting its history would be akin to missing the bigger picture.

I was not sure what to expect walking into the Met to see “Don Giovanni.” Reading the libretto gave a good sense of the plot of the story, although I did not know what direction the show would go in. After all, the example shown to us in school involved a Don Giovanni injecting himself with drugs and stripping down to his underwear in the middle of a party. I was very pleasantly surprised to see a show that stayed pretty accurate to the libretto, and a plot that despite taking place centuries in the past, stayed relevant to modern sensibilities.

The story of Don Giovanni is that of a “bad boy” who jumps from girl to girl at a speed that can make one’s head spin. The whole opera is a testament to Giovanni’s decadence; his mission is romance and carnal enjoyment. In a comedic statement, he claims that he does a disservice to the women of the world by staying with just one individual; a statement that does a good job at defining his whole view of life.

I had a much better time watching the opera than I did simply reading and listening to the libretto. Characters really come to life with actions, bringing emotion and humanity to the beautiful singing. The comedic aspect comes out much more distinctively with the opera; I was shocked by just how funny “Don Giovanni” was. In particular, Leporello’s exaggerated gestures as he tries to woo Donna Elvira according to Don Giovanni’s instructions had me cracking up.  While in class, it was hard to determine whether this opera is a drama, a comedy, or a “dramedy.” Now, I have no doubt that this is a comedic work.

While the premise of the show is a man having as many affairs as he can physically manage, it didn’t come off as too shocking. It may have seemed startling in more conservative times, where the Dionysiac aspect probably contracts with day-to-day life. Now, with the advent of modern television and the internet, nothing can really shock me anymore. I am still not sure whether that is bad or good, but it certainly dulls the “shock factor” that was probably a part of the performance years ago.

When I first entered the Diego Rivera exhibit at the MoMA, I immediately noticed the violence portrayed in many of Rivera’s pieces of art. However, because of all of the people crowded around each of the paintings, it was difficult to read the descriptions without having to push my way to the front. Therefore, I decided to make use of the free audio guides; they proved to be extremely helpful in pointing out certain details in the paintings that I otherwise may have overlooked, and in relating some historical background information. After walking around a bit, I finally came across the letters that Nelson Rockefeller had written to Diego Rivera concerning his murals at the Rockefeller Center. Once I had read them, I had come to the ultimate conclusion that the removal and destruction of Diego Rivera’s murals at the Rockefeller Center was indeed the right result.

In the early 1930’s, Nelson Rockefeller, after facing rejection from two other artists, Picasso and Matisse, had commissioned Diego Rivera to paint a mural at the Rockefeller Center. Rockefeller had given Rivera the instructions to create a mural that would depict society’s high hopes for a better future and would stimulate his visitors to stop and contemplate about the mural’s message. However, Rivera’s addition of images of Vladimir Lenin, a communist leader, and alcohol, were not what Rockefeller had called for. In the 1930’s, many Americans were still suspicious of the communists and fearful of communist take over. Therefore, instead of instilling hope in his visitors like Rockefeller had planned, the murals would instill fear. Many anti-communists would be completely offended and disgusted at the sight of Rivera’s paintings. How could something so anti-capitalist be placed in Rockefeller Center, a place that represents great commerce and wealth? Also, Rockefeller was pro-prohibition and therefore, the images of alcohol went against what he stood for. Although I strongly believe in freedom of expression, a person who is hired to complete a certain task does not have the right to do just anything that he or she wishes. Rivera, regardless of his beliefs, should have understood that if he is getting paid to paint a mural, he must create an image that his patron would appreciate. Therefore, Rivera is at fault for the destruction of his murals. He never included these images in the sketches that he had sent to Rockefeller and the architects for approval. Nelson Rockefeller even tried reasoning with him and requested that he substitute the face of Lenin for someone else’s, however Rivera stubbornly refused to do so.

Rivera’s refusal ultimately resulted in the destruction of the murals at Rockefeller Center. This controversy shows that a patron’s and an artist’s visions could be entirely different. We can all learn a significant lesson from this conflict that pertains to today’s time; no matter what job you have, the way in which you could do things is limited. If someone is paying you to work for them, you have to realize that his or her views and opinions override your own and must be taken into consideration. Money controls everything to a certain extent. For example, if a wedding planner is hired to order the invitations and food for a wedding, she must take what the bride and groom want into consideration, even if she doesn’t necessarily agree with them. If she refuses to do so, the bride and groom have every right to fire her and to do away with whatever decisions she had made up until that point. Not only do they have this right, but this is also an expected action from them. So too, Rockefeller had every right to order the destruction of Rivera’s murals. The murals were not what he had envisioned for himself, nor for the rest of society.

After looking at the Diego Rivera exhibit at MoMa, I then saw another exhibit that was particularly interesting: a Fluxus exhibit. The Fluxus exhibits had similar ideals but slightly different modernized definitions of art from the one at the Grey Art Gallery.

At the Grey Art Gallery, Fluxus art was mainly focused on to solve the “Essential Questions of Life”. Thus abstract, unusual images were used to cause people to learn more about aspects in life that people would see as “commonplace”. Thus Fluxus art at the Grey Art Gallery has its main purpose: to mix the usual with the unusual. The exhibit, although tending to have some traditional rules such as no touching of the artwork, did add a sense of abstractness into it as much as it could, by adding non-traditional clocks, “weird” shirts and underwear and a strangely erotic video representative of sex. But it also is more traditional than other museums as well, adding a history of Fluxus art that some other museums would skim by more often. Thus the “do-it-yourself” approach is combined with an approach that is far from being that.

Fluxus art at the MoMa was less interactive, but to me, it was more interesting. “L’art n’est pas art”, an image in French that drew to me showed this meaning of Fluxus art within MoMa: that art is not art and what is not art is art. This was explained at the Grey Art Gallery, but only in a more instructional manner, rather than in one that uses the art of language to explain how Fluxus Art is not just anti-art, but a lifestyle. The Fluxus Box made more sense to me than it did in the Grey Art Gallery due to this emphasized concept. As well, although there was not as much bizarre images(the short video clip representing “sex” had less of a mystique and there was not any strange clothes or weird clocks), there was a work that drew me in, also known as “The Opera” a piece that represents what a modern day, sick and twisted libretto would be like. This piece made me realize that with the Operas we watched, the music, and every mixed art we have experienced in the Macaulay seminar can be mixed up today to be Fluxus art, which is why the determination of art today is truly ambiguous. The MoMa Fluxus exhibit was more enlightening to me for it made me realize that all modern art is technically Fluxus art, whether it is a Fluxus Box, a painted garbage can in Coney Island, or a wall with graffiti.

Was Diego Rivera wrong for what he painted in his mural, Man at the Crossroads?  In my opinion, yes, he definitely was at fault in the situation.

Nelson Rockefeller first asked Picasso and Matisse to paint the mural in Rockefeller Center, but Matisse refused and Picasso never replied to the request.  Diego Rivera was then asked, and given the honor to paint the mural at one of the biggest tourist areas in New York City.  According to the audio at the MoMA, the mural was “intended to be the greatest and most monumental of all civic construction projects.”  Diego Rivera was given this great opportunity to showcase his work.  The theme: Man at the Crossroads Looking with Hope and High Vision to the Choosing of a New and Better Future.  Instead of Rivera respecting the Rockefeller’s and appreciating the opportunity he was given, he did something that I believe was very wrong.  The Rockefeller’s were Baptists, who at that time were part of the Prohibition movement.  Diego Rivera included in the mural a painting of David Rockefeller’s father drinking gin surround by women in low cut gowns.  This portrayed the Rockefeller’s as hypocrites.  The mural also featured a painting of Lenin, a famous communist.  In the early sketches of the mural, Rivera showed the competition between communism and capitalism, and later on sketched Lenin in the mural.  Nelson Rockefeller asked Rivera to remove that portion of the mural, but he refused.  The mural was supposed to show the great future that America and New York had in store in the 20^th century, but Rivera showed an intoxicated Rockefeller and a communist instead.  Before the painting was even completed, Rivera was let go from the job.  The mural was covered and eventually removed.  I strongly agree with the decision made because Rivera took advantage and didn’t seem to me like he wanted to portray a positive depiction of New York, but instead show his own views.  I believe that Abby Rockefeller is partially at fault too because she greatly admired Diego Rivera and his work and wanted Nelson Rockefeller to call upon him to do the work.  She should have known that he was a communist and may have depicted his own views in his work.  I agree with Abby Rockefeller and do believe that Diego Rivera is a very talented artist after seeing all of his paintings.  They evoke emotions in the viewers.  However, I think what he did with the Rockefeller mural was very wrong and the removal and destruction of the mural was the right result.