Rockefeller Center is a New York City Landmark.  Any tourist who visits NYC always makes sure to at least stop by.  Whether its Christmas time and the Tree is up or its winter and the Skating Rink is up.  At its inception, Nelson Rockefeller decided to ask an artist to paint a mural that would be shown at Rockefeller Center.  After Picasso and Matisse declined, Diego Rivera was commissioned.  However, Rivera ended up causing more trouble than his art was worth.

The biggest problem with Rivera’s mural was the picture of Vladimir Lenin.  Lenin was a leader in Communist Russia and was not the man that any of the Rockefellers wanted to see.   Another issue was Rivera’s portraits of alcohol.  On a plaque in the MOMA it said that the Rockefeller family was pro-prohibition.  Rivera on the other hand was not.  Both these issues pushed the Rockefeller hand, and they decided not to use Rivera’s mural.

I do think the right decision was made to keep the murals out of Rockefeller center.  The Rockefellers were and still are an American institution and by creating a communal gathering are they were creating a legacy.  Therefore they wanted to protect themselves from any negativity and backlash.  I do not think that Rivera’s art was so instrumental that it could outweigh their values.  I think that the blame lies solely on Diego Rivera.  When being hired for this monumental of a job, Rivera should have adhered to exactly what the Rockefellers wanted.  By painting objectionable items into the murals he disobeyed the Rockefeller’s wishes and the right measures were taken.

Although the visit of Edwidge Danticat was enlightening and interesting, it was not at all surprising. The reason? Danticat reflected both her personality and her mindset throughout the talk on her book, Brother, I’m Dying, as she had dome within the book itself; she included her love for her family, her Haitian culture, for writing as well as her focus on birth and death and her hope for the future generation to live on.

Danticat started with saying that her book was intimate, which is told by the nature of revealing a lot of information on her family. Her hope for the next generation, especially her daughter Mira, to live on, was displayed in both the epigraph and the ending (almost the conclusion) of the book. The love for her family was shown throughout the book, primarily focusing on her father and her uncle as well as in her speech. It was not even necessary for her to read excerpts from Brother, I’m Dying since whether directly or indirectly, everything that Danticat explained in her explanation on her book could have easily been attain by reading the book. Danticat is Brother, I’m Dying and Brother, I’m Dying is Danticat as well.

The most interesting aspect, although still predictable, but unique just the same, was when Edwidge Danticat incorporated Haitian proverbs within the explanation on her ideas on Brother, I’m Dying, in order to incorporate her attachment to Haitian culture and their words of wisdom in creating the memoir, showing that although it was written in English, her memoir, in fact, was more of a Haitian text trying to make a statement to American readers than an American text of itself.

Plans were initiated for a mural by Diego Rivera, a renown Mexican muralist, at Rockefeller Center. It was “Man at the Crossroads”, a seven year project with an initial theme “looking with uncertainty but with hope and high vision to the choosing of a course leading to a new and better future”. With a seemingly universal theme, this project was expected to be a success. Right?

Wrong. This theme had a much different view within Rivera and within the Rockefeller family, for they are much different people. Rivera, when thinking of devising a better future, though of communism, of revolution, of rebellion. His visit to Moscow in the late 1920s led him to be only more fascinated with the idea of revolution and communism, thus causing the image of Vladimir Lenin to be involved in his mural. The Rockefeller family, on the other hand, were successful due to capitalism, which would obviously cause them to disapprove of the image. The Rockefeller family saw “revival” as the availability of labor due to the building of New York City skyscrapers and other places, something involving “hard work”. Rivera did use that ideal within his art, but unlike his images of the Mexican revolution, his fresco experimentation and his sketchbook of Moscow, they were not expressive of Rivera’s own ideals.

Was the removal of the mural the right result? I would have to say of course. Although I am not so much a fan of the idea of capitalism, the image of Lenin in Rockefeller Center would not only cause the commotion of other people at Rockefeller Center, but would completely clash with Rockefeller’s ideals of expensive, high class living. Who was at fault? I do not truly believe anyone was; Rivera only wanted to express his ideals of revival while Rockefeller wanted his own to be expressed. That is in fact, the main conflict between the ideals of capitalism and communism.

Although the mural controversy and the creation of Rockefeller Center is important and it is preferred for one to know about both of these to know about the image of Rockefeller Center, one can know about it through walking through the Center of itself(or at least a part of it). The expensive clothes, the shiny buildings and stores, the taxis, even the incredibly over-priced food: this maintained image of the high cost living would make the Rockefeller family proud today.

The main lesson of this mural controversy is simple but unfortunate: that placing communist ideals within pure capitalism would never work. Maybe there is a significance in bringing this lesson back during the Occupy protests at Wall Street…

The destruction of Diego Rivera’s mural Man at the Crossroads is a controversial matter because it epitomizes the infringement upon the freedom of expression, but whether the action was right or wrong is dependent on a person’s perspective on it. When he was commissioned to create a mural for the nearly completed Rockefeller Center by the Rockefellers during the Great Depression, Rivera had to centralize it around the theme “man at the crossroads looking with hope and high vision to choosing of a new and better future,” which gave origin to the mural’s name. However, Man at the Crossroads received much criticism and disapproval due to its propagandistic intentions favoring communism over capitalism, made evident by the portrayal of both ideologies. On the right side, communism is depicted as being peaceful and structured, with its iconic symbol Vladimir Lenin unifying people through the joining of hands. In contrast with the left side, capitalism is depicted as being more violent and chaotic, with John D. Rockefeller Jr. drinking liquor and being surrounded by women drinking and smoking, policemen on horseback beating down protesters and soldiers carrying bayonets and flamethrowers.

The Rockefellers should’ve anticipated his style of art and “personal additions” based on his prior murals, such as The Uprising and Pneumatic Drilling, which were based on the Mexican Revolution and the defiance against authoritative individuals and the labor and construction manifesting in a depression-ridden New York City respectively, both reflecting communism and his convictions. It seems as if aesthetics were far more essential to the Rockefellers than ethical values; otherwise, a different artist should’ve been chosen to undertake the task. Instead of abolishing the elements of communism from it, Rivera proposed to counteract the portrait of Lenin with a portrait of Lincoln, but was rejected, paid for his efforts and forbidden from Rockefeller Center. Another reason for his dismissal was because of the portion featuring Rockefeller drinking during Prohibition, which greatly offended the Rockefellers.

Although it is understandable as to why many Americans were against it during the time of its fabrication, with the Red Scare and the potential threat of communism encroaching upon the foundation of their daily lives, capitalism, this fear should not have instituted the mural’s demolition. Rivera was conveying his expressions and ideas like many other artists, but they were against the conventional beliefs that Americans held. A lesson that emanates from Rivera’s incident, still relevant to this very day, is the appropriateness of political and social values in works of art or other things such as movements during specific periods of time because people will make judgments on anything, whether it be an art piece or decisions made by politicians, based on current events and surroundings.

Upon seeing “Man at the Crossroads”, I think that the removal of it was the right decision and ultimately Diego Rivera is at fault. He blatantly painted an offensive image of John D. Rockefeller, an active supporter of the Prohibition and a Baptist, drinking gin and surrounded with prostitutes in low cut shirts. As a further insult, Rivera also included a picture of Lenin. This was extremely problematic because Rivera essentially portrayed the Rockefellers, a prominent American family, as if they were against the Prohibition and in support of communism during the Red Scare. Personally, I’m not against artists using their work to depict their political views but it was wrong for Rivera to create a false image of his employer. In addition, he tricked the Rockefellers by having them approve a “fake” sketch of the mural, only for him to completely change it once he started working. But, I thought that it was interesting for Rivera to blatantly include images of alcohol and communism without even attempting to hide it. It makes it seem as though he was purposely trying to provoke Rockefeller and it makes me wonder whether Rivera actually thought he would get away with it.

Besides maintaining the image of the Rockefellers, I feel that if Rivera’s mural weren’t taken down it would ruin the majestic atmosphere of Rockefeller Center. After all, it serves as a symbol of the legacy of the Rockefellers and essentially a reminder of the possibilities of the American dream. It represents their idealized self and allows them to escape the realities of life, suffering and hardships. Here, in Rockefeller Center they can forget their everyday life and bask in the fruits of success. But, having a picture of the Rockefellers drinking gin and supporting communism would tarnish this image of perfection and replace it with one of a lawbreaker and a rebel.

When I visited the Diego River murals at MoMA, I was actually stunned to see the different tone it set from the rest of the museum, and even from the rest of the city. There was not much “gore” and “bloodiness” in the paintings, but there were many brutal depictions, and there were a couple of paintings that really struck me. “The Uprising” struck me because of a mother who was holding her infant child in her hands and having her husband next to her, while a soldier was holding a sword pointing towards that family. Even though there was no blood, it seemed very brutal and because of the little small details that he drew- the baby crying in his mother’s arms, and a person crouching and holding (his/her) head near the father figure. And in the background we could see other soldiers holding up guns brutally beating innocent family members, and it was really hard to think of this actual scene happening, in the midst of a great city, one that upholds capitalism and freedom as its ultimate theme. The other painting that struck me was called “Frozen Assets” and my friend and I (who went together) were actually staring at this painting for a long time, and I think we were both very moved by this. To be honest, I’m not very much into paintings, especially ones with political agendas, but this one really caught my eye. At first when you look at it, you see the huge skyscrapers and even Rockefeller Center, but then when you look a little deeper, there were these dead bodies in grey suits all lined up in the middle floor, while a guard was keeping look over them. It is a horrible scene. People seemed to build beautiful cities over these dead bodies that just rotted underneath all those cranes and construction. It really was ironic that Rockefeller Center would be portrayed under this light, and it changed my view on New York City.

But if you ask me whether we should know the information behind Rockefeller Center and the controversy in order to visit this famous place, I would say that you do not need to know the history. I feel that Rockefeller Center is a place where people can just enjoy the city, and look at the great architecture and the different décor that it has. Especially near the winter holiday season, it’s a great place to spend time at because it really does have that holiday spirit, with all the decorations –the trees, the lights, etc. Knowing the history behind the Diego Rivera controversy is helpful when you’re trying to understand the history of Rockefeller Center, but if you’re trying to just enjoy yourself, it becomes a burden to understand every historical background of the place, because then you’re just trying to learn history and understand politics, it’s not a vacation anymore. It’s just like if you were to go to Coney Island, in order for you to “visit” it correctly, you would have to learn who built every ride, what materials went into it, and how many accidents occurred- it seems to be more of an assignment, then just a carefree visit. But if you were to evaluate it at a point where you have to understand the motifs and events that occurred at Rockefeller Center (because you’re interested, or because it’s part of an assignment) then it would be extremely justified to understand the historical background, but as for tourists or people who just want a relaxing day, it would become quite the opposite if you had to internally think about all the controversy behind this masterpiece.

I also believe that the removal for Diego Rivera’s murals from Rockefeller center was a great decision, because it really did not have the same motifs that Rockefeller wanted to symbolize for the Center itself, nor for New York City itself. Rockefeller hired Rivera to paint something that would have theme of modernism, of moving forward, but instead Rivera thought since he was a good friend of Rockefeller’s family, he would paint the communist murals that depicted Lenin, and that really should not be approved of. I’m am a big fan of artists painting what they feel, and not holding back what they believe, but at the same time, if someone is going to hire you to promote a theme that represents not only the Center, but the huge City of New York, it’s important that you either not take the job (because you feel that your ideas a inconsistent with the theme, and you feel that you cannot betray either yourself or the person who hired you, OR you can take the job and curve your own ideas so that the people who hired you are satisfied with your work). It’s really frustrating for someone to try to hire someone to express a theme that they believe is very important and have them think that the painter is on the same page, and then it turns out that the painter had a whole different hidden agenda, and that seems very unfair. I’m not saying that Diego Rivera was wrong in painting his murals, because I thought they really did depict harsh realities in places that New York is so opposite from, but at the same time, Diego Rivera shouldn’t force his ideas on such a large scale in one of the most important and famous places in New York, especially when the person who built the Center is opposed of it.

After watching “I Don’t Believe in Outer Space,” it took me a while to register what I had just seen. I did know that there were duct tape balls all over the floor, that dancers moved around haphazardly across the stage, and that the “music” jumped at the quietest moments, nearly scaring me out of my seat. What I still don’t know is whether there is any real theme to this “ballet” show. I’ll do my best to analyze what happened throughout the performance, although I’m sure that’s not the point of the production.

While dancers in “I Don’t Believe in Outer Space” don’t use graceful, flowing, or technically difficult techniques, movement is the key motif of the show. There are no leaping, twirling figures, or feats of athletic strength. Rather, a series of stereotypical characters is acted out in very exaggerated form, giving distinct moments of clarity in an otherwise confusing show. I specifically remember the main female dancer switching between two very definite personas: the angular, praying mantis-like neighbor with a voice horror movie villains would be proud to have, and the prim, uptight, hand-wringing suburban wife.

In one of the pieces that particularly stood out, a female voice describes how movements come together, “suddenly, as if by chance.” Throughout her narration, many dancers move, writhe, clash together and vibrate apart, weaving between the many balls of duct tape strewn across the stage.

Throughout such strange sequences, random characters speak the lyrics of “I Will Survive,” occasionally eliciting awkward laughter from the audience.

The end is surprisingly poignant, as an older woman examines the form of a younger dancer, bemoaning physical movements that can no longer be done. If there was anything that I got from this strange performance, it was that movement tells a story, if a very convoluted one. Most of the time, I just tried to figure out what the heck was going on onstage.

A stunning work of symmetry and clean, crisp color.

I’ll admit that when I first heard about the Fluxus exhibit, I thought of urinals. The most prominent image in my mind was a porcelain mass displayed in front of a group if intrigued individuals, pondering its connection to the meaning of life.

In the rooms and halls of the Fluxus exhibit, I did not those symbols of creative extremes, although the works had very similar messages; “We do not subscribe to the standard view of art.” Everything had an element of the absurd, or an aspect that went against the whole purpose of the object itself. There was “Giant Cutting Blades Door from Flux Combat with New York State Attorney (and Police)” by George Maciunas; a door with giant razor blades running vertically along it; meant to represent the artist’s seclusion form the public and avoidance of the police. The symbol of entry and transition became a possible killing machine with a few well placed blades and pieces of wood.

Looking at such pieces standing around the rooms made me wonder why certain pieces were chosen over others, and led to the central question that had been on my mind; “What is art, and what is its purpose?” My closest definition would have to be something that someone can enjoy being in the presence of. I cannot say that I loved all the works of “art” that I saw that day, but one did stand out to me in particular.  “Sky Laundry” by Geoffrey Hendricks was a sheet on a clothesline painted with what I thought was a near-perfect representation of the summer sky. The concept that a piece of art can transport you to another time or place was very prominent in this piece, and it stuck with me throughout the whole exhibit.

A great majority of the works were unusual tchotchke-type pieces one would not expect to see as high art. In fact, the whole theme of Fluxus is accessibility; art that one can do at home, art that can be played with and shared with others.  Little boxes filled with cards of patterns and shapes, trinkets, and small figurines made up the majority of what I saw.  These pieces, in theory, are supposed to be actively handled and toyed with. Ironically we could not touch a single one as they were all sealed into glass cases that we were told to be careful not to disturb as we walked through the gallery. Through this limitation much of what made these works unique was dimmed. We have to be told that the “Flux Box Containing God” is sealed shut; we are not free to discover this on our own and derive our own conclusions.

This revelation that what desperately tries to be accessible has turned into institutionalized work was sealed when we were given a description of a Flux tour: artist Larry Miller guides individuals around the facility showing off the form of the pipes, the smoothness of the floor, and the placements of air vents. He is avoids all that is labeled as art, including those same pieces that tried to challenge that classification.

Overall, the removal and destruction of Diego Rivera’s murals, particularly the Man at the Crossroads, at Rockefeller Center was the right result, especially for that time period. The image of Rockefeller Jr.’s father drinking gin (alcohol) surrounded by women in low-cut gowns (prostitutes) in the Man at the Crossroads was the main reason why Rivera was dismissed from the project.  The Rockefellers were Baptists and therefore were supporters of the Prohibition. The Prohibition actually ended in 1933 (the time when Rivera began the project, but Baptists still continued to oppose alcohol). As for the presence of prostitutes, according to the tour guide in the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA), Rockefeller Jr.’s father was not a “womanizer,” but Rivera was one. Therefore, the mural did not reflect Rockefeller Jr.’s father true character, but Rivera’s.

As for the portrait of Vladimir Lenin, it was possible that the essence of the First Red Scare back in 1919 – 1920 still lingered among the Americans. The Red Scare was a period of anti-Communist hysteria in which there was widespread fear of Communist takeover in America. Overall, it was best that the mural was removed during that time period to prevent conflicts among the masses. Furthermore, this provided a valid reason in the point of view of the Americans for the removal and destruction of the mural. Again, much of the features seen within the mural reflected Rivera’s ideals and beliefs.

In the approved sketch of the mural, Rivera did not include the portrait of Lenin and the portrait of Rockefeller Jr.’s father. Instead, the sketch included two machine televisions (one at each side). The one on the left illustrated people in gas masks, while the other one on the right illustrated a crowd of people with a tomb-like structure in the background (possibly Lenin’s tomb?). Overall, Rivera practically sneaked those images in the mural and refused to remove/cover them.

I would consider Rivera himself to be at fault for the situation, but ultimately it was Abby Rockefeller, the mother of Rockefeller Jr. Abby encouraged Nelson Rockefeller, her son, to have Rivera work on the mural project since both Pablo Picasso and Henri Matisse rejected the offer. In fact, Abby was a huge supporter of Rivera’s works and even purchased his sketchbooks and art pieces for MoMA. Overall, although there could have been other potential artists to work on the mural, Abby heavily influenced the decision to invite Rivera. An interesting idea that emerged from the tour guide was if there was a very close relationship between Abby and Rivera. However, most likely the relationship did not exist, and instead, she only deeply admired Rivera’s works. If the relationship were to exist, then it may provide additional explanation on why Abby chose Rivera to work on the mural.

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.