Deigo and Frida Discourse
p...@my-dejanews.com
worth. First let me say ... por fin! This is what I expected in this
newsgroup and not the ravings of racist lunatics! Michael mentions the lack
of technique in Frida's work as compared to Deigo. I have no quarrel with
that as I consider Frida a primitive, eg. self-taught. Indeed, hers is the
work of a 'tortured psyche' and Deigo captures the soul of the Mexican
spirit. Frida is a FANTASTIC painter, but her work is obsessively
self-absorbed. She does not paint for 'la gente' as did Deigo. Let's don't
fault her for what was never intended. Her paintings are a 'love story'
albeit a warped one. (Come to think of it, aren't they all?) As to the notion
that Diego is known as Frida's husband ...BS!! This may be the case to those
who are new to art and/or ill-informed. We 'older' members have always
appreciated Deigo's contributions and are pleased that Frida is finally
receiving admiration for hers as well. Patricia Zeitoun p...@tca.net
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Msedano
me to her work. I avoid biography and prefer to let the work speak for itself,
so if her work is self-absorbed I hope I don't find that out. I prefer to make
her images my own.
So, welcome to the conversation, esa. These boards are what we make of them.
I toured Frida's house in Coyoacan last year. Precious few finished paintings
but a number of sketches, a few canvases.
One of her body casts is there, wow, was she tiny tiny.
Portions of her library are there, eg. John Gunter, Inside the USSR is the only
title I remember right now. I had a cuppa espresso in her laundry room and
bought a poster of a rivera nude; from the backside, she's posed with the
bouquet of calla lilies and it's that violin back and tiny tiny waist.
So, yes, I've read parts of her story. Frida stands alone and its actually an
insult to name her and Diego in the same breath; they are two different
artists. But if one must choose the greater of the two, Diego; if one must name
one artist as the greatest Mexican artist, maybe neither would make the list?
Diego, I think.
p...@my-dejanews.com notes:
Frida a primitive, eg. self-taught. Indeed, hers is the
work of a 'tortured psyche' and Deigo captures the soul of the Mexican
spirit. Frida is a FANTASTIC painter, but her work is obsessively
self-absorbed. She does not paint for 'la gente' as did Deigo. Let's don't
fault her for what was never intended. Her paintings are
--
Michael Sedano
--
Mse...@aol.com
c/s
nopa...@yahoo.com
mse...@aol.com (Msedano) wrote:
>But if one must choose the greater of the two, Diego; if one must
name
> one artist as the greatest Mexican artist, maybe neither would make the list?
> Diego, I think.
As all art-lovers should know, qualifications like "greatest" are at least
partially subjective, but Michael (again) piqued my curiosity with the above
musing. Whom else might be enshrined in, say, a pantheon of the greatest,
besides the-two-whom-I-will-not-insult-by naming-in-the-same-sentence? :)
I guess in this century the names Siquieros, Posada, and Orozco would be
obvious. If we were to go back much further, we'd sort of have to clear a
large area of the pantheon for the anonymous communal artists of the great
pre-conquest civilizations. I'd love to hear what Patricia, Manuel, and
Michael think of other Mexican artists I'm not naming here and may not know
about.
And, yeah, Manuel, who is that "sunflowers" Chicano artist? When I think of
sunflowers I think of this one-eared Dutch guy who was real frustrated, but
that's clearly not our man. :)
-Dean, who made a fool of himself in front of bemused federales in Guadalajara
by being devastated to tears by the Orozco "Hidalgo" mural.
Ted Samsel
: In article <199807150158...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
: mse...@aol.com (Msedano) wrote:
: >But if one must choose the greater of the two, Diego; if one must
: name
: > one artist as the greatest Mexican artist, maybe neither would make the list?
: > Diego, I think.
: As all art-lovers should know, qualifications like "greatest" are at least
: partially subjective, but Michael (again) piqued my curiosity with the above
: musing. Whom else might be enshrined in, say, a pantheon of the greatest,
: besides the-two-whom-I-will-not-insult-by naming-in-the-same-sentence? :)
: I guess in this century the names Siquieros, Posada, and Orozco would be
: obvious. If we were to go back much further, we'd sort of have to clear a
: large area of the pantheon for the anonymous communal artists of the great
: pre-conquest civilizations. I'd love to hear what Patricia, Manuel, and
: Michael think of other Mexican artists I'm not naming here and may not know
: about.
Check out the Zacatecan Goitia. He's dead now, but painted rather
horrific images of the Revolucion from his childhood.
There's a FONAPAS museum of his work in Zacatecas.
--
Ted Samsel....tejas@infi.net (or tbsa...@richmond.infi.net)
"do the boogie woogie in the South American way"
Rhumba Boogie- Hank Snow (1955)
nopa...@yahoo.com
winter, so I'll be sure to check out the museum.
-Dean
In article <6oir7o$vuv$1...@nw003t.infi.net>,
Ted Samsel <te...@sl001.infi.net> wrote:
> Check out the Zacatecan Goitia. He's dead now, but painted rather
> horrific images of the Revolucion from his childhood.
> There's a FONAPAS museum of his work in Zacatecas.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
p...@my-dejanews.com
In article <6oigv2$neg$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
nopa...@yahoo.com wrote:
> In article <199807150158...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> mse...@aol.com (Msedano) wrote:
>
> >But if one must choose the greater of the two, Diego; if one must
> name
> > one artist as the greatest Mexican artist, maybe neither would make the
list?
> > Diego, I think.
>
> As all art-lovers should know, qualifications like "greatest" are at least
> partially subjective, but Michael (again) piqued my curiosity with the above
> musing. Whom else might be enshrined in, say, a pantheon of the greatest,
> besides the-two-whom-I-will-not-insult-by naming-in-the-same-sentence? :)
There are no 'greatest' in artists IMHO. It is like asking who was greater
artist? Leonardo or Michelangelo? Greater at what?
Lets think in terms of contribution to the arts ... local and international
arts. Certainly Mexico's modern contribution to the arts is the mural
tradition and the art of protest. Social Realism, if we need to label it.
The greatest works and impact, by all of the pantheon of Mexican 'greats',
happened between approximately 1930 - 1940. Now Settle Down!!! Of course
great works occurred before and after!! But the greatest INTERNATIONAL impact
occurred in that decade.
Even today, if anyone in the world wants to do arts of protest, they must look
to the Mexican masters. It is their unique contribution to the world of art.
To narrow it even further, one must look at Diego Rivera as the primary
source. Perhaps you do not like his painting as well as some others ... that
is not the point. He did them first! The sheer force of his will, stamina
and the ability to generate interest and publicity for the movement, and his
art, places him out in front. El tiene los huevos! He dared to paint
Rockefeller as a 'capitalist pig', on Rockefeller's own wall, in his own
building, and had the gall to be paid for it!
Here's my vote for the Pantheon of Great Mexican Artists:
Dr. Atl, Posada, Rivera, Orosco, Siquerios
Regards,
Patricia Zeitoun
p...@tca.net
nopa...@yahoo.com
p...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Lets think in terms of contribution to the arts ... local and international
> arts. Certainly Mexico's modern contribution to the arts is the mural
> tradition and the art of protest. Social Realism, if we need to label it.
Better that label than "Mexican Surealism!" However, as I assume you'd agree,
all such labels are half-truths. Much of what I've seen of Diego's work goes
so much deeper than labels. I'm not even sure I could, in all my wordy
verbosity, come close to describing the total, very deep effect of seeing
Rivera's "Tenochtitlan" mural at the Palacio Nacional@Zocolo, D.F. for
example. There's also the interesting affinity/disaffinity with the Soviet
"Social Realism" movement, which of course became the state-sanctified and
official artistic style for so many years (in the USSR and many of its
satellites,) now brilliantly appropriated by expatriots Komar and Melamud.
(sp?)
You rightly contextualize your starting point as "contribution to the arts."
A prominant art critic whom I happen to loathe, Robert Hughes, argues that
modern art is a total failure because it has done nothing to change society
or the course of history. What a foolish false construct! I would counter
that *specifically* the Mexican murals and their progeny are, at best, *very*
compelling, and have the power to move hearts and influence minds. IMO the
assertion that this is what modern art is supposed to be all about is absurd,
though. No wonder Hughes hates Warhol so much! :)
> The greatest works and impact, by all of the pantheon of Mexican 'greats',
> happened between approximately 1930 - 1940. Now Settle Down!!!
You are too cute, Patricia. You saw the protests coming. :)
> Of course
> great works occurred before and after!! But the greatest INTERNATIONAL impact
> occurred in that decade.
Ok, no argument, particularly as you qualify with "international impact."
> Even today, if anyone in the world wants to do arts of protest, they must look
> to the Mexican masters. It is their unique contribution to the world of art.
I believe a good testament to that point is the real power that a well-done
mural has. I'm so fortunate in my home town of San Francisco to live among a
rich treasure-trove of excellent and compelling murals, be they about
ethnic/neighborhood pride and history, the abstract pleasure of color, or
protest. Has anyone who isn't an S.F. resident had the good fortune to see the
Women's Building? My mother, who is neither an art freak like her son nor much
of a feminist, was very deeply moved when I showed her that extraordinary
accomplishment. It says it all. A must-see.
> To narrow it even further, one must look at Diego Rivera as the primary
> source.
Agreed, but so many other good and great muralists came from that era. Let's
not forget the galvanizing power of Orozco's overtly violent brushstrokes!
> Perhaps you do not like his painting as well as some others ... that
> is not the point. He did them first! The sheer force of his will, stamina
> and the ability to generate interest and publicity for the movement, and his
> art, places him out in front. El tiene los huevos! He dared to paint
> Rockefeller as a 'capitalist pig', on Rockefeller's own wall, in his own
> building, and had the gall to be paid for it!
Dang, you're smart! One has to wonder what Rockefeller thought! Of course,
that family has always been rather off-beat compared to other uber-wealthy,
super-powerful families. I can imagine Rocky chuckling, "heh, heh...I love
it!" Rivera also had the huevos to illustrate the corruption of many powerful
Mexican politicians right there at the National Palace! Indeed, he made
permanent the telling of the dark side of history.
> Here's my vote for the Pantheon of Great Mexican Artists:
> Dr. Atl, Posada, Rivera, Orosco, Siquerios
Patricia, thank you for elevating this thread. Can I make one more, more
trivial observation? In a weird, perhaps tacky way, the aesthetics of the
ancient Mexicans influenced a subgenre of North American architecture. I'm
thinking of what I think is called "Aztec Deco" styles and ornamentation.
L.A. and S.F. both host numerous surviving examples of this cool-but-kitschy
style. As most folks know, the Art Deco style in design and architecture was
a result of the public fascination with the discovery of the tomb of ancient
Egyptian ruler Tut-Ankh-Amen in the 1920's. Believe it or not, the famous top
of the Chrylser building in NYC was supposed to be "Egyptican influenced."
(tee hee) The Aztec Deco style was a subset of that sort of appropriation.
Both civilizations had massive pyramids, so naturally modern architects
wanted to pay homage. How people regard the results of that sort of thinking
is a fun topic for discussion. (IMO Aztec Deco looks an awful lot more
Mayan-influenced, or should I say misunderstood-Mayan-influenced?)
Look, I said it was a trivial tangent!
OK, one last question: Has anyone else seen the murals inside the state
building of Aguascalientes, AGS? Although the artist was Mexican, his last
name was Cunningham (I assume he had a non-Mexican father...?) They are very
clearly influenced by Rivera, maybe a little too closely in some areas, but
are nevertheless a real wonder to behold. They're on all the interior walls
of the colonial Spanish-style court of the building. There is one panel in
particular, which features a skybound goddess with maize in her hair, giving
life-force to a young Mestizo man on the Earth. The looks in their eyes are
so loving and nurturing. It's so beautiful! I've never been able to find much
information about the artist, nor have I met many folks who've seen this
great work. Just curious...
:) Dean
J. Manuel Urrutia
SNIP...
> To narrow it even further, one must look at Diego Rivera as the primary
> is not the point. He did them first! The sheer force of his will, stamina
> and the ability to generate interest and publicity for the movement, and his
> art, places him out in front. El tiene los huevos! He dared to paint
> Rockefeller as a 'capitalist pig', on Rockefeller's own wall, in his own
> building, and had the gall to be paid for it!
Hear, hear! They don't make them like they used to.
> Here's my vote for the Pantheon of Great Mexican Artists:
> Dr. Atl, Posada, Rivera, Orosco, Siquerios
As they say, en gustos se rompen ge'neros. I am not that enthused about
Atl's panoramas. Maybe because I see them as a reflection of nature, not
as something original. I would consider Posada to be the primary source
instead since he clearly influenced Rivera in regards to the composition
of human figures. Of Orozco and Siqueiros, they veer to far to the funky
side with all those abstractions painted with car enamels. Give me
Rivera anyday. He is like a comfortable pair of sturdy old shoes. Formed
to my "soul" and protective.
> Patricia Zeitoun
Nice words, where have you been all these years? We need contributors
like you here.
--
* J. Manuel Urrutia | En tierra de ciegos, *
* urrutia...@ucla.edu (remove TAKEOUT!)| el tuerto es rey *
Msedano
offensive to the future Vice President of the US and noted arts patron that
Nelson had a crew come in the night before the unveiling in Rockefeller Center
and jackhammer the fresco off the wall. Take that, you dirty mex commie! The
extant version today on view en Bellas Artes isn't quite the same one but the
spirit's there. Ahua!
Of course you can rank order artists and their work! Would you not favor
Alurista over Rod McKuen; Sister Corita over Keane? But you probably wouldn't
choose Alurista over Eliot, nor Corita over Kahlo.
Course, when it comes to ranking the best american artists you have to know
more than 3 to choose the top 2! I've seen a lotta Mexican artists, a number of
unitedstatesian artists, but not a lot of Canadian or souther american artists
to declare a truly informed list. I'll stick with Rivera and Orozco for
grandeur, Posada for humor and bite; Sargent for portraits; Wood for landscape;
(Henry Ossawa) Turner for religious stuff; Mary Cassatt for portrayals of
women.
Michelangelo or Vinci? tuf choice, but make a decision. If you could buy _Last
Supper_ or _David_ for your front room, which would you have? Your behavior
echoes your values.
Not like Rivera? I _own_ a Rivera etching and some Posada reprints, along with
a number of chicana/o artists I picked up at various Self Help Graphics sales.
My artful possessions are a permanent joy to me and a constant reminder of the
heights to which our humanity can soar (plus it keeps me humble reminding me of
all the things I can't do).
The Posadas I keep in a dark room as they're printed from his original zinc
plates onto tissue paper and exposure to light for any time is damaging indeed.
The Rivera I hang in my living room, as all who attendeded my annual Xmas
Caroling Party remember. Norton Simon has his Rivera, I have mine. If
government will not longer support controversial art, screw the govt. Buy your
own.
I must confess, however, to laughing out loud at the aggrieved caterwauling of
certain "performance artists" that their lick the chocolate off my tummy or the
bald-headed women productions, helped convince the jerks in congress to defund
art in general. Chalk it up to my own cretinism and lack of taste, but I woulda
voted with the majority on that crap, and told those freeloaders to get a real
job.
BTW: I second Urrutia's observation re: PWZ
ate. mvs
Patricia Zeitoun, aka p...@tca.net observes:
o narrow it even further, one must look at Diego Rivera as the primary source.
Perhaps you do not like his painting as well as some others ... that is not the
point. He did them first! The sheer force of his will, stamina and the
ability to generate interest and publicity for the movement, and his art,
places him out in front. El tiene los huevos! He dared to paint Rockefeller as
a 'capitalist pig', on Rockefeller's own wall, in his own
building, and had the gall to be paid for it!
p...@my-dejanews.com
--SNIP--
> Michelangelo or Vinci? tuf choice, but make a decision. If you could buy _Last
> Supper_ or _David_ for your front room, which would you have? Your behavior
> echoes your values.
When you put it that way ... A personal choice. It would definitely be David.
The living room ....no. The bedroom ... si!
Pat Z
nopa...@yahoo.com
mse...@aol.com (Msedano) wrote:
> Of course you can rank order artists and their work! Would you not favor
> Alurista over Rod McKuen; Sister Corita over Keane? But you probably wouldn't
> choose Alurista over Eliot, nor Corita over Kahlo.
LOL! Ok, I conceed. BTW, there's a Keane Gallery in San Francisco. REAL
scary! The Keanes divorced a long time ago, one spouse or the other won the
rights to the dialated pupils, bought a BIG gallery space in the financial
district on Market Street, where those sub-Hallmark waifs-on-LSD stare at
bemused yuppies who probably don't remember when bemused hippies actually put
that poop on their walls. I guess I could make a case for LeRoy Neiman (you
know, the tacky fauvist-sports guy?) being better than the Keanes. Or Norman
Rockwell's drawings being better than John Lennon's :)
Poetry? Yeah, I love Eliot. "Four Quartets." Too bad about "Cats" and all.
Reading O. Paz at the moment. I'm gonna get my rear motivated and post about
the great Mexican photographers real soon. A. Bravo y G. Iturbe are my faves.
No thank you, I don't want to rant about who's the best. What might be
interesting though, would be a comparison of Mexican photographers who worked
in their country and non-Mexicans (Modotti, Cunningham, Weston) who tried to
capture Mexican essence. Anyone know of Chicano Pedro Meyer? Cool, cool,
cool.
>but not a lot of Canadian or souther american artists
> to declare a truly informed list.
Hey, are you familiar with the Argentinian Matta? Real interesting painter.
Big paintings. Surrealistic. (note: -ic.) :)
> I'll stick with Rivera and Orozco for
> grandeur, Posada for humor and bite; Sargent for portraits; Wood for
landscape;
> (Henry Ossawa) Turner for religious stuff; Mary Cassatt for portrayals of
> women.
O, mi pobre corazon! My family owns a beautiful H. O. Tanner. (Turner was the
fuzzy English guy.) It depicts a wise old "mammy" in a rocking chair (don't
get mad, remember context) storytelling to an enraptured white youth who's
sitting on the ground. Both are in a candle-lit barn. It just glows with
love, and says SO much, coming from Tanner. As a boy, I knew nothing of
Tanner or his reputation, and never knew if this painting was supposed to be
beautiful or an embarassment to lock away (because of the stereotype, which I
now know really isn't stereotypical at all, now that I'm a little less
liberal-guilt-ridden and more complexity-friendly.) When my grandparents
died, my aunt had it "cleaned." AAAAGGGHHHH!!!! The chemicals gave the black
pigmnets a sickly Cthulhu-green hue. Dang, if I inherit that thing I'm gonna
put all my money into whatever process might *really* restore it, if such
exists. For those who don't know, Tanner was a great, great African-American
painter who has only in the past decade or so STARTED to be recognized as the
talent he was. Covert racism in the art scene in the USA is a very good
topic, but maybe not for this group, unless it applies to Chinano artists (?)
Ever notice how in the art criticism and gallery/museum world if someone is
"ethnic" or gay, that HAS to be the main thing to keep saying about them?
Boring, unless it's the artist's emphasis. Well, worse than boring...
Right now in SF we're suffering Keith Haring-itis. Look, I like the guy. He
had his 15 minutes and he deserved them. Keith was great in his time and
place, but HOW great? Why a retrospective now? $$$ There's a HUGE, and very
trendy Haring show at our MOMA, replete with THREE temporary "pop shops" $$$
installed in the building, besides the fact that you can buy even more Haring
crap in the permanent bookstore. $$$ Haring scuptures on loan, clever but
uncompelling, dot the City. It's just far, far, too soon. Breakdancing and
Hip-Hop are still with us, for muse's sake! Give it a rest until I'm a LOT
older. Thank you very much.
Off-group-topic, my favorite living painter is the German Gerhard Richter. A
genius with a soul and a very keen sense of irony. Deep!
Anyone know about Maneul Ocampo? I've loved this guy's stuff for awhile. I
stupidly assumed that he was Mexican-American, as there's lots of "Santo" and
Virgen de Guadalupe imagery in his work, but a pal told me he's Philippino.
Anyone know for sure? He's sort of post-Basquiat/post-Robert Williams, but his
execution is better than Jean-Michel's.
> Michelangelo or Vinci? tuf choice, but make a decision.
Must we? M was a superior painter. Not much by V survives. M was also, IMO, a
superior architect and sculptor. V, however, was such an ahead-of-his time
genius of ideas. His drawings are amazing. I love his anatomical studies and
inventions. I dunno. Gotta go to Italy to really "get it" about these guys. I
vote for M. The Sistine is a blowout.
> If you could buy _Last
> Supper_ or _David_ for your front room, which would you have? Your behavior
> echoes your values.
My front room is way too small for David. Can we just chop him off at the
sternum and call it a bust? Forget it. I'll take Michaelangelo's almost-cubist
"Pieta" that's at the Bargello in Firenze. Il Papa should keep the more
reverent one in that big house in Rome, and keep the crazy guys with hammers
very far away.
> Not like Rivera? I _own_ a Rivera etching and some Posada reprints, along with
> a number of chicana/o artists I picked up at various Self Help Graphics sales.
I can't remember who I e-mailed this anecdote recently, so forgive me if
someone out there is hearing this all over again, but I'd advocate a visit to
the Posada museum and workshop (it really was his before he went to Mexico
City) in Aguascalientes. Go during the Feria in April/May, 'cause AGS is just
sort of a quaint colonial villa (well, ok, it's a big, successful capital
city) the rest of the year. At the Posada museum, you can buy actual prints,
albeit on not-the-best paper, made from his plates which are kept there. The
museum trusts one noted Mexican printer at a time to use Posada's old platten
presses to crank out postcards and prints. They're available very cheaply.
Nothing snobby at all. Totally populist and cool. No surviving estate crying
"foul!" It's a great visit. Get breakfast at Las Tres Hermosas across the
street (best coffee in AGS,) and see the Christo Negro in the church next
door.
You own a Rivera etching, eh, Michael? Jealousy is a sin. Jealousy is a sin.
Jealosy...
> My artful possessions are a permanent joy to me and a constant reminder of the
> heights to which our humanity can soar (plus it keeps me humble reminding me
of
> all the things I can't do).
...one of the sweetest, nicest things I've ever seen you post. As regards the
humbling factor, I might add that great art can also remind us to keep trying,
to aspire, to hang in there and quit that damn can't-do attitude.
>If
> government will not longer support controversial art, screw the govt. Buy your
> own.
Yeah, I admit to straddling the fence on that one. (Gov't support.) But by
all means, support artists! Jesse Helms ain't gonna do it for us! (Jesse upon
viewing a particularly, er, salient Mapplethorpe: "Why, ah just don't believe
what a'hm seein'!" Dean: "Senator, nobody's forcing you to look." Jesse
eagerly turns the page to find another titillating, er, offensive waste of
precious resources...) :)
> I must confess, however, to laughing out loud at the aggrieved caterwauling of
> certain "performance artists" that their lick the chocolate off my tummy or
the
> bald-headed women productions, helped convince the jerks in congress to defund
> art in general.
Same here. Jeez, Karen Finley (who never really meant anything at all IMO,
and I'm no conservative when it comes to art!) what were you thinking? She's
now bitching that not receiving NEA funds will seriously hurt her career.
Poor thing. I guess the baldies you refer to are the Guerilla Girls. Their
manifestos are pretty right-on, but yeah, their protest tactics have
backfired and strenghtened the resolve of the art-is-satanic yahoos. Of
course, all good citizens know that a thirteen-thousand-dollar portable
toilet for the military is more important than subsidizing culture. :)
>Chalk it up to my own cretinism and lack of taste, but I
woulda
> voted with the majority on that crap, and told those freeloaders to get a real
> job.
You're not being cretinous. You're being realistic. Who would be stupid
enough to say that you have poor taste because you don't see the point of
public funding of a foul-mouthed leftover hippie/punk who crams yams up her
hiney? The unfortunate thing, though, is that truly great artists like Andres
Serrano and Robt. Mapplethorpe and David (unpronouncable surname...you know,
the homo-politics painter who freaked the bluenoses out) have been bashed and
maligned in this culture war by influential persons who know not of what they
speak.
Finally, a public apology to J. Manuel Urrutia for my expedient and bitchy
reference to what I mispercieved as being ignored by him. (I queried about it
somewhere in one of these art threads.) He's busy, that's all.
I was wrong to post that publicly. I thought I'd annoyed him by attracting a
certain now-censured xenophobe, but it seems all is cool.
-Dean, who thinks Burger King is better than Taco Bell, but prefers La
Estrellita in Mountain View, CA., San Antonio Rd. - nice Chiapan family has
run the place since the '60's. If you're in upper Califas, check it out. REAL
Mexican food, at least as good as it gets in a restaurant.
J. Manuel Urrutia
>
> In article <35AE34...@ucla.edu>,
> "J. Manuel Urrutia" <urrutia...@ucla.edu> wrote:
>
> > Hear, hear! They don't make them like they used to.
>
> entirely true. Do you know of Sue Coe? Lots of wealthy Republican folks,
Sorry, but I am just an ignorant person when it comes to modern art
(something about having disposable time and available income, I
guess...). THus, I'll have to take your word for it.
SNIP...
> my mind, what they don't make like they used to is governmental support of
> controversial artists. Wasn't a good deal of Rivera's public art subsidized
> by the Mexican government?
Ahem, AFAIK, his work was not controversial with the government at the
time. In fact, now that you mention it, I think that is where he did
lack huevos. He was unwilling to buck the Sonoran establishment, who was
calling the shots at the time.
> >I would consider Posada to be the primary source
> > instead since he clearly influenced Rivera in regards to the composition
> > of human figures.
>
> He also incorporated specific Posada creations and imagery into some of his
> paintings, as I'd realized in our e-mail communication regarding "La
> Catarina." When you say "clearly," do you mean that you percieve this on your
> own (which is certainly fine) or that you know of such influence as noted in
> Rivera's writings or some other source?
Somewhere I read that he briefly worked with Posada after returning from
his Parisian days. Shortly after that, Rivera's work took a different
tack, with human figures taking precedence over background and using a
different palette. Hence my comment. And I am going by my personal
impression since I don't periodically review my materials on Rivera.
> The same day that you sent me that very rude and inaccurate e-mail with
Since you have already commented on this paragraph in private, I will
hold my quivering fingers. However, I must remind you that it was not
rude nor inaccurate since I had already warned you that you would be
stepped all over by our village idiots (one of whom, thankfully, seems
to be on vacation).
> subject line "YOU ARE A GLUTTON FOR PUNISHMENT!," I responded politely both
> to that e-mail and your earlier generous response to my query about "La
> Catarina." I have sent other friendly e-mails and posted responses to your
Catrina. Catarina is a variant of Catalina :-)
> own when it seemed appropriate since that time. You have ignored me in all
> cases. I am curious; What happened, Manuel? Am I imagining things?
As you already know, you are.
For those of you who may find themselves in similar situations, you must
realize that "free" mailing systems do not guarantee quick mail delivery
(and even delivery at all). Messages can (and do, believe me) go to
never-never land depending on many factors (for example, if you alter
your return address so that the domain is not a true one, the receiving
mail handler may refuse receipt and bounce it back to the originating
system's root account, where it will sit until the sys-op finds it. This
happened to me with compuserve and aol). Sometime, their mail servers
have bugs. Remember, you get what you paid for. Also, there is a
definite lag between news-servers so access to posts elsewhere in the
network can take from minutes to days. And let's not forget that many of
us respond to mail or posts from our places of work, where we do this
networking as time permits.
Therefore, everybody, cut people some slack and don't be so paranoid!
Ted Samsel
: Finish the story! Rivera's mural of 20th century ideas was so
: offensive to the future Vice President of the US and noted arts patron that
: Nelson had a crew come in the night before the unveiling in Rockefeller Center
: and jackhammer the fresco off the wall. Take that, you dirty mex commie! The
: spirit's there. Ahua!
: Of course you can rank order artists and their work! Would you not favor
: Alurista over Rod McKuen; Sister Corita over Keane? But you probably wouldn't
: choose Alurista over Eliot, nor Corita over Kahlo.
: Course, when it comes to ranking the best american artists you have to know
: more than 3 to choose the top 2! I've seen a lotta Mexican artists, a number of
: unitedstatesian artists, but not a lot of Canadian or souther american artists
: to declare a truly informed list. I'll stick with Rivera and Orozco for
: grandeur, Posada for humor and bite; Sargent for portraits; Wood for landscape;
: (Henry Ossawa) Turner for religious stuff; Mary Cassatt for portrayals of
: women.
Check out Fernando Botero, un colombiano..... I like it.
SBOP1
Sorry to offer nothing constructive to this thread, but I am wondering if
anyone knowos the location of good murals in the Chicago area? Ones that bring
tears to your eyes would be the best, thank you.
Sanji
REYLC
opportunity to see his murals on Labor and Race at the Detroit Institute of
Arts. They are the main attraction there. Some panels depict Labor and
Indusrty. Others Show the different races by color: the red race, the black
race, etc.... It was interesting to me that he places the Races over each of
the labor panels, as if to show universality of WORK. But(perhaps it's just
me) the Red and Black races look sad. Has anyone seen these?
"Aunque todo indica que vamos a vivir sin filosofía, resulta que sin ella
pura y simplemente no cabe vivir."
Victor Gomez Pin
Msedano
I made one visit to the Detroit Arts Institute and stood amazed at the football
field-length mural you depict! I wish I'd had the time to devote just to that
mural. I did miss the details you note, damn me. Is there a possibility you
could shoot a few fotos and post them to your website?
(I was amazed at the larger than life-sized Renoir bronzes, and noted with a
curious sadness that all this great stuff wound up in detroit bequeathed by
this Ford and that Ford. Few times in life have I wished I were rich, and
looking at the stuff these people once owned made me white with envy.)
mvs
ReyLC asks:
> Has anyone seen these?