Orozco’s American Epic: A Review

José Clemente Orozco’s mural is an essential link to the spirit of the Mexican revolution. The Mexican Revolution is inextricably linked to artists as its true renaissance and cultural impact came in the form of artistic interpretations and expressions about the revolution years after the dust had settled. In this way, muralists have crafted the national story in Mexico with far more agency than dubious political figures and the ruling class. In fact, the purpose of this muralist movement was to flip societal conventions on their heads and exalt the outcasts of typical European colonialist society- seen in works like Orozco’s Destruction of the Old Order. These muralists saw themselves as the great liberators of a national story that had been hidden by colonialists. The art was public and featured Aztec warriors, peasant farmers, and industrial wage laborers. They recognized the revolutionary potential of these works and weaponized them to educate and evoke a class consciousness.

This is what makes Orozco’s decision to paint a mural within the walls of Baker Library such a momentous one. It was his attempt at looping the United States into the spirit of the Mexican Revolution. He also felt that since the establishment of Dartmouth predated the foundation of the US, the college had more of a “continental rather than local outlook.” The Epic of American Civilization was his third and final mural in this country. His first two murals focused individually on rejecting authority and the outcast ethnic groups of society. His mural at Dartmouth is the weaving together of those themes and his revolutionary communist education.

Professor Mary Coffey’s book on the murals was an engaging read. I am more well-versed in Mexican revolutionary politics than art history, and I found that her writing drew on that knowledge to demystify art history for amateurs. She properly contextualizes the work as a revolutionary weapon that utilizes ancient imagery like the myth of Quetzalcoatl to comment on colonialism and the modern industrial capitalists. The book’s discussion of the mural is separated into three groupings: colonialism, American modernity, and race. The first two sections include comparisons to the way Diego Rivera and Orozco’s muralist contemporaries depicted similar scenes or subjects. The unique distinctions between the way both artists portrayed Cortes were most illuminating about how they viewed the colonialist story. Orozco’s painting has him “standing impassively amid a scene of destruction… where he looms over the viewer. To his right, a friar plants an ominous dark green cross into the newly claimed land.” His painting leaves little room for positive interpretations, as Orozco asserts that what came over to this land was a destructive force. The combination of the scuttled Spanish ships ablaze and the ghostly complexion of Cortes makes the viewer feel as if it were a scene from Hell. Rivera’s depiction of Cortes in Mexico is not apologetic of the colonialists—nor should it be—but it is perhaps a bit more nuanced. His portrayal shows Cortes and the violent conquistadors juxtaposed by figures like Bartolome de las Casas—known for his writings about Columbus’ actions on his quests and for his clerical defense of the indigenous. “the west wall represents the humanitarian face of the conquest, emblematized to the far right through the good works of the missionary friars.” Coffey’s discussion of these muralists correctly places the book in conversation with Mexican muralist studies more broadly. It also saves the text from the tunnel vision trap of some academic writing in which the topic feels as if it is analyzed in a vacuum; the in-depth analysis of Rivera’s depictions elucidates Orozco’s positions.

Why are the murals and professors’ studies of them so important? For one, Coffey’s section on the debates between Diego Rivera and David Alfaro Siqueiros mirrors contemporary discourse amongst progressives in America. Siqueiros’ critique centers around “using the fresco, an antiquated medium that he felt was not adequate to the demands of propaganda because of its reliance on an immovable architectural support.” This, coupled with the nuanced discussion of colonial figures like benevolent friars, made more progressive artists question if Rivera intended to whitewash history and use the mestizaje argument to quell revolutionary spirit. Siqueiros was so infuriated by this he even called Rivera “the official painter of the new bourgeoise.” Though it may seem like a spat between two competing artists, their stylistic and philosophical choices sound like the neoliberal and socialist wings of the Democrat party. One seems to want to reform from within the system’s confines while the other deems the structures of the system worthy of being uprooted and made anew. The conflicting opinions and methods muralists like Orozco and his contemporaries used are ultimately indicative of the dueling approaches agents of societal change employ.

The crucial lesson from the Orozco murals and their place in Dartmouth history is their significance for free speech on campus. When Orozco was given the grant of about $6,700 ($130,000 in today’s money), there was outrage over the decision to have a foreign artist receive a substantial sum of money to draw a Marxist interpretation of the European and Mesoamerican story. Parents wrote to the college president that the money should be taken away and the murals should be taken down. Just a decade before the McCarthy era, President Ernest Hopkins had this to say: “There are those who object to the fundamental ideas suggested, but my conception of a college is a place where such ideas should be considered.” At a time when the college’s free speech rating is ranked 52nd out of 55 schools by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education—perhaps these are sobering words to reflect on. The beauty of the murals lies in their controversial messages—forcing the viewer to wrestle with the provocative. If the college is to reflect Hopkins’ vision, then it is time we cease our scurrying from that which is uncomfortable and thought-provoking. We must make students who not only call into the forest but also respond when the forest calls back.