Keywords

Evolution of the Mexican Muralist Movement: A Culturo-Behavior Science Account

Between 1921 and 1955, groups of artists worked together in the generation of a great number of figurative (as opposed to abstract) frescoes that expressed their sociopolitical views of peoples’ struggles in an unjust society (Anreus, 2012; Anreus, Barnet-Sanchez, & Campbell, 2012; Helm, 1989; Lee, 1999; Myers, 1956; Tibol, 1975). The movement that produced these murals is sometimes referred to as the “Mexican Mural Renaissance” (Capek, 1996; Koffey, 2012). Helm (1989) pointed out, “It is one of many ironies in the history of modern Mexican painting that the political education of the painters evolved more rapidly than their aesthetics” (pp. 35–36). This is why the movement cannot be understood without an appreciation of the contextual circumstances in which it developed as well as their influence in the creation and evolution of organizations.

Malott (2019) detailed how a three-year program from the Mexican government’s Secretariat of Public Education (Secretaría de Educación Pública [SEP]), called the SEP mural program, constituted a cultural cusp that gave rise to the Mexican muralist movement (see Glenn et al., 2016, p. 11 for a definition of “cultural cusp”Footnote 1). She detailed how five individuals helped to start the movement: a teacher and mentor, Gerardo Murillo Cornado, known as Dr. Atl (1875–1964; Espejo, 1994; Myers, 1956); a politician and writer José Vasconcelos Calderón (1882–1959; Stavans, 2011; Vasconcelos, 1963; Young, 1959); and the “great three”—the utmost renowned Mexican muralists (Aguilar-Moreno & Cabrera, 2011; George, 2005; Hill, 2005; Moyseén, 1970; Rivera & March, 1960; Rochfort, 1993; Wolfe, 1972): Diego Rivera (1886–1957), the most prolific of the three (Coronel Rivera, Pliego, & Zavala, 2007; Downs, 1999; Serrano, 2006; Souter, 2014); David Alfaro Siqueiros (1896–1974; Stein, 1994); and José Clemente Orozco (1883–1949; Manrique, 1989). The SEP program gave rise to mural-making lineages of three generations of artists that enabled the movement’s expansion in Mexico and elsewhere. To complement that analysis, this chapter focuses on the roles of the (a) context, (b) individuals, and (c) organizations in the evolution of the movement. These components are detailed as an illustration of how they might be studied in other social movements.

Context

Context consists of “the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs” (Context, n.d.). It includes political, economic, and social events, as well as the “cultural milieu,” which, according to Houmanfar, Rodrigues, and Ward (2010), entails the “prevailing beliefs within a culture” (p. 87) that set “the occasion for … various aggregate products” (p. 88).

The political and social circumstances that occasioned the muralist movement were everchanging and interconnected. This chapter recaps several influential events that took place in Mexico, Russia (later the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics [USSR]), the United States (US), and Spain—four nations with very different histories, cultures, and realities. Evolving contextual circumstances in these nations coalesced in the evolution of the movement. These circumstances functioned as analogs of either establishing operations (EOs) or abolishing operations (AOs) that altered values regarding communism and the use of murals to express socio-historical realities. As well, contextual circumstances set the occasion for the establishment of organizations that facilitated actions consistent with those values.

Individuals

Goldman (1982) reported that from 1905 to 1969, 289 artists took part in the creation of 1,286 murals in Mexico (Deffebach, 2015). In addition, intellectuals and politicians engaged in the movement in different ways. The five individuals mentioned above who were critical in the emergence of the movement (Malott, 2019) are emphasized as an illustration of how their actions and histories became entangled in organizations in response to contextual circumstances. They acted sometimes in concert and other times in disparity, sometimes in unity and other times in estrangement. They influenced each other and others by engaging in activities and generating products consistent with their values.

Organizations

Organizations are analyzed in the framework of metacontingencies—that is, “a contingent relation between (1) recurring interlocking behavioral contingencies [IBCs] having an aggregate product [AP] and (2) selecting environmental events or conditions” (Glenn et al., 2016, p. 3Footnote 2). A “culturant” consists of the IBCs of groups of people working together and the AP they produce (Hunter, 2012).

Twelve organizations exerted relevant and different functions in the evolution of the Mexican muralist movement. They varied in complexity, ranging from an institution to a small group of individuals united by a cause. Each organization is analyzed in terms of duration, function in the movement, its culturants (IBCs plus their APs), the selectors that established selection contingencies, factors that contributed to its establishment (EO analogs), and factors that contributed to its collapse or eventual irrelevance to the movement (AO analogs). Table 15.1 provides a synopsis of this chapter. It summarizes contextual circumstances, individuals’ historical events, and organizations relevant in four phases of the movement’s evolution: (a) antecedents (before 1920), (b) emergence (1920–1924), (c) development (1925–1955), and (d) decline (after 1955). Although some organizations overlapped during different phases, they are described in the phase where they exerted the most impact.

Table 15.1 Context, individuals, and organizations in the evolution of the Mexican muralist movement
Full size table

Antecedents (Before 1920)

A fertile ground for the movement developed before the 1920s in Mexico during the chaotic transition from a longstanding dictatorship to a democratic government. The success of the Bolshevik Revolution inspired influential politicians, intellectuals, and artists in Mexico to seek opportunities for change in society and in art—a number of whom would later become major players in the Mexican muralist movement. In the US, many subscribed to communism as well, but the government perceived it as a threat to its democracy (Krauze, 2017). Three organizations helped to set the stage for the start of the movement: (a) the Academy of San Carlos; (b) the Artistic Center (“Centro Artístico”); and (c) the Union of Painters and Sculptors, referred as the “Students’ Union.”

Context

At the start of the 1900s, Mexico was in political, social, and economic turmoil. Porfirio Díaz (1830–1915) ruled for over 30 years (1876–1880; 1884–1911). Under his rule, wealth accumulated in the hands of a few, while the majority lived in poverty (Bryan, 1976; Gonzalez, 2002; Reed, 1914). While exports increased by 300%, the country’s debt rose sharply. Agricultural production dropped and basic goods had to be imported. The wealthy took possession of the land, leaving 90% of the rural population landless. The land-disowned peasants became indebted to their landowners, forcing them to pay their debt with labor.

During the Mexican Civil War, which lasted from 1910 to 1920, a tenth of Mexico’s population died and more than 890,000 Mexicans immigrated to the US (U.S.-Mexico Relations: 1810–2010, n.d.). In this period, power passed through several hands. Díaz was removed in 1911; Emiliano Zapata (1879–1919), commander of the Liberation Army of the South, was assassinated; and a series of nine interrupted presidencies took place in 10 years: two presidents were killed, six resigned, and two completed the term of someone who resigned or was killed.

Venustiano Carranza (1859–1920) was president of Mexico from 1917 until his assassination in 1920. He led the development of the 1917 Mexican Constitution, which restricted the Catholic Church’s power and supported human rights, free and mandatory education for all, land reform, and labor force empowerment. Although it took decades to implement many aspects of the Constitution, its creation defined values for generations to come.

Russia also experienced dramatic change before 1920. The Russian Empire, declared in 1721 by Peter the Great (1672–1725), ended with the overthrowing of Tsar Nicholas II (1894–1917) in 1917. Then, during the devastation of Russia’s participation in World War I, a provisional government took control for 8 months until the Great October Socialist Revolution of 1917, when the Bolsheviks (denoting the “majority”), led by Lenin (Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov; 1870–1924), assumed power. Joseph Stalin (1878–1953) and Leon Trotsky (1879–1940) were Lenin’s closest lieutenants. In 1918, the Bolsheviks assassinated Nicolas II and his entire family, forever ending the Romanov rule.

Also in 1918, the Bolsheviks established the Russian Communist Party, previously known as the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party (1912–1918). The Party ruled Russia and later the USSR until 1991, though its name changed two more times (History of Russia, n.d.). Lenin became head of Russia (1917–1924). The Bolshevik Revolution inspired many social movements around the world. Communist parties emerged in several nations, led by Russia’s organized efforts to expand its control internationally. Mexico was fertile ground for many politicians, intellectuals, and artists who saw Russia’s achievements as examples to live up to.

In the US, after William McKinley (1843–1901) was assassinated in 1901, the country had only three presidents until 1920. The political relations between the US and Mexico were strained at times. One reason was Mexico’s confiscation of Americans’ privately owned property during the Mexican Civil War. The other reason was that in 1916, despite it being an unsuccessful mission, 10,000 American troops went to apprehend Pancho Villa (1878–1923), commander of the Division of the North, in response to the killing of 17 Americans and the burning of the town center of Columbus, New Mexico (U.S.-Mexico Relations: 1810–2010, n.d.).

In 1917, the US entered World War I and the Espionage and Sedition Act was established in federal law. The Act aimed to “prohibit interference with military operations or recruitment, to prevent insubordination in the military, and to prevent the support of US enemies during wartime” (Espionage Act of 1917, n.d.). The success of the Bolshevik Revolution began to influence the US labor movement. Organized labor actions, regardless of their dissimilarity, were branded “communist.” This perceived threat of communism lasted until the mid-1920s—a period known as the “First Red Scare” (“Red” refers to the red Soviet flag), characterized by censorship of radical groups, illegal searches, and deportation of many foreigners.

Finally, Spain was governed by a monarchy, challenged during the First Republic (1873–1875). The Spanish-American War (1895–1898) ended with Spain’s giving Cuba, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Guam to the US. Spain remained neutral in World War I.

Individuals

During this phase, many artists who would become muralists trained at the Academy of San Carlos, including Dr. Atl, who studied and later taught there (1904–1911). He mentored the “great three” (Rivera, Siqueiros, and Orozco) and others in art and instilled in them a rebellious attitude against traditional standards of art and government. He painted the first modern mural in Mexico (1910), and in the same year, he created the Artistic Center at the Academy, where Orozco and others joined him. Also in the Academy, Siqueiros and Orozco participated in the Students’ Union in 1911.

Some of the key players lived and worked abroad as well. Dr. Alt lived in Europe for 8 years, Rivera for 14, and Siqueiros for three. Dr. Atl lived in the US for about 1 year and Orozco for two. Other future muralists followed similar paths. Many individuals opposed a climate of oppression and economic disparity. Except for Orozco, whose arm was amputated in 1904, three other pioneers, joined by other artists, participated in political activities: Vasconcelos, who had become a lawyer in 1905, joined an anti-Diaz Movement in 1909, became Minister of Public Education in 1914, and then abandoned public life from 1915 until 1919. Dr. Alt and Siqueiros joined Carranza’s army against Huerta; Dr. Atl was jailed in 1916, and Siqueiros remained in combat for 4 years (1914–1918) before becoming a military attaché in Europe (1919–1921). Rivera left Mexico in 1906 and returned to live there in 1920. In conclusion, major players got trained, gained a worldly education, and took a political stand against dictatorship and social oppression and disparity.

Organizations

Academy of San Carlos (1781–Present)

This organization was essential to the movement because it provided trained artists who rebelled against European standards and promoted the creation of original Mexican art. It was established by royal decree in 1781 in honor of King Carlos III of Spain as the “School of Engraving” (though it changed its name multiple times). In 1913, it was integrated into the “Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México” (UNAM; National Autonomous University of Mexico) but originally kept its independence. Today the Academy’s old building houses postgraduate studies of the National Academy of Fine Arts (Academy of San Carlos Explained, n.d.). Therefore, contingencies of selection were first established by the Spanish monarchy and then by UNAM.

Several directors influenced the Academy’s course in different ways. For example, Román de Lascuráin, director for 25 years during the Díaz regime (1878–1903), inculcated the Spanish tradition in art; Dr. Atl (1914) promoted departure from replication of European art; Rivera (1929–1930) imposed a communist structure in the curriculum, ending with his firing after just over a year in the role (Founders Society Detroit Institute of Arts, 1986; Hernandez-Duran, 2016). Although the Academy still exists today, its structure and priorities lost relevance to the movement.

Artistic Center (1910)

The Artistic Center set the occasion for individuals to engage in activities that strengthened the value of mural making and the creation of original Mexican art. It was created at the Academy of San Carlos during the celebration of 100 years of independence from Spain, in the hopes of also promoting independence in the arts. The festivities included a vast display of contemporary Spanish art; however, an exhibit of Mexican art organized by Dr. Atl and his students overshadowed the Spanish display (Luna Arroyo, 1992; Orozco, 1945). Subsequently, Dr. Atl created the Artistic Center (Sampaio Amaro, 2004) with the help of Orozco and other students. Its purpose was to secure walls of government buildings on which to paint murals (Espejo, 1994) and create original Mexican art. The Center existed for only a short time, ending when the Mexican Civil War caused its members, including Dr. Atl, to disperse (Pérez Rosales, 2001).

Union of Painters and Sculptures (“Students’ Union”; 1911)

This organization rebelled against the teaching methods of the Academy of San Carlos. It was formed by students who resisted the request to buy mimeographed sheets from the anatomy class instructor. The students lobbied various ministries and protested outside the Academy’s building; this attracted the media, which sided with them (Charlot, 1962). Both the ministries and the media functioned as selectors of their activities. Partly instigated by Dr. Atl, strikes went on for months; in one, the Academy’s director was stoned by a mob of students. Siqueiros, only 13, was one of the students sent to jail, along with Ignacio Asúnsolo (1890–1965), who later became a muralist. Like the Artistic Center, the Students’ Union ended due to the dispersion of its members during the Mexican Civil War.

Emergence (1920–1924)

During Lenin’s control in Russia, the Bolshevik Revolution continued to be an example for many groups around the world who hoped to form communist societies. However, the US government grew wary of communist activism. Many Mexican intellectuals, influenced by communist ideology, perceived the US as a capitalist country that favored the rich over the proletariat. In Mexico, the first stable government after the Mexican Civil War was that of Álvaro Obregón (1880–1928). His government, inclined to the left, embarked on a massive educational reform, including support for Mexican muralism as a vehicle for public awareness. Artists who had communist inclinations were contracted to paint murals autochthonous of Mexico in government buildings. Three organizations were essential for the movement’s emergence: (a) the SEP mural program; (b) the Mexican Communist Party (“Partido Comunista Mexicano”; PCM); and (c) the Union of Workers, Technicians, Painters, and Sculptors (“Sindicato de Obreros, Técnicos, Pintores y Escultores”; SOTPE).

Context

Obregón was the first Mexican president who completed a full term (1920–1924) since Díaz’s removal in 1911. He contained uprisings, convinced Villa to retire peacefully at the beginning of his term, and improved relations with the US. He implemented many aspects of the 1917 Constitution, including land reform, development of labor laws, and massive transformation of education.

The US underwent an economic depression (1920–1921) and tried to recover the losses it incurred during the Mexican Civil War. In 1923, Obregón finally signed the highly controversial “Bucareli Treaty” (signed on Bucareli Avenue in Mexico City) with the US to obtain diplomatic support of his presidency. In recognition of the financial losses to US citizens and companies during the Civil War, the accord stipulated, among other remedies, a prohibition against Mexico’s developing technology and science for 100 years, which would allow the US to continue controlling the oil industry (Bucareli Treaty, n.d.). Disagreement over the treaty led Obregón’s government to the battlefield. Villa, who began uprising again, was assassinated, and with the help of the US, all rebellions were suppressed.

The USSR formed when the Bolsheviks took control over neighboring countries. In 1924, Mexico became the first country in the Americas to establish relations with the USSR. Lenin died in 1924, and tensions for control between Joseph Stalin (1878–1953) and Leon Trotsky (1879–1940) heightened, though Stalin assumed power until his death in 1953. Spain, on the other hand, continued under monarchy rule during this period.

Individuals

After being rector of the UNAM in 1920, Vasconcelos became the first secretary of the newly established SEP in 1921, where he housed the mural program and appointed Dr. Alt as its director. The program’s goal was to create cultural awareness through public murals. Vasconcelos brought Rivera from Europe and recruited other top artists living abroad and in Mexico, among them Siqueiros and Orozco. The five main players in the movement participated in the SEP mural program, and the “great three” became leaders and members of PCM and SOTPE.

Rivera joined the PCM in 1922 and soon became a leader along with Siqueiros. Rivera resigned in 1925, was reinstated in 1926, was expelled in 1929, was denied entry three times, and finally was reinstated in 1954. Siqueiros was expelled and readmitted as well. The “great three” were involved in SOTPE along with other muralists and traveled to the USSR at different times affirming their communist beliefs.

Organizations

Secretariat of Public Education, Mural Program (1921–1924)

The SEP mural program was essential for the movement as it established selection contingencies for artists painting socially inclined murals on government walls. Obregón created the SEP and appointed Vasconcelos—a firm proponent of raising the educational level of Mexico—as its first secretary. Vasconcelos developed the structure of the SEP and conceived the program in the Department of Fine Arts (Stavans, 2011). He envisioned murals as conduits to educate the public about the Mexican culture, national history, diverse ethnicity of its people, and resistance to oppression and fascism.

The government allocated substantial funding to education, which, by 1923, constituted 15% of the nation’s budget. With financial support, Vasconcelos hired established Mexican artists to participate in the program; some he brought from abroad, like Rivera and Roberto Montenegro Nervo (1885–1968; Quirarte, 1989). He gave them nominal administrative appointments, for instance appointing Jean Charlot (1898–1979) the “inspector of drawing” (Charlot, 1967; Marnham, 2000).

Artists were free to develop their own styles, resulting in a variety of mural-making techniques. However, Vasconcelos demanded results, announcing, “I wish the painting to be done as quickly as possible, over the widest possible area. Let it be monumental and didactic art, at the opposite extreme of Studio painting” (Bethell, 1998, p. 208). The murals took on monumental status because of their themes, styles, and locations in colonial government buildings. The “great three” alone covered 10,696 ft of mural walls (Hooze, 1993). The program ended with Vasconcelos’s resignation in 1924 and reduction of funding for the program.

Mexican Communist Party (1917–1924; 1935–1951; 1978–1981)

In 1917 the Mexican Socialist Party (“Partido Obrero Socialista”) was formed, and in 1921 it changed its name to PCM. The Party was originally established by organized workers to protect their rights. PCM adopted the principles of the Russian Communist Party (established in 1917) and joined a group of communist parties from several countries in the III International (“Tercera International”) in 1919. Although the PCM’s roots preceded the inception of the movement and continued an interrupted existence after its decline, the Party was most relevant in its emergence. PCM provided muralists opportunities to engage in political activities and strengthen their communist values. The Party “evolved into a party of radical painters with only a few dozen members” (Patenaude, 2009, p. 81).

PCM members engaged in political endeavors that promoted workers’ rights and communist principles through publications, congresses, and public protests. PCM published El Socialista (The Socialist) starting in 1917, though due to financial difficulties, it was discontinued until its reinstatement in 1919 (Carr, 1983). Later PCM continued the publication of El Machete (The Sledgehammer; Patenaude, 2009), originally created in SOTPE.

PCM was officially registered from 1922 to 1929; however, it was in complete disarray by 1924 (Carr, 1983), was outlawed from 1925 to 1935, and was officially registered again from 1935 to 1951. Its relevance to the movement decreased due to government repression and lack of attraction when the socioeconomic situation improved in Mexico. Nevertheless, it was registered again from 1978 to 1981 when it merged with other organizations.

Union of Workers, Technicians, Painters, and Sculptors (1922–1925)

SOTPE provided a forum for artists to pursue communist-oriented activities. It was founded in 1922 by artists working in the SEP mural program who were also members of the PCM, some of whom had participated in the Students’ Union at the Academy of San Carlos.

SOTPE members engaged in political protests against the Mexican government for its failure to fulfill promised reforms. They expressed their discontent in SOTPE’s publication, El Machete, coedited by Rivera, Siqueiros, and Xavier Guerrero (1896–1974), who also formed SOTPE’s executive committee. Through SOTPE, the muralists also articulated the movement’s mission, published in El Machete: “We repudiate the so-called easel art and all such art which springs from ultra-intellectual circles, for it is essentially aristocratic. We hail the monumental expression of art because such art is public property” (Siqueiros et al., 1924, p. 4).

The government threatened to cut funding for SOTPE members’ mural work if they continued publishing El Machete (Azuela, 1993). So, after five or six issues, El Machete was transferred to PCM (Orozco, 1945), where it continued to be published from 1924 to 1929. The end of SOPTE followed the end of the SEP mural program.

Development (1925–1955)

The Mexican muralist movement developed during a period of repression, followed by political stability and economic recovery. It brought opportunities for Mexican muralists in the US during the Great Depression; however, they were also censored for their communist inclinations. The USSR sought to spread communism in Spain. Well-known artists and intellectuals in Mexico, the US, and countries around the world sided with the Republicans in their fight against General Francisco Franco (1892–1975) in Spain. The asylum and assassination of Trotsky in Mexico stimulated tensions among the US, the USSR, and the Mexican governments as well as among the muralists.

Between 1925 and 1955, organizations and private sponsors established a market for mural making. For instance, the Mexican government continued giving Rivera mural commissions. And in the US during the Great Depression, murals were viewed as one way to stimulate the arts and the economy. Murals were also created by well-known artists in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru.

In Mexico, the movement continued through the influence of several organizations that kept art innovation, social causes, and communist values connected: (1) the Strident society (“Sociedad de Estridentes”), (2) ¡30–30! (“Treinta-Treinta”), (3) the Intellectual Proletarian Struggle (“Lucha Intelectual Proletaria”; LIP), and (4) the League of Revolutionary Writers and Artists (“Liga de Escritores y Artistas Revolucionarios”; LEAR).

Context

In Mexico, the period from 1924 to 1934 was known as the “Maximato,” in reference to president Plutarco Elías Calles (1877–1945), who was called “el Jefe Máximo” (“Maximum Leader”). Although Calles was president from 1924 to 1928, he ruled for an additional 6 years behind weak presidents. Obregón had circumvented repression of the Catholic Church, which had been enacted in the 1917 Constitution. But Calles strongly opposed the Catholic Church and initiated a confrontation, resulting in the loss of about 90,000 lives in the Cristero War (1926–1929). (“Cristeros” fought for Jesus Christ; Maximato, n.d.).

The US had opposed Mexico’s decision to establish diplomatic relations with the USSR in 1924. According to Krauze (2017), the U.S. government “confused Mexican nationalism with communism,” and “President Calvin Coolidge [1872–1933] seriously considered military action against ‘Soviet Mexico’” (para. 3). Nevertheless, during the Maximato, dissenting groups, including those with communist ideologies, were repressed in Mexico.

In the US, the Great Depression (1929–1939) was at its lowest point between 1929 and 1933. Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882–1945) won the presidential election in 1933 with the promise of the economic recovery plan, known as “the New Deal.” Through the Works Progress Administration (WPA; renamed Work Projects Administration in 1939), millions of people were hired to work in public projects. (Works Progress Administration, n.d.). As part of these efforts, the Public Works of Art Project (PWAP) operated from 1933 to 1934, followed by the Federal Art Project (FAP) from 1935 to 1943. The FAP created over 5000 jobs for artists (Works Progress Administration (WPA), n.d.), and among many other developments in the arts, it commissioned 2500 murals (Anreus et al., 2012). The US mural program was inspired by the Mexican muralist movement. Mexican muralists were admired and hired in the US by well-known patrons, increasing their recognition internationally, which in turn, enhanced their popularity in Mexico.

In Spain, power struggles and wars continued until 1931, when King Alfonso XIII was forced to abdicate and the Second Republic was established (1931–1936). The central issue was the role of the Catholic Church, which the Republicans saw as the major enemy of modernity and the military saw as the protector of Spanish values. Power oscillated back and forth from 1931 until 1936, followed by the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939).

The support for the Republicans inspired an extraordinary number of exceptional artists and writers who attracted volunteers to join Spain and offer military and monetary aid. About 40,000 foreigners from about 53 nations joined the International Brigades in support of the Spanish Republic. Mexican muralists were also in support. In the end, over half a million people died and Franco won the fight against the Republicans.

In the meantime, in Mexico, Lázaro Cárdenas (1895–1970), who was president from 1934 to 1940, condemned the persecution of the Catholic Church and put an end to Calles’s influence, forcing him into exile in 1936. Cárdenas’ regime, at the displeasure of the US, nationalized the oil and electric industries, offered asylum to Trotsky in 1937, and supported the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War. Mexico sold them arms and welcomed about 50,000 Spanish refugees. The USSR became the main provider of military aid to the Spanish Republicans and supported the Spanish Communist Party (Sibley, 2016; Simkin, 2012).

Following the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1940, the US entered World War II in 1941 and partnered with the USSR and its allies against Hitler. Mexico entered the war in 1942 and supplied oil and labor to the US (Koffey,2012). This alliance continued during the presidency of Manuel Ávila Camacho (1897–1955) in Mexico from 1940 to 1946. As a result, Mexico experienced positive economic development, known as the “Mexican Miracle,” and organized communist efforts eased.

After the end of World War II in 1945, the Cold War with the USSR intensified the perceived threat of communism in the US, which led to the “Second Red Scare.” The House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), which started in 1938, engaged in an anti-communist campaign. Joseph R. McCarthy (1908–1957), aided by FBI director J. Edgar Hoover (1895–1972), led intimidations, investigations, and charges of disloyalty against Americans due to communist ties and activities. The HUAC questioned celebrities, intellectuals, and politicians. Although the HUAC existed until 1975, the public communist persecution eased by 1954. Mexican muralists in the US were also perceived as communists and were chastised for it.

Individuals

Vasconcelos left Mexico after his resignation from the SEP and lived abroad for several years (1924–1928; 1929–1939). He was no longer involved in the Mexican muralist movement, and instead dedicated the rest of his life to politics and writing. He ran for president in 1929 but was defeated. Dr. Atl continued with art, intellectual, and writing activities outside of the movement during this phase. Artists who participated in the emergence of the muralist movement continued producing socially inspired murals. Some of them, like the “great three,” painted murals the rest of their lives and became well known in the US and abroad. Siqueiros, though, interrupted his mural work for several years and dedicated himself to political and military activity, including fighting for 2 years in the Spanish Civil War. Rivera and Orozco became members of the Strident Society and LIP, and Siqueiros was involved in!30–30! and LEAR.

In 1937, President Cárdenas supported Rivera’s request to give Trotsky asylum in Mexico. Trotsky moved into the house of Rivera’s wife, the famous Frida Kahlo (1907–1954), in Mexico City (Carpenter, 2007; de Cortanze, 2015; Grimberg, 1997; Herrera, 1983, 1991; Hooks, 2002; Lowe, 1995; Michel, 2013; Mujica, 2002; Wolf, 2010; Zamora, 1987) but later moved out to a nearby home. Welcoming Trotsky in Mexico created conflicts inside the PCM (Patenaude, 2009) and between muralists. Some, led by Siqueiros, supported Stalin; others, led by Rivera, supported Trotsky (Ojeda-Revah, 2002). Trotsky and André Breton (1896–1966; who was also welcomed by Rivera in Mexico) denounced Stalin’s role in the Spanish Civil War in the manifesto Towards a Free Revolutionary Art (Breton & Trotsky, 1938), increasing tensions between the two groups. Siqueiros, profoundly influenced by the Spanish communists, conspired with other artists in planning the purging of Trotsky supporters from the PCM as well as his failed assassination attempt in Mexico. “Mexican public opinion was shocked to learn that one of its greatest artists with world renown, locally held in high esteem, had been a GPU [Russian ‘State Political Directorate’] agent since 1928” (Ojeda-Revah, 2002, p. 276). Siqueiros fled to Chile with the help of Pablo Neruda (1904–1973). Finally, in 1940, Trotsky was killed in his Mexican home by the Spanish communist Ramon Mercader (1913–1978).

Organizations

Strident Society (1921–1927)

The Society set the occasion to strengthen the value of experimentation in the arts. It was established in 1921 by the poet Manuel Maples Arce (1900–1981) with the release of a flyer called Actual Number 1 “strident” (“estridente”), characterizing a loud and sharp voice. In it, he called on artists and intellectuals to unite by engaging in radical change in all visual arts, literature, and music through experimentation (Deffebach, 2015). The call fit like hand in glove to the Mexican muralists, some of whom joined the movement (Stridentismo, n.d.).

The society generated flyers, magazines, books, and exhibitions. It produced two other manifestos in Actual (1923) and a final one elsewhere (1924); three magazines: Ser (“Being”; 1922), Irradiador (“Radiator”; 1923), and Horizonte (“Horizon”; 1926–1927), with editorial designs of muralists from the SEP mural program. The Society also published several books, including two of poetry, one of which was translated into English and published in New York (1929). The first Strident exhibition took place in the El Café de Nadie (“Nobody’s Coffee”) in 1924 in Mexico City.

In 1925, the Strident Society was formally established in Xalapa, the capital of the state of Veracruz, which became known as “Estridentópolis“(“city of Stridentism”). It was housed in the state’s government from 1924 to 1927, under the auspices and support of its governor, Heriberto Jara Corona (1879–1968), whose secretary was Arce. In 1927, Jara Corona was removed from his governor post, after which the society dissolved because it no longer had government and financial support (Estridentismo, n.d.).

¡30–30! (1928–1930)

This organization, named after a machine gun used in the Mexican Revolution (the “.30-30 Winchester/.30 Winchester Center Fire”), opposed the traditional art education of the Academy of San Carlos and proposed new methods aligned with the muralists’ values. It was constituted by 30 discontent artists, who were called “treintatreintistas” (a play on words, meaning 30 members of an organization called thirty). Some members were pioneers of the muralist movement, and some had also been members of the Strident Society.

Members of ¡30–30! satirically ridiculed and discredited everything that the Academy stood for: its administration, staff, methods of teaching, and the plastic works it produced. For instance, they argued that Indians and poor people were painted superficially, replacing aristocrats as subject matter, and they claimed that the revolutionary spirit that characterized the muralist movement was lost. They proposed ending the academia, establishing outdoor painting schools, creating a Mexican museum of modern art, and changing the teaching methods and staff of the Academy of San Carlos.

The group published three issues of its magazine, ¡30–30!, Órgano de los Pintores de México (Deffebach, 2015; El Grupo de Pintores ¡30–30!, 1928), and five posters that were placed on the doors of the Academy of San Carlos and walls of some buildings. Their actions caused the SEP to censor the members’ activities, requiring approval of the content of their publications. Furthermore, during the interim presidency of Emilio Portes Gil (1890–1978) from 1928 to 1930, radical outbreaks were suppressed in Mexico. With government censorship and suppression, the group lasted only 2 years.

Intellectual Proletarian Struggle (1931)

LIP set the occasion for strengthening the value of bringing socialism to the arts. A group of artists and muralists founded LIP. Their goal was to “simplify their artistic expression so it would be understood by the masses” (Fuentes Rojas, 1995, p. 18), hoping to engage workers by relating to their everyday experiences. LIP produced a periodical, La Llamada (“The Call”), and exhibitions. The organization lasted only 1 year as their activities and products did not attract a supportive audience.

League of Revolutionary Writers and Artists (1933–1939)

Like LIP, LEAR strengthened the value of bringing socialism to the arts, hoping to bring literary and artistic creations to the masses. It was formed by a group of heterogeneous plastic artists, writers, and musicians who defended workers’ causes (Fuentes Rojas, 1995), supported the USSR, believed that art had a social function, and opposed government censorship. The group published the periodical Hoja Popular (“Popular Leaf”) and the magazine Frente a Frente (“Front to Front”), both of which were discontinued in 1938 when LEAR began publishing the magazine Ruta (“Route”). LEAR also produced flyers, brochures, and books and organized congresses, exhibitions, concerts, and conferences.

The formation of LEAR originally came about in a gathering of an antifascist group in the John Reed Club in 1929 in the US (Fuentes Rojas, 1995). But it was established 4 years later in 1933 by one of LIP’s ex-members, Leopoldo Méndez (1902–1969; Caplow, 2007), along with other muralists who had participated in the SOTPE and in the SEP mural program. LEAR was the Mexican division of the International Union of Revolutionary Writers, founded in the USSR, which lasted from 1925 until 1935 (International Union of Revolutionary Writers, n.d.; Anreus et al., 2012). LEAR weakened by 1937, when some members of the plastic arts section left, and collapsed by 1939 (Pereira, Albarrán, Rosado, & Tornero, 2004).

Decline (After 1955)

When contextual circumstances no longer supported the generation of revolutionary murals and consistent political accomplishments (cultural products), the organizations that produced them changed to meet new demands or ceased to exist. Subsequently, their members either adjusted to evolving vicissitudes, abandoned their causes, got involved in other organizations, or died. Two organizations were relevant in the decline of the movement: (1) People’s Graphic Workshop (“Taller de Gráfica Popular”; TGP); and (2) the Commission for the Promotion and Regulation of Mural Painting, referred to as the “Mural Commission.”

Context

The contextual circumstances that set the occasion for the movement changed dramatically in Mexico and elsewhere during this phase. Mexico, the US, the USSR, and Spain stabilized politically. Mexico continued with a democratic system, strengthened economically in drastic contrast to the years of its Civil War, and maintained relations with the US, despite taking dissenting views. In Spain, the period from 1954 to 1970 was known as the Spanish Miracle, due to its economic recovery. Franco ruled Spain until his death in 1975. Stalin ruled the USSR until his death in 1953, and his successors maintained the Cold War until 1990, when Mikhail Gorbachev (1931–present) put an end to it. Although there were socially charged murals painted in Mexico after 1956, the strength of mural production and the message they communicated weakened.

Individuals

Rivera died in 1957, Vasconcelos in 1959, and Dr. Atl in 1964. Siqueiros, who was jailed from 1959 to 1964, continued painting murals after his release and died in 1974. Other generations of muralists came about. The work of the muralists influenced artists in several Latin American countries as well as in the US.

Organizations

People’s Graphic Workshop (1937–2010)

TGP promoted the value of using visual arts in the service of social change and sold art in a collective of incoming and established artists. It was formed by dissidents who separated from LEAR in 1937 (Deffebach, 2015), including Leopoldo Méndez and other muralists who had participated in the SEP mural program. They collaborated with some artists of the US PWAP (for images of selected prints, see “Taller de Gráfica Popular,” n.d.).

TGP supported the progressive policies of president Cárdenas, such as land reform, labor unions, and the nationalization of the Mexican oil industry. However, it became unpopular in 1940 after one of its workshops was used by Siqueiros and other artists to plan the failed assassination attempt of Trotsky. Due to financial difficulties, TGP had to be moved several times. Jesús Alvarez Amaya (1925–2010) kept the organization alive from 1967 until his death in 2010 (Ricker, n.d.).

Commission for the Promotion and Regulation of Mural Painting (1947–1959)

The Mural Commission oversaw the approval of government-sponsored mural contracts and regulations for their protection. The idea of the Commission came about when the city canceled Maria Izquierdo’s (1902–1955) mural contract in a prominent building in Mexico City’s center (“Zócalo”) in 1945. Siqueiros and Rivera opposed the contract, arguing against her style and her inexperience at mural making. They suggested that she work under the supervision of an established muralist. The rejection caused much controversy among muralists. So, in 1947, the Director of the National Institute of Fine Arts convened 16 muralists to exchange ideas about mural creation. (Izquierdo did not attend.) The group passed a resolution with several provisions, one of which was the establishment of the Mural Commission. The Commission faced much resistance; muralists argued that censorship opposed the spirit of Vasconcelos’s original mural program.

The Commission was composed of the “great three”—Rivera, Siqueiros, and Orozco—who at their discretion could invite two additional painters. Dr. Atl joined them the first year. When Orozco died, Jorge González Camarena (1908–1980) replaced him; and when Rivera died, Federico Cantú (1907–1989) took his place. In 1959, Juan O’Gorman (1905–1982) became part of the Commission. He attended only two meetings and indicated that they were not of much significance, suggesting that the Mural Commission was no longer relevant. As for Izquierdo, she remained resentful the rest of her life for having lost that commission. “In 1953 she told a newspaper reporter that Siqueiros should give up being ‘the boss of the mural painting monopoly’ and go back to painting ‘portraits, which is what he does best’” (Deffebach, 2015, ch. 6, para. 60).

Conclusions

As a complex, adaptative system, the Mexican muralist movement evolved from many moving parts dynamically interrelating and coevolving. It involved a web of metacontingencies continuously entangling culturants, selectors, and contingencies—all affected by the context in which they evolved and the value-driven actions of individuals. Figure 15.1 illustrates this web of interconnections.

Fig. 15.1
An illustration of a meta-contingency web. It represents a web of interaction among context, individuals, and organizations, which are listed in three columns.

Interactions between contexts, individuals, and organizations in the evolution of the Mexican muralist movement. (Sources of the photographs are as follows: Mexico: Francisco I. Madero entering the city of Cuernavaca on June 12, 1911. Emiliano Zapata is on the far right, with a tricolor band across his chest. Retrieved from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Madero_en_Cuernavaca.jpg; Russia: Armed soldiers carry a banner reading “Communism,” Nikolskaya Street, Moscow, October 1917. Retrieved from https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Armed_soldiers_carry_a_banner_reading_%27Communism%27%2C_Nikolskaya_street%2C_Moscow%2C_October_1917.jpg;US: Unemployed men lined up during the Depression outside a soup kitchen in Chicago by Al Capone, February 1931. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression#/media/File:Unemployed_men_queued_outside_a_depression_soup_kitchen_opened_in_Chicago_by_Al_Capone,_02-1931_-_NARA_-_541927.jpg; Spain: They shall not pass! Republican banner in Madrid reading “Fascism wants to conquer Madrid. Madrid shall be fascism’s grave,” 31 December, 1935. Retrieved from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%C2%A1No_pasar%C3%A1n!_Madrid.jpg#/media/File:¡No_pasarán!_Madrid.jpg;Vasconcelos: José Vasconcelos Calderón (1913). Harris & Ewing Collection, Library of Congress. Retrieved from https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Jose_vasconcelos.jpg; Dr. Alt: Dr. Atl, aka Gerardo Murillo (1926). Photograph by Edward Weston, Art Institute of Chicago. Retrieved from http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/75435; Rivera: Diego Rivera (1910) retrieved from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Diego_Rivera,_1910.jpg; Siqueiros: David Alfaro Siqueiros (1960). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Alfaro_Siqueiros#/media/File:David_Alfaro_Siqueiros_(El_Coronelazo).jpg; Orozco: José Clemente Orozco (1932). Photograph by Arnold Genthe. © Library of Congress, Washington, DC (neg. n o. LC-G412-T-6066 -004). Retrieved from https://www.loc.gov/item/agc1996013201/PP/.)

Full size image

Context

The photographs on the left of Fig. 15.1 identify critical events that affected the movement: the Mexican Civil War, the Russian Bolshevik Revolution, the US Great Depression, and the Spanish Civil War. Some contextual variables functioned like establishing operations (EOs)—“events, conditions, circumstances that momentarily alter the effectiveness of other events as reinforcement (and punishment), and simultaneously alter the frequency of those types of behavior that have been followed by that reinforcement (or punishment)” (Michael, 1993, p. 154). Other contextual circumstances functioned like abolishing operations (AOs) by decreasing the value of events as reinforcers or punishers and abating response frequency (McGinnis, Houchins-Juárez, McDaniel, & Kennedy, 2010). Both EOs and AOs are referred to as analogs because the original definitions have been used to describe properties of events within a linear, operant framework. In a laboratory environment, for instance, deprivation could be an EO and satiation an AO. Although the functions of EOs look similar in the laboratory and in a social event, the underlying units of selection are different, operant vs. IBCs. Both type of units involve environmental selection, but the selection processes are different.

To explain how the circumstances “alter the effectiveness of other events as reinforcement (and punishment)” (Michael, 1993, p. 154), there is still much to be understood. Even within a behavior analysis perspective, missing are considerations for the role of the organism in motivating conditions (Killeen, 2019; Killeen & Jacobs, 2017) and of private events, such as those involved in rule-governed behavior (Malott, 1993; Malott, Malott, & Trojan, 1999). A broader discussion still needs to take place. As Killeen (2019) said, “Google Scholar returns four million links to articles with the term motivation in their title or abstract; perhaps there is useful information in some; perhaps, as responsible scientists we should know and cite some of those most relevant to our undertaking” (p. 18). I concur. Although the contributions from behavior analysts have been of great value, our field will benefit from expanding the scope of understanding motivating conditions within the framework of complex adaptative systems.

Individuals

At the center of the movement were individual’s actions in IBCs. They interconnected with contextual events and organizations. As a matter of illustration, Fig. 15.1 shows the five most influential individuals in the emergence of the movement. Dr. Atl was more relevant in the antecedent phase and Vasconcelos in the emergence. The “great three,” along with other muralists, played a role in most of the movement’s evolution. Their involvement in organizations facilitated the transmission of repertoires across individuals. Of the “great three,” Siqueiros, participated in 10 organizations; Rivera and Orozco participated in seven. They painted murals all their lives, consistent with the original vision of the movement, and achieved international recognition. Other recognized artists, such as Dr. Atl, Ramón Alva de la Canal (1892–1985), Fernando Leal (1896–1964), and Xavier Guerrero (1896–1974), were involved in five organizations (or perhaps more). Some became founders or leaders of several organizations.

Organizations

The Cambridge dictionary defines “organization” as “a group whose memberswork together for a sharedpurpose in a continuing way” (Organization, n.d.). What is missing from the popular understanding of “organization” is that selection contingencies affect its evolution—the part of the definition that facilitates development in a “continuing way.” “Selection” is a critical element, embedded in the concept of “metacontingency” (Glenn, 1988, 1991, 2004; Glenn & Malott, 2004; Houmanfar et al., 2010; Houmanfar & Rodrigues, 2006; Malott, 2003, 2016a, 2016b, 2018, 2019; Malott & Glenn, 2006; Sandaker, 2009, 2010; Todorov, 2004, 2006, 2013). That is why organizations were analyzed in the framework of metacontingencies.

External entities—“selectors”—affected future repetitions of culturants over time. Like in a behavioral contingency, where the reinforcer affects the future occurrence of the behavior, in a metacontingency, the selection of culturants also affects their next iteration, which occurs with variation. Some aspects of the murals changed due to the feedback from the selector; as a result, some elements of the future repetitions of IBCs might have changed, such as using different compositions, techniques, or materials. Variation of IBCs resulted in variation of the murals produced. Selectors (e.g., the patron or organization) also changed over time. In Fig. 15.1, organizations are represented with circles, symbolizing lineages of culturants over time, which helped participants strengthen their values, develop mural-making skills, and engage in political causes (Espinoza, 1992). The variation of shading in the circles represents the different phases of the movement.

Organizations are often composed of internal smaller components, which could also be analyzed in the framework of metacontingencies. For instance, the SEP mural program was part of Mexico’s Secretariat of Public Education, and, given that it was central to the muralist movement, the program is analyzed here as an organization. The body of murals produced during the evolution of the movement can also be considered the AP of the movement.

Different organizations exerted different functions with respect to the muralist movement. They established lineages of IBCs that helped individuals acquire and/or strengthen relevant repertoires, established selection contingencies, provided resources, or supported internal components. Because of this complex adaptative system’s nature, the movement per se could not be replicated. For example, it is interesting that even though the Bolshevik Revolution inspired the muralist movement in Mexico, it was not conducive to a similar movement in the USSR because the Bolsheviks exerted control over the arts, inhibiting free expression. As well, the mural creation in the US under the PWAP took on a different overtone from that of Mexico.

Based on the analysis of the 12 organizations presented in this chapter, a list of factors that contributed to their existence and relevance can be inferred. Several factors contributed to the establishment or strengthening of organizations in the movement: (a) shared values of participants clearly articulated through a mission; (b) support from other organizations, some as selectors, others as resource providers; (c) increased market demand by involving well-known artists in the creation of the murals; and (d) adaptation to new contextual circumstances. Other factors contributed to the abolition or relevance of organizations to the movement, such as (a) weakening or disappearance of organizations that functioned as selectors; (b) repression and censorship of APs; (c) decline of market demand when socially charged murals lost attraction as the world around them dramatically changed; and (4) discontinuation of IBCs due to leaders’ leaving without having established continuity with new members, internal fraction caused by discrepancies in values and priorities, or lack of incentives to keep individuals involved.

This chapter illustrated how the Mexican muralist movement evolved based on a culturo-behavior science perspective. Factors identified and described here as part of the complex culturo-behavior system might help researchers to identify areas of intervention at a cultural level (Mattaini, 2016). For instance, new organizations or movements could be evaluated in terms of these factors to determine whether they do in fact contribute to their survival or decline.

In the end, organizations that survived the movement changed dramatically to adjust to new contexts, like the Academy of San Carlos; lost strength in Mexico, like PCM; became irrelevant to the causes that ignited them in the past, like TGP; or stopped exerting a function altogether, like ¡30–30! and all others that vanished. The “great three” died, along with other important players in the movement. New generations of muralists came about in Mexico, but they never reached the force, the focus, and the spirit that once propelled muralists’ work.

Although the Mexican muralist movement declined, it left a tremendous legacy of murals as a historical and cultural heritage. It also provided inspiration for other muralist movements elsewhere. As well, the movement constituted an example of how complex adaptative social systems evolve. It is my hope that this analysis serves as a model for investigators attempting to study other cultural movements.