Man at the Crossroads:

Diego Rivera and his mural at Rockefeller Center1

Susana Pliego Quijano

The powers that be, having approved my conception, having praised my

execution, have decided not to allow it to be seen. So be it. Posterity will decide

the issue: some day the truth of my conception will be patent to the world.

Diego Rivera2

In 1929, the Wall Street stock market crash unleashed a great crisis, and with it, a

questioning of the structures of capitalist power. The Great Depression raised doubts

about capitalism, and led many to view the models of countries where popular

revolutions had triumphed, like Mexico and the Soviet Union, with mistrust tinged with

curiosity and exoticism, as evident in the cover of Fortune magazine for March 1932,

which displays an image of Moscow’s Red Square, painted especially for the occasion by

Diego Rivera (fig. 1).3

In the midst of the Great Depression, skyscrapers began to shape the city of New York.

The Rockefeller family, whose fortune came mainly from oil, was owner of the Standard

Oil Company. At one point it controlled 95% of the nation’s oil industry, and was

therefore one of the most powerful families of its time. Just steps away from the

Museum of Modern Art (MoMA), the construction of Rockefeller Center became a labor

1 I am grateful to Caitlin Bruce, María Elena González, Cathleen M. Paquette, Hilda Trujillo, Carlos Enríquez Verdura, Luciano Matus, Pablo Ortiz Monasterio and Daniel Vargas for the support, conversations and comments that enriched this text, although the responsibility for its content is entirely mine.2 Diego Rivera, “The Stormy Petrel of American Art, Diego Rivera on his Art”, The London Studio, London, July 1933, p. 263 The issue has a long article about the key figures and history of the Soviet Union, and promotions for travel to the country. It is not known for certain whether this image or the parade that appears in Man at the crossroads is actually a May Day parade, or whether the drawings were made during the massive festivities surrounding the 10th anniversary of the October Revolution. But it was Rivera that identified them as May Day images in Diego Rivera and Gladys March, May Art, my Life, new York, Dover, 1991, pp. 93 and 126. Dickerman maintains that they are from the October Revolution commemoration. Cf. Leah Dickerman and Anna Indych Lopez, Diego Rivera: Murals for the Museum of Modern Art, New York, the Museum of Modern Art, 2011, exhibit catalog, p. 45, no. 17.

relief program for American workers, generating more than 40,000 jobs. Located in the

heart of Manhattan, the intention of Rockefeller Center or “City” was to be “a city within

a city,” a monument to the achievements of humanity: a cultural, economic, financial and

foreign trade center, which would restore confidence in capitalism, show the world the

Rockefeller family’s spiritual values and commitment to social service, and promote

international relations. It was also a bet on the mass media, primarily through the

establishment of leading radio and television companies at the Center.4

The Rockefeller Center art program

The master plan for Rockefeller center included an art plan to decorate the fourteen

buildings that comprised the complex with a series of sculptures, reliefs, mosaics, photo-

murals and paintings by some of the greatest artists of the time, to complement the

architecture of Raymond Hood. Each element was discussed in the Art Committee,

which was made up of the architects, the managing agent, John Todd, and some members

of the Rockefeller family.5 The family patriarch, John D. Rockefeller Jr., left the

selection of the modern art to his wife, Abby Aldrich Rockefeller, and his son Nelson.

Abby, an art lover, became one of the founders of New York’s Museum of Modern Art

(MoMA) and one of the first American collectors of Diego Rivera’s work.6

The theme that was chosen for Rockefeller Center as a whole was “New Frontiers,”

alluding to the progress of humanity. The committee favored scenes and personages

inspired by Greek and Roman mythology, reminiscent of the classical age, the

foundations of western civilization. Classical myths and gods helped create a language

that would communicate a sense of endurance and strength for the Rockefeller Family.

4 See Peter J. Johnson and John Ensor Harr, The Rockefeller Century: Three Generations of America’s Greatest Family, New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1988, and Robert Linsley, “Utopia will not be Televised: Rivera at Rockefeller Center”, Oxford Art Journal, vol. 17, no. 2, 1994, y Cathleen M. Paquette, Public Duties, Private Interests: Mexican Art at New York’s Museum of Modern Art, 1929-1954, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California at Santa Barbara, 2002, pp. 82 and ss.5 Of the one million dollars budgeted for construction, $150,000 were allocated to the Art Project.6 Abby Aldrich Rockefeller is known to have commissioned portraits of her grandchildren from Rivera, acquired the watercolors for the H.P. (Horse Power) Ballet and the Russian sketchbook, and asked Ms. Paine to secure a sketch of the painting Wall Street Banquet, to mention just a few of her Rivera acquisitions.

The building at 30 Rockefeller Center, the highest in the complex as well as its physical

and symbolic core, was chosen to house the offices of the family patriarch, John D.

Rockefeller Jr., and those of the Radio Corporation of America (RCA) (figs. 2 and 3).7

Diego Rivera remarked that, because its great height, the building seemed to disappear

into the heavens, because its top “is frequently hidden in the clouds.” 8 In this sense, it

might be considered a sort of axis mundi, a symbol expressing a point of connection

between the underworld, heaven and earth, at which all roads converge, the cosmic pole

that sustains the world and lies at the center of the universe. 9 The building at the heart of

Rockefeller Center provides an axis that joins what lies in the depths of the earth—by

underground construction of a subway station and a sunken plaza—to the horizon of

human beings who walk the streets, and the heavens, because its towering height

symbolically joins the human plane with the divine.

The central plaza, ringed by the art deco buildings of the Center, welcomes visitors with a

massive golden statue of Prometheus by Paul Manship, located just across from the RCA

building (fig. 4). Legend has it that Prometheus, finding man “naked and shoeless, and

with neither bed nor arms of defense… stole the mechanical arts of Hephaestus and

Athena, and fire with them…and gave them to man. 10 With this act, Prometheus set

human beings on the path to creation and wisdom to dominate the natural elements,

considered until then the provenance of the ancient gods and demi-gods. When we

become aware of these meanings, it is no surprise that this figure was a part of the

symbolic planning of Rockefeller Center.

Steps away, the main entrance to the RCA building would be decorated with a relief

sculpture representing wisdom (fig. 5), inspired in William Blake’s watercolor etching

Ancient of Days (God as the Great Architect of the Universe) (fig. 6). The image refers

7 The 70-storey building is located at 30 Rockefeller Plaza, between 49th and 50th streets and between Fifth Avenue and Sixth Avenue (Avenue of the Americas), just behind the sculpture of Prometheus. On the 65th floor, the famous Rainbow Room restaurant-terrace welcomes New York’s elite. The building later became the headquarters for General Electric (GE) and the National Broadcasting Company (NCB).8 Diego Rivera, “The Stormy Petrel…”, op. cit., p. 26.9 Cf. Mircea Eliade, Tratado de Historia de las Religiones, Mexico, Era, 1973, p. 273.10 Plato, “Protagoras or The Sophists”, in Diálogos, Mexico, Porrúa, 2009, p. 156. Remember that José Clemente Orozco painted Prometheus at Pomona College’s Frary Hall in California, in 1930.

to the Prime Creator and his representation as a geometrician, with a compass in one

hand, tracing the world.11 Above this image a passage from the book of Isaiah is

inscribed: “Wisdom and knowledge shall be the stability of your times.” On either side

of wisdom appear representations of sound and light, in keeping with RCA’s bet on radio

and television. This works prepare the viewer for the paintings in the building’s lobby, a

pictorial cycle that would continue the same philosophical tone. The Great Architect of

the Universe and Prometheus allude to the creative capacity of gods and men. Thus, the

experience of Diego Rivera’s mural cannot be separated from path traveled to reach it,

from the urban, through the spatial, to the symbolic.

We have arrived at the lobby of the main building, 30 Rockefeller Plaza, a place that

would be decorated by paintings and occupied—ephemerally—by Man at the crossroads.

Because of its location, Rivera’s work marked the central axis of the building. Its

creation opened a series of discussions that I will attempt to place in context in this

chapter. Today, almost eighty years after those events, two questions arise that we must

bear in mind: Rivera was surely aware that the Rockefeller family would not allow the

image of a communist leader in the lobby of the main building, a space that the powerful

magnate would traverse daily on the way to his offices. And what led the architects and

the Rockefeller family to think that the theme of “choosing a road” in Man at the

crossroads,” for an openly communist painter, would be coherent with the principles they

held dear? Taking these questions into account, and based on research into various

publications and documents basically in the personal archives of Diego Rivera and Frida

Kahlo, and the sketches that have been discovered of the work, including the four

belonging to the Museo Diego Rivera-Anahaucalli collection, I will attempt to narrate the

course of events.

Diego Rivera, the Rockefeller family and the MoMA

By 1933, the year in which he painted the mural at Rockefeller Center, Diego Rivera was

an influential and controversial artist who enjoyed considerable international prestige. As

“the people’s artist,” as he was fond of calling himself, Rivera had decorated various

11 This is a concept that comes primarily from masonry. Many members of the Rockefeller family have been masons, including John D. Rockefeller Jr. himself.

public buildings in Mexico.12 Mexican muralism was considered an original and

completely new artistic movement, primarily because it was large-format public art in

which people stood in for kings and gods as protagonists in History. Muralists sustained

that only the production of monumental works in the public domain was valuable; they

considered art to be a weapon, a form of collective education, and propaganda.13 Just as

mural painting was earlier used by the church to educate, teach and transmit Christianity,

the murals of post-revolutionary Mexico helped generate a collective image of the nation,

exalting the essence of Mexicans and capturing it on the face of public buildings that

were crucial to the construction of a post-revolutionary State.

In contrast with the predominantly peasant background of much of Mexico, Diego Rivera

admired industrialization, science and technology as pillars of American development.

The United States, he said, “expresses its creative force and its sense of beauty through

machines and through the scientific research that creates machines,” 14 concluding that “it

was thus the most propitious place to continue my work.”15 Full of curiosity, the painter

decided to accept the proposal to paint murals in the United States. His first stop: San

Francisco. Rivera’s participation in the Mexican Arts exhibit at New York City’s

Metropolitan Museum of Art in late 1930, as well as commissions in San Francisco,

helped establish his fame, although he came under heavy fire from his communist

comrades for taking money from the great capitalist magnates.

Paradoxically, Diego Rivera met MoMA directors Alfred Barr Jr. and Jere Abbott when

he visited Moscow, between October 1927 and mid-1928, during the celebrations

commemorating the 10th anniversary of the October Revolution. The outcome of this

meeting was an invitation from Barr to mount a solo exhibit at the recently created

12 By 1933, Rivera had decorated the amphitheater of the National Preparatory School, the Ministry of Public Education, the National Agricultural School at Chapingo and the Palace of Cortez in Cuernavaca, and had begun the murals at the National Palace.13 See the Manifesto of the Union of Workers, Technicians, Painters and Sculptors (SOTPE), published in El Machete no. 7, 2nd half of June 1924.14 Anita Brenner, “Diego Rivera: Fiery Crusader of the Paint Brush”, The New York Times Magazine, April 2, 1933, p. 10.15 Diego Rivera, Portrait of America, New York, Covici, Friede, 1934, p. 13

institution. Cultural agent Frances Flynn Paine served as a liaison between the MoMA,

the Rockefeller family, and the artist (fig. 7).16

The MoMA opened its doors on November 7, 1929, just nine days after the Wall Street

stock market crash. Its first solo exhibits were devoted to two foreign artists: the first

was Henri Matisse and the second was Diego Rivera. The show by the Mexican artist

took place from December 23, 1931 to January 27, 1932, and broke attendance records in

the five weeks it remained open to the public.17 This major exhibit helped legitimize

Rivera’s work and establish his place among the world’s great artists. At the same time,

living in New York and spending time with the Rockefeller family, the museum’s

primary patrons, Rivera was able to understand the transcendence of Rockefeller Center’s

construction as the greatest work of its time, and its importance in promoting the image

of the powerful family.

For the exhibit, Rivera created eight portable murals on site. Three of them refer to

Rockefeller Center’s construction: Pneumatic drill, Electrical Energy and Frozen assets

(fig. 8).18 The last of these decries the ravages of the crisis. The painter divides the city’s

reality into three levels: below, an underground vault safeguards the valuables of the

wealthy; in the middle, the unemployed masses sleep side by side in a warehouse that has

been converted into a municipal shelter;19 and above, the great skyscrapers of New York

are the backdrop for hundreds of people traveling along on the subway. It is interesting to

note that Rockefeller Center lies majestically at the heart of the composition. It is the only

structure that does not appear whole, but truncated, so that the viewer cannot see the top

16 Frances Flynn Paine was an art broker, cultural representative, creator of the Mexican Arts Association. She charged a 20% commission on the sale of Rivera’s work, including the commission for the RCA building. Paine visited Mexico City in Fall 1931 to organize the exhibit and accompany the painter and his wife, Frida Kahlo, to New York. For a more detailed analysis of Paine’s relationship with the Rockefeller family, see Cathleen M. Paquette, op. cit.17 A total of 56,519 people visited the exhibit, which was recently commemorated with a show entitled “Diego Rivera: Murals for the Museum of Modern Art” at the MoMA from November 2011 to May 2012. See Leah Dickerman and Anna Indych-López, op. cit.18 The painter prepared eight portable murals especially for the exhibition: Agrarian leader Zapata; Sugarcane; Liberation of the peon; Indian warrior; The uprising; Frozen assets; Electrical Energy; and Pneumatic drill.19 Description taken from Diego Rivera and Gladys March, op. cit., p. 110

of the building.20 This visual mutilation is in some sense a foreshadowing of what would

happen in the lobby of the main building with the destruction of Rivera’s fresco.

Portrait of Detroit

After the success at the MoMA, Diego and Frida moved to Detroit. Rivera decorated the

walls of the Garden Court at the Detroit Institute of Arts for Edsel B. Ford, the son of

Henry Ford and president of the Ford Motor Company. The themes were the aesthetics of

the machine, industry, and modernity. The painter spoke of his dream of painting, in the

industrial heart of America, “the epic of industry and the machine, the beauty of the

machine´s adaptation of marvelous form to no less marvelous function, the embodiment

in it of human intelligence and human cooperation in labor, its potentialities for the

mastery of nature and the liberation of man.”21 The murals were received with some

controversy. A panel entitled Vaccination sparked a media outrage because the public

believed its resemblance to a nativity scene was sacrilegious.

Rockefeller Center in the spotlight

John D. Rockefeller Jr. was well aware of the painter’s subversive character and

communist ideas, and of his criticism of capitalism in the murals of the Ministry of Public

Education, where Rivera had painted John D. Rockefeller Sr. in a fresco entitled Wall

Street Banquet (fig. 9). I believe that in his decision to commission the main decoration

of his building from Diego Rivera, Rockefeller was swayed by the admiration his wife

Abby Aldrich Rockefeller had for the artist. Perhaps another aspect that led more than

one capitalist patron to turn a blind eye to the painter’s socialist leanings was his work’s

value in the international art market.

The muralist was deeply impressed, not just by New York but by the extraordinary

construction of the Rockefeller complex, prompting him to ask his agent Frances Paine to

seek out “a commission to paint frescos, murals and other decorations in the development

20 The Empire State Building, which appears smaller in this image, was opened in 1931 and had more than a hundred floors, so actually Rockefeller Center was not the tallest complex in the city.21 Bertram D. Wolfe, The Fabulous Life of Diego Rivera, New York, Stein and Day, 1963, p. 302.

known as Rockefeller Center.”22 In asking Ms. Paine to pursue such contracts, Rivera

expressed his interest in painting at the greatest construction of its time. The site was

perfect for a mural: a majestic, emblematic New York building through which crowds of

people would move, an icon of capitalist development and the embodiment of modernity

in all its splendor (fig. 10).

Paine succeeded in interesting the Rockefellers in inviting Rivera to participate in the

Rockefeller Center art program. It appears that the first proposal was for Rivera to enter a

competition to create a mosaic celebrating the “American geniuses” in the lobby of the

RCA building, at the Sixth Avenue entrance, a project that Rivera rejected.23 But Rivera

did enter the competition to decorate the main lobby of that building. The muralist would

share a space with Pablo Picasso and Henri Matisse, who rejected the invitation.

Initially, Rivera also refused to participate in the selection process, saying he had painted

enough for people to know his value as an artist. “One can always have me make a sketch

—and take it or leave it-but NO competition.”24 It seems, however, that Diego Rivera

was not about to let such a sizeable commission slip through his fingers, since it was he

who initiated the search, so even in the company of lesser artists like Jose María Sert of

Spain and Frank Brangwyn of Great Britain, he would not pass up the opportunity to

make his mark on such an important wall: at the heart of Rockefeller Center. The

commission was controversial from the start, as critics argued that such an important spot

should have been given to American artists.

The lobby of the RCA building: its decorative program

The site for the mural was considered “the most important of the entrances.”25 The

Rockefeller family put together various committees to select the artists that would

22 Frances Paine would charge a 20% commission. Paine to Rivera, 28 March, 1932, Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo Archive (hereinafter, DRFKA)23 Paine to Rivera, May 6, 1932, DRFKA. Mr. Hood wrote a telegram to Rivera on May 11 that read: “I am very sorry I cannot accept,” May 11, 1932, DRFKA.24 Lucienne Bloch, “On Location with Diego Rivera,” Art in America, February 1986, p. 107.25 Business Interests, Record Group 20 MR, Series C, box 98, folder 98, Rockefeller Family Archives. I am grateful to Caitlin Bruce for her generosity in sharing the information on the documents in this archive, as well as the Rockefeller Center Archives.

decorate Rockefeller Center.26 The planning included a number of documents detailing

the aesthetic program, prepared by various company officials.27 In a text entitled

“Theme” that the Art Committee was to deliver to the artists, the theme of the decorations

at Rockefeller Center was established as “New Frontiers” (fig. 11). The painters should

see “the development of United States as a nation. […] Today our frontiers are of a

different kind. There are no new physical territories to explore and settle. Man cannot

pass up his pressing and vital problems by “moving on.” He has to solve them on his own

lot. The development of civilization is no longer lateral; it is inward and upward. It is the

cultivation of man’s own soul and mind, the broadening and deepening of his relations

with his fellowmen, the coming in to a fuller comprehension of the meaning and mystery

of life”.28 The emphasis was to be on the spiritual development of the human being. The

Rockefeller family wanted people, upon entering the building, to “pause and think and to

turn their minds inward and upward. We are not interested in having these paintings retail

facts or events, but rather, we hope, they may stimulate not only a material but above all a

spiritual awakening.”

Sert and Brangwyn were to work on symbolizing, respectively, “Man’s New Relation to

Matter […] his power, his will, his imagination, and his genius, the last being the divine

spark […],” and “Man’s New Relation to Man. That is man’s new and more complete

understanding of the real meaning of the Sermon on the Mount […] his family

relationships, his relationships as a worker, his relationships as part of government, and

his ethical or religious relationships.” An important precedent that reveals the level of

control the architects wished to exercise on the commissioned works is that they

“suggested” to Brangwyn that he eliminate the figure of Christ that appeared in his mural.

Rivera was assigned the theme of “Man at the crossroads and looking with uncertainty

but with hope and high vision to the choosing of a course leading to a new and better

26 Among the committee members were directors of museums and top-ranking educational institutions, like Edward W. Borbes, Fiske Kimball, Everett V. Meeks, Paul J. Sachs, and Herbert E. Winlock, Ibidem.27 These included public relations director Merle Crowell and George A. Vincent. For an analysis of the various documents on the decorative program, see Cathleen M. Paquette, op. Cit., pp. 82 and ss. A document entitled “The Theme,” mentions that Rivera was considered for decoration of other sites in Rockefeller Center. Ibidem. 28 “Theme. Re Painting in Great Hall of No. 1 Building Rockefeller Center”, September 30, 1932, DRFKA.

future.” It is here that we begin to wonder what would have led the Rockefeller family to

believe that Rivera, whose political positions were well-known, and his conception of a

“new and better future” would conform to the ideas and the capitalism they embraced..

The same document explains that the canvases were to be prepared in a monochromatic

range of white, black and grey, finished with two or three coats of varnish, and be in New

York ready to be set in place by April 1, 1933. The guidelines also establish that each

canvas must be signed by the artist with name and date, well away from the borders to

avoid having the signatures cut off at the time the canvases were placed. This precision

reveals how important it was for the planners to put together a collection of works by the

most renowned artists of the time, and to ensure that their authorship was unquestionable.

Thus, the project placed an emphasis on its bet on renowned artists, ensuring, in addition,

a good financial investment, which underscored the capitalist nature of the commission.

Rivera was aware of the importance of the issue, and above all, of the space where it

would be represented, so he adjusted his proposal to highlight them:

The wall under consideration is located at the precise axis of the group. Consequently, the

principal function of the painting was to express this axis and at the same time the height

of a sixty-seven story building […] The intersection of the macrocosm and the

microcosm in the atom, the cell, and the Man, establishes the exact plastic center of the

building, while the different scenes around them express the building's relative position in

space and time..29

So the worker at the center of the mural would be at once the axis of the wall, of the

building, and of Rockefeller Center—not precisely an apt representation of a capitalist

leader.

Man at the Crossroads: the inception

The written documents and sketches for the mural reveal a creative process that was

neither linear nor simple, but rather involving of a series of complicated negotiations and

conflicts between the Rockefellers, Diego Rivera, the press and the public. As we will

29 Diego Rivera, “The Stormy Petrel…”, op. cit., p. 26.

discover, the composition he finally painted is very different from what the Rockefeller

family and their architects approved.

The first draft of the mural is a quick sketch on a sheet of lined paper founded in the

Diego Rivera archive at the Museo Frida Kahlo30 (fig. 12). The structure of this first

unpublished sketch remains unchanged up until the signing of the contract in at least two

other preparatory sketches. The first is a pencil sketch dated November 1, 1932 and

approved by the architectural firm on November 7, 1932 (fig. 13), which is now part of

the MoMA collection. The second, prepared on canvas on a much larger scale, includes

some touches of color (fig. 14). The latter belongs to the collection at the Museo Diego

Rivera Anahuacalli and is very possibly the one that was approved by Todd and Hood,

architects for the Rockefeller family, since to obtain their final approval the work had to

produced on the same fabric as the paintings, with the canvases that were sent for the

painter to work on during his stay in Detroit.31

The composition was structured as a triptych, since the mural was to cover the three sides

of the elevator bank located in the center of the lobby. According to the painter, the visual

function of the central panel was to express the axis of the building and its majesty.32 At

the center appears the revolutionary trinity, a common image of the communist

imaginary, as can be seen in a photograph of three men (soldier, peasant, and laborer)

crossing the hammer and sickle (fig. 15). The revolutionary trinity was also a common

image in Mexican murals of the post-revolutionary period.33 In Rivera’s preparatory

drawing, a worker joins hands with a wounded soldier who has returned from war and a

peasant who wears a checkered shirt. The worker is the figure that would later take on the

30 Lucienne Bloch claims that the idea of uniting the representations of the macro and microcosmos, and of the atom, was hers (Lucienne Bloch, op. Cit., p. 108). Note, however, that Diego Rivera had already represented the human being as an image of the macrocosmos in “The Star of Humanity,” in the entryway to the chapel at Chapingo.31 The architectural firm send the canvases to Rivera to paint on during his stay in Detroit (H. & A.C. Friedrichs Co. to Diego Rivera, October 19, 1932, DRFKA. On November 7, 1932, Raymond Hood sent a telegram to the painter, saying that the sketch was approved by Rockefeller and that he could proceed to prepare drawings on a larger scale (DRFKA). On November 13, 1932, Rivera wrote Raymond Hood to say that the sketch was not ready to send to New York because it was not dry (DRFKA).32 Diego Rivera, “The Stormy Petrel…”, op. cit., p. 26.33 See Susana Pliego, Los murales de Diego Rivera en Chapingo, doctoral thesis for PhD in Art history, UNAM, Department of Philosophy and Literature, 2009.

face of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, leader of the Russian Bolshevik revolution, in the mural’s

final version.

After the triad, in what seems to be a great window on the Universe, another three figures

look at planets, comets and other astral bodies through telescopes. Scenes from the

microcosmos flow out on both sides: microorganisms and cells are visible through

microscopes, underscoring the role of technology in helping the human being to see

beyond what his eyes allow and “connecting atoms and cells with the astral system […]

Exactly in the median line, the cosmic energy received by two antennae is conducted to

the machinery controlled by the Worker, where it is transformed into productive

energy.”34

On both sides of the central group there are pairs of images projected on screens

surrounded by structures made up of pipes and other industrial elements, just as Rivera

had admired in Detroit’s industrial plants. Film and television made it possible for

viewers to observe, if only partially, other realities. In this sense, the mural alludes to

photo-montage, as a type of collage connecting a number of scenes. On the screens,

antennae conduct signals represented by waves that flow throughout the composition.

Technological process can be used to wage war or to cure people of various illnesses, and

to use nature to benefit humankind.

On the left had side appears a representation of socialism. On one screen, a parade in

Moscow’s Red Square is projected, showing Lenin’s tomb in the background and a great

number of red flags waving above the crowd, inspired by notes and photographs of

Rivera’s stay in Russia, which served as a source for this segment of the mural (fig. 16).35

On another screen, this time a movie screen, a filmmaker projects a group of women

athletes, highlighting the importance of physical health in the well-being of society. A

34 Document submitted by Rivera to the Art Committee. Cf. Bertram Wolfe, op. Cit., p. 26035 An extraordinary notebook of the artist’s sketches was acquired by Abby Aldrich Rockefeller, now part of the MoMA collection. Diego Rivera’s relationship with Russia goes back to his stay in Paris, where he spent time with Angelina Beloff and Marevna Vorobiev, among other soviet personages.

smaller inset reveals workers wearing gas masks in a factory. Before them, mothers and

children play peacefully.

On the right, as an opposite pole, appears the representation of capitalism. In the

uppermost screen we can see an army of soldiers wearing gas masks. Rivera kept one of

these masks, that can still be seen at the Casa Azul in Coyoacan (fig. 17). On the lower

screen we see the dejected unemployed, victims of the Great Depression; they are lining

up to obtain handouts of food from the State. Children on the capitalist side play tug-of-

war, competing to win, in contrast to the harmonious circle on the communist side.

The right-hand segment was entitled “The Frontier of Ethical Evolution” or “the

liquidation of superstition through science,” and it shows “human intelligence in

possession of the forces of nature,” a panel dominated by a massive classical sculpture of

an ancient Roman god, depicting “lightning striking off the hand of Jupiter and being

transformed into useful electricity that helps to cure man's ills, unites men through radio

and television, and furnishes them with light and motive power. Below, the Man of

Science presents the scale of Natural Evolution, the understanding of which replaces the

Superstitions of the past.”36 A monkey extends a hand to a child, referring to Charles

Darwin’s theory of the origin of the species,37 while an X-ray machine alludes to science

replacing idolatry and superstition, in a positivist approach to History. Rivera visited an

X-ray laboratory in New York to document this technological advance, as can be seen in

these photographs. Rivera’s assistant Stephen Dimitroff appears in one of them, and in

another we can see X-rays of a skull, possible sources for the mural (figures 18 and 19).

The left-hand segment features another semi-destroyed classical sculpture. This time is it

Caesar, a symbol of political power in ancient Rome, with its head lying on the ground.

This represents “the death of Tyranny” or “the frontier of material development […]

36 From the synopsis signed by Rivera in the Rockefeller Center Archives, also quoted in Laurance P. Hurlburt, The Mexican Muralists in the United States, Albuquerque, University of New Mexico Press, 1989, p. 159. Also in Bertram D. Wolfe, op. cit., p. 259.37 In the mural at the Bellas Artes palace in Mexico City, the man of science is Charles Darwin, but in the New York version, the painter did not finish the fragment, so we do not know if he intended to include Darwin. In the preparatory drawing at Anahuacalli, this figure does not appear.

Workers arriving at a true understanding of their rights regarding the means of

production, which has resulted in the planning of the liquidation of Tyranny, personified

by a crumbling statue of Caesar, whose head has fallen to the ground. It will also show

the Workers of the cities and the country inheriting the Earth.” 38 The Roman Caesar is

replaced by the revolutionary trinity—worker, soldier, peasant—surrounded by women

and children. The hands of the producers are placed on a map of the world that rests on

sheaves of wheat sustained by a dynamo, symbolizing agricultural production supported

by machinery and scientific technique, which results in an evolution of the means of

production. 39 In the background, three factory chimneys allude to the labor of humankind

as a condition for generating a new order.

The contract

Up until this point, Rivera had given no signs of provocation. He visited the site where

the work would be located, submitted the preliminary drawings requested of him, and

signed the corresponding contract on November 2, 1932 (fig. 20).40 To prevent any

conflict in advance, the Rockefeller family clearly stipulated the conditions of the

commission in a detailed document that the muralist signed with no objections. The

works were to be painted on canvas in a palette of greys, black and white.

The sketches were to be approved by the architects and faithfully followed. The

document is unequivocal: “If our architects shall not approve of the sketches in their

original form, or as the same may be changed by you pursuant to the suggestions, if any,

of said architects, we shall have the right to cancel this agreement at once by giving you

written notice by registered mail of our desire so to do. In such event, we shall return said

sketches to you, and neither you nor we shall be under any further liability one to the

other, and you shall have the right to retain the payment made by us to you upon the

delivery of this agreement […] In doing the final paintings, the sketches […] shall be

faithfully and closely followed”.41 The clause specifically mentions the consequences of

any authorized change in the work, so Rivera knew that the contract would be canceled if

38 Hurlburt, op. cit., p. 159.39 Ibidem.40 Contract between Diego Rivera and Rockefeller Center, November 2, 1932, DRFKA41 Ibídem.

he did not “faithfully” follow the sketches. Note also that the document says “our

architects,” which reveals that the people who conceived and drafted the philosophical

conception were members of the Rockefeller family, very possibly Abby and Nelson,

who always acted as mediators between the architects and the painter. The price agreed

upon for the commission was $21,500 dollars. The contract also stipulates that the

Rockefeller family’s architects were to return the sketches to the painter in the event of

cancellation, and is it very possibly owing to this clause that Rivera kept the sketches that

are today held in the Museo Diego Rivera-Anahuacalli collection.

The architect Raymond Hood traveled to Detroit to approve the sketch, signing it without

a single question. Rivera signed the contract in the same way. According to Lucienne

Bloch, he told Hood: “You signed my sketch without looking it over. You trust me, I

trust you!” 42 While Sert and Brangwyn stuck to the conditions of the contract and agreed

to paint on canvas in a monochromatic range, from the moment the contract was signed

Rivera began to negotiate and modify the points established in the document in a long

series of battles in which the painter triumphed, one by one.

The first battle was the change of medium: from oil on canvas to fresco. The architects

preferred to hang finished works instead of having scaffolding and materials present

during the final phase of the building’s construction (opening was planned for May 1,

1933). But Rivera saw fresco as a more appropriate technique for intervention in the

building, since a mural painting must be an integral part of the building that sustains it.

As he said: “Nothing can take the place of fresco in mural painting, because fresco is not

a painted wall, but rather a painting that is a wall.” 43 The painting would take on greater

meaning, since, as it became a part of the building, dollars could not pull it off the wall

that held it, so its permanence was guaranteed. Although there are techniques for

removing a mural, practically the only way is to destroy it with a chisel and hammer,

leaving what we might call a “scar” in the building. Rivera wrote to Abby Aldrich

Rockefeller begging her to allow him to paint in fresco, not just because it was his

42 Lucienne Bloch, op. cit., p. 108.43 Diego Rivera, “Arquitectura y pintura mural”, in Diego Rivera: textos de arte, op. cit., p. 206.

preferred medium and a familiar language, but because “of the architectural beauty of the

building it will be a thousand times better; beautiful fresco, than the hateful, lined

canvas.” 44 This letter very likely helped convince the architects that fresco was the right

technique for a work of this nature.

The second battle was over the use of color, an issue that fueled an intense debate

because the contract stipulated that the work would be executed in tones of grey that

would match the composition of the building’s materials. But for the painter, color was

necessary “to emphasize this vital center of the building, diminishing the color in two

lateral panels until it lost itself in the simple chiaroscuro of the two series of canvases to

be mounted on the side walls.” 45 He thought the lack of color would give the space a

funereal feeling, and with this argument convinced the architects to permit the use of

color; another win for Rivera.

Furthermore, Mr. Todd wrote to Diego, venturing that the composition seemed too

saturated, to which Diego answered that it did not have “too much, but just what is

necessary for clear understanding and good taste.” He goes on to ask: “Do you think that

in the “Last Judgment” of Michael Angelo there is too much?”46 With this, the third

battle was won. Finally, and equally as important, Rivera deviated significantly from the

preparatory drawings approved by the Rockefeller family, changed the compositional

structure of the mural, but even so finished three-quarters of it before the terrible scandal

arose.

Diego and Frida move to New York

In January 1933, Rivera sent two of his assistants, Art Niendorf and Stephen Pope

Dimitroff, to New York to build a metal structure covered with five layers of mortar to

minimize any vibration from the elevators. Lucienne Bloch (fig. 21), whom Rivera had

met at a dinner when he arrived in New York in December 1931 and became a key figure

44 Rivera to Abby Aldrich Rockefeller, November 5, 1932, Business interests, Record group 20 MR, Series C-Business Series, box 94, folder 706, Rockefeller Family Archives.45 Diego Rivera, “The Stormy Petrel of American Art…”, op. cit., p. 23.46 Rivera a Todd, November 11, 1932, DRFKA.

in the publicity surrounding the mural, because it was she who took the photos before it

was destroyed, took some preparatory photographs, because “in case the mural should

have to be removed, we needed to know exactly what was under the fresco surface.”47

Could they anticipated the possibility of the mural’s destruction?

Diego and Frida arrived on March 20, just after finishing the murals in Detroit. 48 Since

we know that the painter stopped work at Rockefeller Center on May 9, it seems that

there were just six weeks of intensive work on the mural.

As a tireless researcher with a personal mandate to represent the truth of things, Diego

received advice from scientists, engineers, biologists, inventors and doctors.49 According

to writer Anita Brenner, Rivera believed that “a work to which more than one person has

distributed labor is always superior to a purely individual product; and that is why, he

says, he prefers mural paintings.”50 Various helpers51 contributed to this collective work,

among them Lucienne and Stephen, who would later on marry and become muralists in

their own right. (figs. 22 and 23).

The transition of the image

The composition began to shift and simplify, as can be seen in the preparatory drawing

called Technical man (fig. 24), part of the Anahuacalli collection. The basic elements

remain, but others are integrated. The revolutionary trinity is moved from its central

location and appears in a scene off to the side. The central figure is now a man

controlling a great machine, now the absolute center of the composition. The

microcosmos and the macrocosmos appear in the form of two intersecting ellipses. The

47 Lucienne Bloch, op. cit., pp. 105 y 106.48 Dates taken from Hurlburt, op. cit., p. 166. The couple stayed at the Barbizon Hotel.49 V.K. Zworkin, a researcher hired by RCA and a pioneer in television, introduced him to cathode ray tubes and other new technologies. A professor of radiotherapy at New York Cornell Medical Center allowed him to make sketches and take photographs, while a professor of pediatrics at the Brooklyn Jewish Hospital allowed him to draw bacteria and images seen through the microscope. See Anita Brenner, “Diego Rivera: A Crusader of Art”, New York Times Magazine, April 2, 1933, p. 19. Lucienne Bloch says her brother Ivan helped him with the drawings of the cathode ray tubes. Lucienne Bloch, op. cit., p. 113.50 Anita Brenner, “Diego Rivera, A Fiery Crusader…”, op. cit., p. 19.51 Andrés Sánchez Flores, Ernst Halberstabt, Ben Shahn, Lou Block, Arthur Niendorff, Hideo Noda, Stephen Dimitroff y Lucienne Bloch.

scenes of the parade in Red Square, the athletes, the war, the line of unemployed, remain

in place. A series of circular elements evoking film reels refer to the new technologies.

The final version

The triptych format remained, although the central composition is dramatically more

dynamic than in previous version. In the center, along with the great machines, the scenes

framed by the two large ellipses are now circular, perhaps referring to the Nipkov disk,

with is distinctive circular pattern.52 The right hand side represents The liquidation of

superstition (fig. 25); the left, The death of tyranny (fig. 25); and the center, Man at the

crossroads (fig. 27). The mural presents a synthetic, dualistic vision of the areas of

human knowledge. The conception went from a philosophical one to a political one,

polarizing the two systems that were the only possible philosophical-political models of

the time: capitalism and socialism. These are balanced compositionally by the crossing of

the two great ellipses that create areas for three scenes on each side. Demonstrating his

capacity to simply express a very complex iconography, the painter explained his vision:

“the individualistic scheme of things existing has brought the world to chaos--war and

unemployment--and that the hope of the future lies in the organization of producers into

harmony and friendship and the control of the natural forces through high scientific

knowledge and the development of the skilled worker." Socialism, if you like.”53 There is

no ambiguity here: socialism will lead human beings to harmony, health and well-being,

while the ravages of capitalism are there for all to see, right in New York, where the

mural will be painted.

Scientific knowledge and modernity are expressed in a profusion of airplanes, dynamos,

telescopes and microscopes, televisions, cathode ray tubes and movie screens, which in

some way recognize the industrial power of the United States while at the same time

presenting a fantastic world like what we might see in science fiction. A dynamo appears

as a circular structure that frames the scene and gives it energy and movement.

52 The Nipkov disk was the earliest way to obtain images that could be transmitted by televisión. Cf. Vladimir Kosma Zworkin y George Ashmun Morton, Television: The Electronics of Image Transmission, New Jersey, J. Wiley & Sons, 1940, p. 243 53 Diego Rivera, “The Stormy Petrel…”, op. cit., p. 24.

The mural proposes the generation of “a continent peopled by numerous delegations of

all the races of humanity, to realize in the future the synthetic human compound divested

of racial hates, jealousies, and antagonisms, the synthesis that will give birth to intelligent

and producing Man, master, at least, of the earth, and enjoying it in the high knowledge

of creative energy and without the exploitation of his fellows”.54 Thus, wisdom, union

and technology will bring a better future. Two enormous lenses magnify the central

elements of the composition to students and workers sitting in various mixed groups.

The two great ellipses intersect. At one axis, a telescope allows us to see and comprehend

the most distant celestial bodies: planets, constellations, nebula and sundry stars represent

the macrocosm. Among them, we see the moon, an image probably taken from a

photograph acquired at the Museum of Natural History (fig. 28). Hidden in this universe

we spy a five-pointed star with the crossed hammer and sickle, the emblem of

communism (fig. 29)55 The other axis of the ellipse is a representation of the microcosm,

inhabited, on the capitalist side, by thousands of magnified germs that cause illnesses like

syphilis, gonorrhea, gangrene, tuberculosis and tetanus, 56 while on the socialist side we

see scenes of conception, cell division, and an embryo growing in utero, even as a

cancerous cell representing Stalinism threatens to destroy the new life. 57

The central axis of the fresco, and therefore of the building and Rockefeller Center, is a

worker. “In the center, Man, the intelligent and producing skilled worker, controls vital

energy and captures it for his own uses through the machine and by means of his

knowledge of the life of the vast inter-stellar spaces and of the immensity of micro-

biologic space; while the mechanized hand, symbol of human power in action, grasps

within its fingers the vital sphere”.58 Atomic fusion has been identified within this sphere.

54 Diego Rivera, Portrait of America, op. cit., p. 29.55 The sickle symbolizes rural workers, and the hammer industrial workers. Together, they represent the union of workers that together form the proletariat. The red star alludes to the give fingers of the worker’s hand and the five continents communism aspired to reach. These three together are the primary emblems of communism. 56 See sketch in Diego Rivera, “The Stormy Petrel…”, op. cit., p. 24.57 Lucienne Bloch, op. cit., p. 116.58 Diego Rivera, Portrait of America, op. cit., p. 29.

59 Of course: if human beings must choose between the two paths, the best choice is

socialism.

Capitalism is represented on the right hand side in three scenes that depict war,

destruction, corruption, sexually transmitted diseases, economic disparity and

unemployment. According to the painter, the soldiers with the gas masks show

“Chemical warfare, typified by hordes of masked soldiers in the uniforms of Hitlerized

Germany; unemployment, the result of the crisis; the degeneration and persistent

pleasures of the rich in the midst of the atrocious sufferings of the exploited toilers”.60

Committed to representing reality, Rivera replaced the bread line of unemployed in

previous versions with a repression of workers on Wall Street. Demonstrators carry

placards reading “We want bread! We are hungry! We want work!” According to

Lucienne Bloch, the scene comes from a photo that Ben Shahn showed Rivera, and which

documents a violent demonstration on Wall Street in desperate protest against the

conditions of the Depression. 61 Showing a battery of mounted police repressing the

hungry people right beside a frivolous bourgeoisie drinking champagne and playing

bridge was a stinging provocation. Not only that, but John D. Rockefeller was a supporter

of prohibition, so the inclusion of alcoholic beverages in the picture was also an act that

put to test the patience and tolerance of the Rockefeller family.

On the communist side, two of the scenes that appeared in the first sketches remain: the

women athletes and the soviet masses organized into a demonstration in Red Square,

under the shadow of the Kremlin and Lenin’s tomb, inspired by photographs of the 1928

marches in Moscow (fig. 30). Between the two ellipses, replacing the worker in the

revolutionary trinity, appears Lenin, joining hands with the workers, a soldier and a

peasant of African descent, among other representatives of the people (fig. 31). Beside

him, a mother suckles her infant, while a young couple embraces. In the words of the

59 Laurance P. Hurlburt, op. cit., p. 163.60 Diego Rivera, Portrait of America, op. cit., p. 28.61 Lucienne Bloch, op. cit., p. 115.

painter, it shows “in the realization of Lenin’s vision the sole possibility of living,

growing and reproducing love and peace.”62

The two life-sized drawings that belonging to the collection at the Museo Diego Rivera-

Anahuacalli prove that the composition continued to change. The liquidation of

superstition remained on the south wall, and The death of tyranny on the north wall (figs.

and ). Rivera introduced the racial component in both compositions by adding people

of various races. In The death of tyranny, in the place formerly occupied by workers, we

see people that seem to be airplane pilots. Among them is the first woman to cross the

Atlantic, Amelia Earhart.

The famous portrait of Lenin

Rivera claims that the famous labor leader was always present in the composition. This is

not totally clear from the evidence, however. In the preparatory drawings that survived,

there is a labor leader, but he does not seem to bear any resemblance to the Soviet

revolutionary. According to Lucienne Bloch, Lenin’s presence was a latter addition,

inspired by an article by journalist Joseph Lilly that appeared in the World Telegram on

April 24, 1933, headlined: “Rivera paints scenes of communist activity and John D. Jr.

foots bill.” 63 This blunt affirmation scandalized American society and provoked a

reaction in the artist: if people really believed the mural was communist, it would be

openly and explicitly communist.

Rivera took one step further, asking his assistants to get him a photograph of Vladimir

Ilyich Lenin.64 The assistants obtained various photographs, very probably the ones now

in the artist’s archive, which, in addition to the uncanny resemblance to the portrait on the

mural, bear a stamp indicating that they were acquired on 42nd street in New York (figs.

32 and 33). Rivera replaced the face of the labor leader joining the peasant and the

soldier in the spirit of fraternity with that of Lenin (fig. 34). According to the painter, the

62 Diego Rivera, Portrait of America, op. cit., p. 29.63 Lucienne Bloch, op. cit., p. 115.64 Ibidem, pp. 115-116. José Clemente Orozco had already represented Lenin in 1931 in the mural Struggle in the West at the New School for social Research, also in New York. But because it was located in a meeting room within a school, the mural did not spark the public debate that Rivera experienced

intend was to show Lenin “as the Leader, guiding the exploited masses towards a new

social order based on the suppression of classes, organization love and peace among

human beings, in contrast to the war, unemployment, starvation, and degeneration of

capitalist disorder”.65 The storm broke only a few days later.

The controversy

Rivera’s radicalism grew. The portrait of Lenin was just another on a long list of

provocations. The entire conception was distasteful to the bourgeoisie. Rivera challenged

his patrons in many ways: to begin with, negotiating various points and modifying the

composition after the contract was signed. But also in changing the technique from oil on

canvas to fresco, in painting the symbols of communism in the ellipse corresponding to

the microcosmos, including peoples of African descent, painting the communist flags

bright red, depicting repression on Wall Street while the upper classes blithely socialize

with syphilis and gonorrhea hovering behind them. In contrast, on the socialist side, we

see the organized masses, the athletes, the harmonious games and the united workers.

This dichotomy tells us that if man is at the crossroads and must choose between one path

or another, he would obviously prefer socialism, which proposes fraternity, harmony and

health. It was inconceivable that a fresco of this nature would welcome John D.

Rockefeller on his way to his offices on the building’s 56th floor.

On May 4th, Nelson A. Rockefeller wrote a friendly letter to the painter asking him to

replace Lenin’s face with that of an unknown person; the argument was that the mural

was in a public space, and the inclusion of that image might offend many people who

passed through the building (fig. 35). This was the start of a brief but intense storm that

lasted less than a week, from May 4th to the 9th, during which time there was an exchange

of letters between Nelson A. Rockefeller, Rivera and the architects, and which would end

in the cancellation of the contract and, ultimately, the destruction of the fresco.

The letters show that the Rockefeller family and their architects were willing to negotiate,

while the painter argued and stuck to his inflexible stance on the replacement of the

65 Diego Rivera, Portrait of America, op. cit., p. 27.

figure that had made his patrons so uncomfortable. The mood became tense and

uncertain. Sensing imminent action by the architects if the painter would not back down

from his demands to complete the contract, Lucienne Bloch hid her camera to take some

shots of the mural, today the only evidence of the work that survives today (figs. 36, 37,

and 38).

Rivera responded on May 6 (fig. 39) in a carefully drafted document, possibly aware of

how important it would become.66 In the letter, he argued that Lenin was there from the

start, in the written description and in the sketch, “as an abstract representation of the

concept of leader, an indispensable human figure.” Rivera argued that he had simply

moved Lenin to another less real space, “as if projected by a television apparatus.” A

television image, of course, can come from a distant time and place. The painter refused

to erase Lenin, but offered to change the sector of the capitalist vices to balance out the

composition and place instead the figure of Abraham Lincoln, a symbol of national unity

and the abolition of slavery, surrounded by other American leaders. The presence of both

leaders would make the general significance of his work clearer.

Rivera added: “I am sure that the class of person who is capable of being offended by the

portrait of a deceased great man, would feel offended, given such a mentality, by the

entire conception of my painting. Therefore, rather than mutilate the conception I should

prefer the physical destruction of the conception in its entirety, but conserving, at least,

its integrity”.67 It is interesting to note here that Rivera highlights the fact that the

American public might be insulted not only by the figure of Lenin, but by the entire

concept of the mural. It was perhaps this assertion that caused the Rockefeller family and

its architects to take a closer look at the mural, and thus to observe that the real theme of

the work was the choice of socialism over capitalism. Furthermore, Rivera is the first to

mention the possibility that the fresco would be destroyed before being mutilated or

censored. Could it be that at this point in the conflict, the painter saw the destruction of

his own work as a radical act that could serve as socialist propaganda?

66 Diego Rivera to Nelson Rockefeller, May 6, 1933, DRFKA. The letter was revised by Ben Shahn, since Rivera spoke French and Russian, but not English.67 ENGLISH TRANSLATION IN FOOTNOTE UNNECESSARY

The architects send a letter to Rivera by Ms. Paine on the morning of May 9, asking him

to make the suggested changes:

The description you gave us…of the subject matter of your “proposed mural decorations”

at Rockefeller Center, and the sketch which you presented to us at about the same time,

both led us to believe that your work would be purely imaginative. There was not the

slightest intimation, either in the description or in the sketch that you would include in

the mural any portraits or any subject matter of a controversial nature. Under the

circumstances we can not but feel that you have taken advantage of the situation to do

things which were never contemplated by either of us at the time our contract was made.

We feel therefore that here should be no hesitation on your part to make such changes as

are necessary to conform the mural to the understanding we had with you.”68

The architects noted the discrepancies between the contract the description of the agreed-

upon theme that Rivera had been assigned, leading them to feel that the painter had

“taken advantage.” The debate became a performance act. Rivera refuses again to

replace Lenin’s face, and the architectural firm responds the same day: “Under these

circumstances and much to our regret, we, the Managing Agents of Rockefeller Center,

feel that no alternative is open to us except to request you to discontinue work on the

mural forthwith. This request we hereby make, thus terminating our contract with you”

(fig. 40).69 The Rockefeller family paid the outstanding balance, as evidenced by the

corresponding receipt (fig. 41) and escorted the painter and his helpers out of the

building.70 This was the last day the Rivera worked on the mural.

The construction firm made the following statement:

68 Hugh Robertson to Diego Rivera, May 9, 1933, DRFKA.69 Todd, Robertson, Todd Engineering Corporation a Diego Rivera, May 9, 1933, DRFKA.70 Of the $14,000 dollars he received, the painter paid Frances Paine $3,000 for her work in obtaining the commission (the receipt is in the DRFKA). Bertram D. Wolfe, Rivera’s friend and comrade in the Communist Party, served as director of the New Worker’s School. The muralist decided to use the money paid by Rockefeller to paint a 21-panel mural entitled Portrait of America. In them, he repeated Lenin’s face and added other communist heroes.

Rivera's fresco has now reached the stage where it is clear that neither in general

treatment, nor in detail, will it fit into the unified decorative theme planned for the

great hall. In other words, irrespective of its merits as a painting, it is artistically

and thematically incongruous. These facts were called to Mr. Rivera's attention and

he was requested to make certain changes which would bring his fresco into

harmony with the architectural conception of the great hall. This he was unwilling

to do: consequently, Mr. Rivera has been paid his contract price and the fresco is

no longer in public view."71

The quality of the artwork was never in question; the debate was always about the theme;

the use of the mural as communist propaganda was totally unacceptable. On May 9,

Rivera recalls, “Mr. Robertson of Todd, Robertson and Todd, surrounded by his staff.

Protected by a triple line of men in uniform and civilian clothes, Mr. Robertson invited

me down from the scaffold to parley discreetly in the interior of the working shack and to

deliver the ultimatum along with the final cheque. I was ordered to stop works”.72

Signs of support materialized immediately (figs. 42, 43, 44, 45 and 46). Rivera dedicated

himself to broadcasting the event and making propaganda against his patron.

The mural was shrouded in a series of white cloth frames (fig. 47). The painter described

the event in mythical detail: “The entrance to the building was closed off with a heavy

thick curtain (was it also bullet-proof?), while the streets surrounding the Center were

patrolled by mounted policemen and the upper air was filled with the roar of airplanes

flying round the skyscraper, menaced by the portrait of Lenin.” 73 The reactions were not

long in coming. At this moment, a series of demonstrations and displays of support for

Rivera were begun, as well as those defending the Rockefeller family (fig. 48 and 49).

The national and international press announced that “The nation’s richest man had

ordered the veiling of the portrait of an individual named Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, because

a painter had represented him in a fresco as the Leader, guiding the exploited masses

71 “Rockefellers ban Lenin in RCA mural and dismiss Rivera,” The New York Times, May 10, 193372 Diego Rivera, Portrait of America, op. cit., p. 26.73 Diego Rivera, Portrait of America, op. cit., p. 27.

towards a new social order based on the suppression of classes, organization love and

peace among human beings, in contrast to the war, unemployment, starvation, and

degeneration of capitalist disorder.”74 Rivera gave conferences and wrote a series of

articles saying that he had gone to the United States “not just for the art, but for the

purpose of applying art to the cause of the proletariat.” (figs. 50, 51 and 52). 75

What is certain is that Lucienne Bloch’s photographs made a tour of the world, as evident

in their many appearances in newspapers, magazines and cultural supplements telling of

the incident, helping to mythologize the events and, although this was not the Rockefeller

family’s intent, to promote Lenin’s ideas (figs. 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 and 59).76

The painter did not see his work as destroyed. He pointed out that the reproductions by

the world press brought his painting to millions of people, more than would have been

able to view it at Rockefeller Center. He also said he intended to rebuild it.77 The matter

of the mural was referred to Todd, Robertson and Hood, and thus, to protect the family’s

image, Abby was pushed aside in the debate over the mural. Nelson A. Rockefeller had a

plan to save the fresco by removing it from the wall and taking it to the MoMA, but for

reasons that are not clear, but undoubtedly had to do with the mural’s ideological content,

his idea never materialized. 78 Finally, the Rockefeller family chose to remain silent, and

to avoid any responsibility for the fresco’s fate. 79

The destruction

74 Diego Rivera, Portrait of America, op. cit., p. 26. 75 “El Arte de Diego Rivera y la causa del proletariado,” El Universal, May 15 1933.76 Irene Herner de Larrea compiled more than a hundred articles mentioning the matter. See Irene Herner de Larrea, Diego Rivera´s Mural at the Rockefeller Center, Mexico, Edicupes, 1990.77 The event also had repercussions on Rivera’s projects. On May 11 he was notified of the cancellation of a commission to paint a mural at the Chicago World’s Fair entitled “Century of Progress”.78 For an analysis of this proposal, see Cathleen M. Paquette, op. cit., pp. 107 and ss. On December 15, 1933, John R. Todd wrote to Nelson Rockefeller saying he had no objections to moving the mural provided the cost was covered by the museum, without serious damage and without interfering with the elevator system. He also stressed the need to manage the information to prompt the appropriate response from the public. Business interests / 2 OMR, Series C-Business Series, Box 94, 706, Rockefeller Family Archives.79 Cfr. Laurance P. Hurlburt, op.cit., pp. 170 y ss.

On February 9, 1934, employees armed with hammers and chisels destroyed the murals

that, almost a year earlier, had unleashed a fierce debate between the Rockefeller family,

their builders, the painter and the public. The remains filled various oil drums.

Rockefeller Center Inc. issued a press release: "The Rivera mural has been removed from

the walls of the RCA building and the space replastered. The removal involved the

destruction of the mural".80 Lucienne Bloch visited the site mere days after the

destruction and wrote to Frida: “Now the wall is level and white. I scratched the plaster to

see if perhaps they hadn’t just painted it over—but not even that—the whole thing has

been torn up completely”.81

The mural’s destruction polarized the international cultural climate: there were those in

favor of the artist and the defense of an artwork itself, regardless of who might own it,

and in favor of freedom of expression. For these, the destruction was seen as a terrible

act of censorship (figs. 60 and 61). But there were also those who defended the

Rockefeller family, arguing that, because it was a commissioned work installed in private

property, the owner had the right to destroy the material work if he was not fully satisfied

with it.

Diego Rivera was back in Mexico when he learned of the destruction. He used all the

communications media available to him to decry the acts and raise a scandal. To El

Universal, he stated, “the events gave me a bitter satisfaction, because the action of

capitalists, assassinating an artwork, despite the stigma of vandalism and lack of culture

that it has brought down upon them, proves that the revolutionary meaning of the

painting was strong enough for them to prefer to murder it, thus destroying the patient

and hypocritical work they have done through donations and scientific and philanthropic

foundations for years, to excuse themselves before human society for all the social crimes

they committee to amass the fortune they possess.” 82 The “bitter satisfaction” he

expresses reveals his intention to execute a work whose “revolutionary meaning” was

80 Rockefeller Center / 393 / 1934. Rockefeller Center Archives.81 Lucienne Bloch to Frida Kahlo, February 15, 1934, DRFKA José María Sert replaced the mural with a canvas painting on the theme American progress or Man’s conquests.82 Oscar Leblanc, “Diego Rivera y Rockefeller: asesinato de una obra artística: el famoso fresco borrado es conocido ya en todo el mundo”, El Universal, February 15, 1934, pp. 1 and 7.

enough for its destruction to reveal “the truth” behind the Rockefeller family fortune and

capitalist values. Thus, Rivera termed the destruction “cultural vandalism,” comparable

to Hitler’s barbaric book-burning on May 10, 1933 at the Bebelplatz in Berlin, only days

after the mural contract was canceled, or the massacre of workers in Colorado by the

Rockefeller family at the Ludlow mine in Colorado in 1914 (figs. 62 and 62).83

Reproduction of the mural at the Palacio de Bellas Artes

Diego and Frida returned to Mexico in 1934. In June, the Mexican government signed a

contract with the painter to reconstruct the composition at Mexico City’s Palacio de

Bellas Artes, soon to be opened. Rivera used the sketches and photographs of Lucienne

Bloch as a starting point for this work (fig. 64). It remains a painting that, with some

iconographic adjustments and others relating to space limitations, is the closest we can

come to imagining the mural at Rockefeller Center (figs. 65 and 66). But the political

and cultural climate in Mexico at that time was very different from New York, so the

mural did not have the same repercussions as the New York version. The work’s radical

quality was lost when it was rebuilt far from the heart of capitalism, and because it had

not been commissioned by one of the most powerful capitalist families of its time.

Perhaps in a gesture that could connect both frescos, and in testimony to the mural that

came before it, the painter included a portrait of John D. Rockefeller Jr., glass in hand, in

a scene of capitalist decadence, very close to the germs that cause venereal disease. This

time he went further, including, alongside Lenin, Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Lovestone,

Bertram D. Wolfe and other communist leaders waving the flag of the Fourth Communist

International.

To strike at the heart of capitalism with such a radical act clearly proved the painter’s

deep political convictions, while setting the stage for an ethical debate over ownership,

the value of art as such, regardless of its owner, and above all, art as a tool for

propaganda and political struggle. Perhaps the Rockefeller Center mural fulfilled its

purpose by being destroyed: to serve as socialist propaganda in the center of the capitalist

world, to promote socialism as a viable political system for a classless society, to use the

83 The painter’s original is the draft of a text that circulated in various media, like the World Telegram, the Herald Tribune and the New York Times, to name but a few.

mass media as instruments of power by revealing to the world the intolerance of powerful

capitalist families. New York would recover from the crisis, but the wound at its

symbolic center remains.

I am grateful to Caitlin Bruce, María Elena González, Cathleen M. Paquette, Hilda Trujillo, Carlos Enríquez Verdura, Luciano Matus, Pablo Ortiz Monasterio and Daniel Vargas for the support, conversations and comments that enriched this text, although the responsibility for its content is entirely mine. Diego Rivera, “The Stormy Petrel of American Art, Diego Rivera on his Art”, The London Studio, London, July 1933, p. 26 The issue has a long article about the key figures and history of the Soviet Union, and promotions for travel to the country. It is not known for certain whether this image or the parade that appears in Man at the crossroads is actually a May Day parade, or whether the drawings were made during the massive festivities surrounding the 10th anniversary of the October Revolution. But it was Rivera that identified them as May Day images in Diego Rivera and Gladys March, May Art, my Life, new York, Dover, 1991, pp. 93 and 126. Dickerman maintains that they are from the October Revolution commemoration. Cf. Leah Dickerman and Anna Indych Lopez, Diego Rivera: Murals for the Museum of Modern Art, New York, the Museum of Modern Art, 2011, exhibit catalog, p. 45, no. 17. See Peter J. Johnson and John Ensor Harr, The Rockefeller Century: Three Generations of America’s Greatest Family, New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1988, and Robert Linsley, “Utopia will not be Televised: Rivera at Rockefeller Center”, Oxford Art Journal, vol. 17, no. 2, 1994, y Cathleen M. Paquette, Public Duties, Private Interests: Mexican Art at New York’s Museum of Modern Art, 1929-1954, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California at Santa Barbara, 2002, pp. 82 and ss. Of the one million dollars budgeted for construction, $150,000 were allocated to the Art Project. Abby Aldrich Rockefeller is known to have commissioned portraits of her grandchildren from Rivera, acquired the watercolors for the H.P. (Horse Power) Ballet and the Russian sketchbook, and asked Ms. Paine to secure a sketch of the painting Wall Street Banquet, to mention just a few of her Rivera acquisitions. The 70-storey building is located at 30 Rockefeller Plaza, between 49th and 50th streets and between Fifth Avenue and Sixth Avenue (Avenue of the Americas), just behind the sculpture of Prometheus. On the 65th floor, the famous Rainbow Room restaurant-terrace welcomes New York’s elite. The building later became the headquarters for General Electric (GE) and the National Broadcasting Company (NCB). Diego Rivera, “The Stormy Petrel…”, op. cit., p. 26. Cf. Mircea Eliade, Tratado de Historia de las Religiones, Mexico, Era, 1973, p. 273. Plato, “Protagoras or The Sophists”, in Diálogos, Mexico, Porrúa, 2009, p. 156. Remember that José Clemente Orozco painted Prometheus at Pomona College’s Frary Hall in California, in 1930. This is a concept that comes primarily from masonry. Many members of the Rockefeller family have been masons, including John D. Rockefeller Jr. himself. By 1933, Rivera had decorated the amphitheater of the National Preparatory School, the Ministry of Public Education, the National Agricultural School at Chapingo and the Palace of Cortez in Cuernavaca, and had begun the murals at the National Palace. See the Manifesto of the Union of Workers, Technicians, Painters and Sculptors (SOTPE), published in El Machete no. 7, 2nd half of June 1924. Anita Brenner, “Diego Rivera: Fiery Crusader of the Paint Brush”, The New York Times Magazine, April 2, 1933, p. 10. Diego Rivera, Portrait of America, New York, Covici, Friede, 1934, p. 13 Frances Flynn Paine was an art broker, cultural representative, creator of the Mexican Arts Association. She charged a 20% commission on the sale of Rivera’s work, including the commission for the RCA building. Paine visited Mexico City in Fall 1931 to organize the exhibit and accompany the painter and his wife, Frida Kahlo, to New York. For a more detailed analysis of Paine’s relationship with the Rockefeller family, see Cathleen M. Paquette, op. cit.

A total of 56,519 people visited the exhibit, which was recently commemorated with a show entitled “Diego Rivera: Murals for the Museum of Modern Art” at the MoMA from November 2011 to May 2012. See Leah Dickerman and Anna Indych-López, op. cit. The painter prepared eight portable murals especially for the exhibition: Agrarian leader Zapata; Sugarcane; Liberation of the peon; Indian warrior; The uprising; Frozen assets; Electrical Energy; and Pneumatic drill. Description taken from Diego Rivera and Gladys March, op. cit., p. 110 The Empire State Building, which appears smaller in this image, was opened in 1931 and had more than a hundred floors, so actually Rockefeller Center was not the tallest complex in the city. Bertram D. Wolfe, The Fabulous Life of Diego Rivera, New York, Stein and Day, 1963, p. 302. Frances Paine would charge a 20% commission. Paine to Rivera, 28 March, 1932, Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo Archive (hereinafter, DRFKA) Paine to Rivera, May 6, 1932, DRFKA. Mr. Hood wrote a telegram to Rivera on May 11 that read: “I am very sorry I cannot accept,” May 11, 1932, DRFKA. Lucienne Bloch, “On Location with Diego Rivera,” Art in America, February 1986, p. 107. Business Interests, Record Group 20 MR, Series C, box 98, folder 98, Rockefeller Family Archives. I am grateful to Caitlin Bruce for her generosity in sharing the information on the documents in this archive, as well as the Rockefeller Center Archives. Among the committee members were directors of museums and top-ranking educational institutions, like Edward W. Borbes, Fiske Kimball, Everett V. Meeks, Paul J. Sachs, and Herbert E. Winlock, Ibidem. These included public relations director Merle Crowell and George A. Vincent. For an analysis of the various documents on the decorative program, see Cathleen M. Paquette, op. Cit., pp. 82 and ss. A document entitled “The Theme,” mentions that Rivera was considered for decoration of other sites in Rockefeller Center. Ibidem. “Theme. Re Painting in Great Hall of No. 1 Building Rockefeller Center”, September 30, 1932, DRFKA. Diego Rivera, “The Stormy Petrel…”, op. cit., p. 26. Lucienne Bloch claims that the idea of uniting the representations of the macro and microcosmos, and of the atom, was hers (Lucienne Bloch, op. Cit., p. 108). Note, however, that Diego Rivera had already represented the human being as an image of the macrocosmos in “The Star of Humanity,” in the entryway to the chapel at Chapingo. The architectural firm send the canvases to Rivera to paint on during his stay in Detroit (H. & A.C. Friedrichs Co. to Diego Rivera, October 19, 1932, DRFKA. On November 7, 1932, Raymond Hood sent a telegram to the painter, saying that the sketch was approved by Rockefeller and that he could proceed to prepare drawings on a larger scale (DRFKA). On November 13, 1932, Rivera wrote Raymond Hood to say that the sketch was not ready to send to New York because it was not dry (DRFKA). Diego Rivera, “The Stormy Petrel…”, op. cit., p. 26. See Susana Pliego, Los murales de Diego Rivera en Chapingo, doctoral thesis for PhD in Art history, UNAM, Department of Philosophy and Literature, 2009. Document submitted by Rivera to the Art Committee. Cf. Bertram Wolfe, op. Cit., p. 260 An extraordinary notebook of the artist’s sketches was acquired by Abby Aldrich Rockefeller, now part of the MoMA collection. Diego Rivera’s relationship with Russia goes back to his stay in Paris, where he spent time with Angelina Beloff and Marevna Vorobiev, among other soviet personages. From the synopsis signed by Rivera in the Rockefeller Center Archives, also quoted in Laurance P. Hurlburt, The Mexican Muralists in the United States, Albuquerque, University of New Mexico Press, 1989, p. 159. Also in Bertram D. Wolfe, op. cit., p. 259. In the mural at the Bellas Artes palace in Mexico City, the man of science is Charles Darwin, but in the New York version, the painter did not finish the fragment, so we do not know if he intended to include Darwin. In the preparatory drawing at Anahuacalli, this figure does not appear. Hurlburt, op. cit., p. 159. Ibidem. Contract between Diego Rivera and Rockefeller Center, November 2, 1932, DRFKA Ibídem. Lucienne Bloch, op. cit., p. 108. Diego Rivera, “Arquitectura y pintura mural”, in Diego Rivera: textos de arte, op. cit., p. 206. Rivera to Abby Aldrich Rockefeller, November 5, 1932, Business interests, Record group 20 MR, Series C-Business Series, box 94, folder 706, Rockefeller Family Archives.

Diego Rivera, “The Stormy Petrel of American Art…”, op. cit., p. 23. Rivera a Todd, November 11, 1932, DRFKA. Lucienne Bloch, op. cit., pp. 105 y 106. Dates taken from Hurlburt, op. cit., p. 166. The couple stayed at the Barbizon Hotel. V.K. Zworkin, a researcher hired by RCA and a pioneer in television, introduced him to cathode ray tubes and other new technologies. A professor of radiotherapy at New York Cornell Medical Center allowed him to make sketches and take photographs, while a professor of pediatrics at the Brooklyn Jewish Hospital allowed him to draw bacteria and images seen through the microscope. See Anita Brenner, “Diego Rivera: A Crusader of Art”, New York Times Magazine, April 2, 1933, p. 19. Lucienne Bloch says her brother Ivan helped him with the drawings of the cathode ray tubes. Lucienne Bloch, op. cit., p. 113. Anita Brenner, “Diego Rivera, A Fiery Crusader…”, op. cit., p. 19. Andrés Sánchez Flores, Ernst Halberstabt, Ben Shahn, Lou Block, Arthur Niendorff, Hideo Noda, Stephen Dimitroff y Lucienne Bloch. The Nipkov disk was the earliest way to obtain images that could be transmitted by televisión. Cf. Vladimir Kosma Zworkin y George Ashmun Morton, Television: The Electronics of Image Transmission, New Jersey, J. Wiley & Sons, 1940, p. 243 Diego Rivera, “The Stormy Petrel…”, op. cit., p. 24. Diego Rivera, Portrait of America, op. cit., p. 29. The sickle symbolizes rural workers, and the hammer industrial workers. Together, they represent the union of workers that together form the proletariat. The red star alludes to the give fingers of the worker’s hand and the five continents communism aspired to reach. These three together are the primary emblems of communism. See sketch in Diego Rivera, “The Stormy Petrel…”, op. cit., p. 24. Lucienne Bloch, op. cit., p. 116. Diego Rivera, Portrait of America, op. cit., p. 29. Laurance P. Hurlburt, op. cit., p. 163. Diego Rivera, Portrait of America, op. cit., p. 28. Lucienne Bloch, op. cit., p. 115. Diego Rivera, Portrait of America, op. cit., p. 29. Lucienne Bloch, op. cit., p. 115. Ibidem, pp. 115-116. José Clemente Orozco had already represented Lenin in 1931 in the mural Struggle in the West at the New School for social Research, also in New York. But because it was located in a meeting room within a school, the mural did not spark the public debate that Rivera experienced Diego Rivera, Portrait of America, op. cit., p. 27. Diego Rivera to Nelson Rockefeller, May 6, 1933, DRFKA. The letter was revised by Ben Shahn, since Rivera spoke French and Russian, but not English. ENGLISH TRANSLATION IN FOOTNOTE UNNECESSARY Hugh Robertson to Diego Rivera, May 9, 1933, DRFKA. Todd, Robertson, Todd Engineering Corporation a Diego Rivera, May 9, 1933, DRFKA. Of the $14,000 dollars he received, the painter paid Frances Paine $3,000 for her work in obtaining the commission (the receipt is in the DRFKA). Bertram D. Wolfe, Rivera’s friend and comrade in the Communist Party, served as director of the New Worker’s School. The muralist decided to use the money paid by Rockefeller to paint a 21-panel mural entitled Portrait of America. In them, he repeated Lenin’s face and added other communist heroes. “Rockefellers ban Lenin in RCA mural and dismiss Rivera,” The New York Times, May 10, 1933 Diego Rivera, Portrait of America, op. cit., p. 26. Diego Rivera, Portrait of America, op. cit., p. 27. Diego Rivera, Portrait of America, op. cit., p. 26. “El Arte de Diego Rivera y la causa del proletariado,” El Universal, May 15 1933. Irene Herner de Larrea compiled more than a hundred articles mentioning the matter. See Irene Herner de Larrea, Diego Rivera´s Mural at the Rockefeller Center, Mexico, Edicupes, 1990. The event also had repercussions on Rivera’s projects. On May 11 he was notified of the cancellation of a commission to paint a mural at the Chicago World’s Fair entitled “Century of Progress”. For an analysis of this proposal, see Cathleen M. Paquette, op. cit., pp. 107 and ss. On December 15, 1933, John R. Todd wrote to Nelson Rockefeller saying he had no objections to moving the mural provided the cost was covered by the museum, without serious damage and without interfering with the elevator system.

He also stressed the need to manage the information to prompt the appropriate response from the public. Business interests / 2 OMR, Series C-Business Series, Box 94, 706, Rockefeller Family Archives. Cfr. Laurance P. Hurlburt, op.cit., pp. 170 y ss. Rockefeller Center / 393 / 1934. Rockefeller Center Archives. Lucienne Bloch to Frida Kahlo, February 15, 1934, DRFKA José María Sert replaced the mural with a canvas painting on the theme American progress or Man’s conquests. Oscar Leblanc, “Diego Rivera y Rockefeller: asesinato de una obra artística: el famoso fresco borrado es conocido ya en todo el mundo”, El Universal, February 15, 1934, pp. 1 and 7. The painter’s original is the draft of a text that circulated in various media, like the World Telegram, the Herald Tribune and the New York Times, to name but a few.