The New School-Painting Analysis - Thesis Example

Name: University: Course: Tutor: Date: Introduction This paper has been written with an intention of making a reconstruction on The New School Painting from Karl Marx’s ideology of Industrial Relations, Class Consciousness and Antagonism. The New School is a 1923 Fresco painting by Diego Rivera (1886-1957). This painting is presently hung on the Mexican ministry of education’s south wall. In particular, this south wall is located within Mexico City. Several factors underpin this painting, The New School. For instance, Rivera as the artist himself lived at the time of the Mexican Revolution. The Mexican revolution was antithetical to the Spanish occupation in Mexico. This is because; the Spanish occupation was seen to be highly fascist and capitalistic, so that it heralded a system of inequality in Mexico, so that two classes clearly emerged: the rich and powerful capital owners (the white Spanish dukes) who owned the factors of production (land, factories and capital) on one hand, and the poor, beset by abject poverty, unable to secure health care, education and a decent income (Marx, 179). The Mexican Revolution was carried out to oust the Spanish occupation. The Spanish occupation ensured the oppression of the Mexicans since the aforementioned factors of production became appropriated by the capitalist Spaniards. It is clear that the political views of Rivera were inundated heavily by Karl Mar’s ideology, simply known as Marxism, an ideology which taught by Karl Marx in the formative stages of the 19th century. Therefore, as a sculptor, and graphic artist, Rivera exhibited his predisposition to the dictates of Marxism through his paintings. Theme Statement It is true that Rivera’s painting of The New School is an accurate synthesis of a Marxist interpretation of the pre-independent Mexico, at the time it was under the yoke of the Spanish occupation and exploitation. At the same time, the painting acts as an accurate prediction of the victory and the subsequently new dispensation that would later be bequeathed to Mexico. The painting, The New School In this painting, Rivera presents a panoramic view, which is set against the mountain ranges. The painting has the background totally sandy, brown and is completely bereft of any vegetation. This dry land is reflective of the capitalistic and unequal economic. However, it must be remembered that the artist’s main intention is to portray stark naked capitalism as being so inhuman, it ravages the land dry, unable to support the poor proletariat. Secondly, and claiming about a quarter portion of the painting as a rudimentary type of school is the group learning which is being carried out under direct sun. Interestingly, the class consists of students who are youthful, inquisitive and intelligent. This is presented against the backdrop of the Marxist endearments that capitalism exploits the workers (not the children), especially the youthful ones for the maximization of the profit (Marx, 185). Therefore, the youth become the target of both revolutionary and antirevolutionary forms of influence. It is thus not fortuitous that the youth is the core of this school. The 1920s New Mexican Movement was aimed at raising high the revolutionary spirit against the exploitative Spanish bourgeoisie (Hunter, 2004 p 22). Still on the school, Rivera the artist seems to paint a glimmer of hope by depicting the teacher as a woman, whose face is the most radiant in the painting. This may betray a religious twist, as some see in this, the depiction of the virgin. This notion may be underscored by the fact that she has a book in her hand. The lucidity in this postulation is based on the fact that as early as the Medieval Era, the veneration of the Madonna and the virgin concepts were already full-fledged in Mexico. If the above is true, then the artist’s intention may only be construed as seeing the Virgin as the patron of Mexico who is able to vanquish the bands of exploitative capitalism (Guthrie, 1996 p 75). Similarly, if the above is accorded credence, then Rivera may have diverted from Marxism, for Marxists see religion, faith and spirituality as an antirevolutionary force. Religion is described by Marx as having the potency to opiate the masses, rather than reminding the masses of their plight into a revolution against the ruling class. To Karl Marx and his protégés such as Hegel, Friedrich Angels and Rosa Luxemburg, religion derailed the masses from carrying out a revolution on the account that it promised riches (reward) in heaven, not on earth while also seeking to inculcate strongly, very docile predispositions such as obedience, loyalty and subservience to the state upon the masses. Therefore, by the virtue of religion, the masses are easily convinced to seek solace in the illusions of the world to come. Right near the school, is the most towering figure in the painting: an army general in military fatigue who, mounted on a horse, is armed to the teeth with a rifle and rounds of ammunition. This army general patronizes the affairs of the school, as he can be seen keeping a stern eye over the study group. In this case, he totally reverberates the fact that in naked capitalism, through the instruments of coercion (the state monopoly of force), the bourgeoisie is able to keep the proletarian in subservience. The police thus exists to keep a revolution from happening, and to protect the wealth of the bourgeoisie. As pointed out by Knight, (1990 p 125), the socio-economic status of the Mexican is also reflected by the sight of this school. It is only up to the turn of 1920s that Mexican can access the remotest form of education- an affair which is a direct contradiction of the Spanish bourgeoisie. However, in spite of the poor teaching and educational incentives and pedagogy, the school is able to act out its role in ushering in political, economic and social emancipation to the Mexicans, despite having no formal class to teach in. It is also important to note that the depiction of the 1920s Mexican school mainly takes the form of a group; hence the name: study groups. Similarly, it is not highly expedient for one to stare analytically at the school circle for one to notice that it remains highly bereft of all the incentives of learning and academics. The book is only one academic material which the school has, so that it remains at the hands of the teacher. This depiction totally alludes to the conditions which surrounded the primordial learning situations in Mexico. Facts agree with Rivera’s panoramic drawing of his ideological standpoint that under the yokes and tutelage of the white Spaniard bourgeoisie, the Mexicans were denied of any chance to access education, especially the formal type of education. In actual sense, this was an artifice to ensure that the Mexicans were totally oblivious of their human rights and civil liberties (Engle, 2009 p 139). In respect to the above situation, it remains true that it was until the second half of the 1920s that the Spaniards accorded the Mexicans the chance to access education, albeit only up to the elementary level. The importance of keeping the Mexicans oblivious of their rights was meant to assuage any chances of revolutions or other volatile conditions. In most circumstances, revolutions which have taken place have had the masses becoming cognizant of their rights. For instance, the French Revolution (1789-1799) was carried out after the masses acknowledged their roles in the development and running of France, their rights to access essentials to life (victuals, vestments and decent domicile), and the fact that they were being exploited by the monarchical rule of Louis XVI, his wife Marie-Antoinette and the Roman Catholic Church hegemony. The above rings true such that as a concept, it cannot be gainsaid: for instance, right after the Napoleonic revolution, Europe came up with the Metternich System which also did portend: the seizing of the revolutionary materials and advocates; and a dense spy network which penetrated the universities, ostensibly to keep the balance of power in Europe. Therefore, this towering and patronizing government agent cannot be claimed as strikingly unique, as far as capitalism is concerned. His is to peek into the learning activities, so as to ensure that the whole expanse of Mexico is devoid of revolutionary elements. That he bears arms presents him as the strongest in the painting: he virtually can lord over the unarmed masses without much ado. Nevertheless, a closer look at the picture depicts the school as being superimposed over the nether parts of the armed horseman. This is the artist’s subtle artifice to present the Achilles’ heels. Derelict of any moral bearing, the surges of the revolutionary forces is bound to overtake the powers of the capitalist Spanish imperialism. By extension, that the group’s images cascades over that of the general, marks the fact that eventually, it is the group which will have its will superimposed over that of the selfish minority. Generally, Marxism has it that eventually, the only factor or force which will oust the bourgeoisie from oppressing the masses, is through revolution. According to Womack (1969 p 66), right behind both the school depiction and the army general, is a class of workers who are presented in two groups. As usual, these workers are the very object of exploitation at the hands of the bourgeoisie. They do not own a thing, save their labor. Nevertheless, the sad twist of fate has it that even the worth of their labor is to be given appraisal by the bourgeoisie who owns both land and capital. The Mexican proletariat was thus left highly susceptible to poverty. Conclusion The “Organization of American States” (1963, p 84) collective authors of the book Americas writes that the reforms which came about in Mexico were all realized through struggle. For instance, it is a well-known fact that to achieve independence from the Spaniards, the Mexican-born Spaniards, the Amerindians and the Mestizos, though not being in possession of powerful weapons, successfully rebelled against the Spanish colonial masters. This war of independence can be said to have genesis with La Malinche and Hernan Cortes who were interested in throwing away the bands of oppression for the Conquistadores. Since the independence did not secure the reforms which had been clamored for this war for Mexican independence was again followed by the Mexican Revolution a century later (1910). All the above remain concomitant with Rivera\s painting as it is true that the Mexicans were able to vanquish the Spaniards from Mexico through armed struggle though the Mexicans had no superior weapons as the Spaniards. Bibliography Engle, Eric Human Rights According to Marxism (London: Working Paper Press, July 26th, 2009). Guthrie, Kevin, The New York Historical Society: Lessons from One Nonprofit’s Long Struggle (Michigan: Jossey-Bass, 1996). Hunter, Dan Culture War (New York: New York Law School, September 7th, 2004). Knight, Alan, The Mexican Revolution: Counterrevolution and Reconstruction (Nebraska: U of Nebraska Press, 1990) Marx, Karl and Cowling, Mark. The Communist Manifesto: New Interpretations (Berlin: Edinburgh University Press, 1998). Organization of American States, Americas (New York: Organization of American States, 1963). Womack, John, Zapata and the Mexican Revolution (Los Angeles: Borzoi Books, 1969) Read More