Pan American Unity:Diego Rivera’s Dramatic Interlude

With Trotsky

Elsie Casler

“I believe in order to make an American art, a real American art, will be necessary this blending of theart of the Indian, the Mexican, the Eskimo with the kind ofurge which makes the machine, the inventionin the material side of life, which is also the artistic urge-the same urge primarily but in a dfferentfomz

of expression.”-Diego Rivera in conversation with Dorothy Puccinelli

Visual art has the ability, as no other medium has, to synthesize and concentrate in potentsymbolic form the events of an era. Viewing a piece of art can have the sensory effect oftransporting the observer to another time as if through a portal to another dimension. Tn 1940

Diego Rivera, the renowned Mexican artist and muralist, created such a work of art when he painted thePan American Unity Mural, which is now housed in the lobby of the Diego Rivera Theater at SanFrancisco City College. Timothy Pfleuger, one of San Francisco’s premier architects, commissionedRivera to paint the mural for the Golden Gate International Exposition (GGIE) that was held on TreasureIsland during 1939-40. His work was the centerpiece of the Art In Action exhibit that featured manydifferent artists engaged in creating works during the Exposition while the public watched. At the timethat the mural was created Diego Rivera was perhaps the most famous Mexican artist in the world. Hewas friends and colleagues with major players in the international art world, such as Pablo Picasso andAndré Breton, and he lived his own life, like his personal dimensions, in large, broad flamboyantstrokes. Rivera’s Pan American Unity Mural is both a time capsule of the events that surrounded itscreation as well as representative of the evolution of the ideology that underlay the Mexican MuralismMovement as understood and experienced by Rivera.

The mural is constructed in five panels that are ordered from left to right. Panel One’s theme is“The Creative Genius of the South Growing from Religious Fervor and the Native Talent for PlasticExpression.” This panel is cross-referenced with Panel Five’s theme, “The Creative Culture of the NorthDeveloping from the Necessity of Making Life Possible in a New and Empty Land.” Panel Two’s theme,“Elements from the Past and Present” cross-references Panel Four’s which is, “Trends of Creative Effortin the United States, The Rise of Woman in Various Fields of Creative Endeavor Through her Use of thePower of Manmade Machinery.” Finally, the central and third Panel represents the overarching theme ofthe mural, “The Plastification of the Creative Power of the Northern Mechanism by Union with thePlastic Tradition of the South.”1 The intricacy of the mural lies in the reflexive quality of the outerpanels that lead the viewer’s eye to the central panel containing the artist’s underlying intent andoverarching theme of Pan American Unity. While the biography of Rivera by Patrick Mamharn andAnthony Lee’s examination of San Francisco’s Public Murals painted during the 1 930s and 40s, Faintingon the Left, present the Pan American Unity mural in some respects as a lesser work of the artist, themural is nonetheless an important historical document in regards to its symbolism and content.

The themes presented in the mural are universal and as large as the events that engulfed theworld, as well as Rivera’s personal life, during that time. His stormy and passionate marriage to FridaKahlo, a famous artist in her own right, as well as his relationship to the world of revolutionary politics

would inform his efforts to paint this mural. The message of Pan American Unity had evolved out of theMexican muralist project overseen by José Vasconcelos, Minister of Education under the Mexicanpresident Alvaro Obregón’s administration, and expounded in the minister’s philosophy which heexpressed in his work La Raza Cësmica. The evolution of the concept of Pan American Unity also ranparallel to the evolution of international events ranging from the end of Pothro Diaz’s reign in Mexicoand the world’s entanglement in World War One to the looming destruction of World War Two. Therewas for Rivera a convergence of the ideological conflict embodied by the evolution of the Russian andMexican Revolutions as seen from his vantage point in Mexico at the end of the 193Os. This would becrystallized by a brief interlude spent as host to Trotsky, the once-commander of the Red Army in theRussian Revolution, during which time Rivera’s personal and political worlds would collide. There isevidence of specific events that had current import to the period of time that the mural was created.Likewise there is the essence of an overarching dialectic in the mural that wrestles with how humansociety would progress from the shambles it seemed to be in at the moment to a better future. Thethematic sweep of history and humanity’s struggle for self-determination are interwoven with Rivera’simagery representative of two important aspects of his life besides his artistic creativity: politics andlove. Rivera captured all of it in his mural, like a snapshot of himself and his world displayed within hisown creation.

Politics were an integral part of life for Diego Rivera. This perspective came from his personalpolitical journey that was enmeshed with the history of Mexico. This history was contained in thefolklore that as a youth he saw depicted in the etchings of José Guadalupe Posada. Posada’s art greatlyinfluenced Rivera’s own incorporation of myth and folklore into his mural representations. WithinMexican folklore was space for the survival of traditions that were primarily pre-conquest. “It was he(Posada),” Rivera writes in his autobiography, My Art, My Life, “who revealed to me the inherent beautyin the Mexican people, their struggle and aspirations.”2 The Spanish had attempted to acculturate theindigenous societies and thus assimilate and eliminate the most foreign aspects of Indian culture fromMexican society. But the reality that would be embraced by Revolutionary Mexico, even in thesomewhat corrupted form it took during the post-Porfiriato, would be the mixture of cultures that wereuniquely Mexican. Hence, the mestizo and indigenismo projects were encouraged in the hope ofdeveloping a national cultural identity that would lend its support to the newly established and seeminglyever-besieged government of Mexico. This was attempted most earnestly under the rule of AlvaroObregón, from 192O-24.

The Liberty Tree, depicted in Panel Two, portrays the founders of the Independence Movementsof both Anglo and Latin America. Rivera’s symbolism draws a parallel that reflects the commonheritage of liberal ideology and the struggle for equality that both regions shared. He reflects the themeof Pan American Unity in this panel with Hidalgo, Morelos and Bolivar standing next to Washington,Jefferson and Lincoln, with John Brown exhorting the crowd to revolt against slavery. Jefferson holds adocument on which his famous words are written that read, “The Tree of Liberty needs to be refreshedfrom time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”4 Lincoln holds the Gettysburg Addressrededicating a nation divided to the principles of representative government and union “of the people, bythe people and for the people.” Hidalgo holds a document with a list that reads, “Abolition of Slavery inMexico by Hidalgo, Dec. 6, 1810 -- In South America by Bolivar, 1819-1821; In the United States byLincoln Jan. 1, 1863; Panama Conference for Pan American Union called by Bolivar, 1826.” All of theseimages contrast to the decapitated and amputated image of the tree of liberty, still standing and strongenough to support the work of the weaver whose loom is supported by it, but whittled away nonetheless.This echoes the threatening words of another American revolutionary, Thomas Paine, who wrote, “theprice of liberty is constant vigilance.” At the moment Rivera was painting this mural at the GGIE,

liberty was seriously threatened by events in Europe and elsewhere. The tree of liberty must haveappeared to be in danger of being pulled up by the roots.

Vasconcelos’ work, which was published in 1924, stated prophetically that “there is a certainfatality in the destiny of nations, as well as in the destiny of individuals, but now that a new phase ofhistory has been initiated, it becomes necessary to reconstruct our ideology and organize our continentallife according to a new ethnic doctrine.”5 According to Vasconcelos, this doctrine was one that thenation of Mexico was predestined to obey as “the cradle of a fifth race into which all nations will fusewith each other to replace the four races that have been forging History apart from each other.”6 Thisphilosophy would be broadcast in the images of Mexico’s history depicted in murals on public buildings.In his role as minister of education under Obregón, the development of the Revolutionary ArtMovement, as epitomized by Mexican Muralism, would be the vanguard of a pictorial education for themasses. It would go hand in hand with Vasconcelos’ literacy program for the proletariat and peasantclasses. The Ministry’s patronage of the Muralists would be “a means of fostering pride in theachievements of the people.”7 Such a pictorial course was approved by the state, regardless of the moreradical views depicted in the murals by the artists. A visual attack was believed necessary to jump-startthe process of legitimizing revolution for the traditionally conservative peasants. Educating the illiteratesegments of the population to their role in a society transformed by revolution was the job of theMuralists. Their work “served to consolidate a state ideology of common citizenship and progressivenationalism.”8

The atmosphere that informed and encouraged Rivera’s work as well as the work of his fellowmembers’ in the Syndicate of Technical Workers, Painters, and Sculptors was one of celebration of allthings mestizo, but more specifically Indian. José Clemente Orozco writes in his autobiography thatwithin Mexico in 1920

excitement over the plastic work of the contemporary indigenes was at itsheight. .Extreme nationalism put in an appearance. Mexican artists consideredthemselves the equals or the superiors of foreigners. Their themes had necessarily to beMexican. The cult of the Worker was more sharply defined: ‘Art at the service of theWorker.’ It was believed that art must be essentially an offensive weapon in the Conflictof the Classes.”9

MI of this was incorporated into and a product of the official philosophy of the post-revolutionarygovernment in Mexico and it was the foundation for continued government support of the muralists’projects as well as represented in much of their work. Unfortunately, from the rule of Obregón to that ofCardenas and beyond, Rivera’s and Vansconcelos’ idealism was betrayed by the official reality. Besidessome land distribution and nationalization of private industry under Cardenas, the power in Mexicoremained in the control of caudillos who represented the criollo/mestizo upper class. Basically thegovernment was still an oligarchy consisting of new landowners and entrepreneurs. The most successfulaspect of institutionalizing the idea of the Revolution in Mexico would be the Muralist project, but thevery success of such openly critical and radical art would be an embarrassment to the ruling class inMexico.

Such tensions would push artists like Rivera to broaden these sentiments beyond the nationalistintention that underlay the state sponsorship of muralism in Mexico. By the time of Rivera’s work on thePan American Unity Mural these sentiments would have blossomed fully. Yet, homage is paid to themotivating ideology, depicted in Panel One of the Pan American Unity Mural, with echoes of theIndigenismo movement loudly proclaimed. Man Knight explains the depth of meaning that therepresentation of Indian culture had for the Mexican Muralists in his essay, “Racism, Revolution, and

3

Indigenisino: Mexico, 1910-1940.’ It was these artists who were the “most celebrated representatives ofthis new official philosophy.. .who provided pictorial affirmation of Indian valor, nobility, suffering, andachievement, which they set against a revived black legend of Spanish oppression.”° Although littlereal positive effects would result from this message of respect for Indians, the Muralists, like Rivera,who included this idea in their works of art, embraced the elevation of all oppressed people as part oftheir personal revolutionary philosophy. It is striking then, when looking at the Pan American UnityMural, to observe the contrast in the overall image presented by Rivera of pre-contact Indian culturesand Latin-American crafts people hard at meaningful work, to the myth current in the United States in1940 that branded Mexicans with the racist stereotypes of laziness and thievery. This was the favoritepropaganda used by a nation with a guilty conscious. In 1848 the United States acquired, some wouldsay it had stolen, the southwest territories that included California from Mexico. It seems astraightforward commentary on the racist views held in the United States towards Mexico and withwhich Rivera would have been well acquainted. On another level, as Anthony Lee points out, theartisans depicted can be read as being engaged in the task of merely manufacturing tourist items, thusironically gesturing for the observer and visitor to “The Pageant of the Pacific” to see the “ethnicentertainment and native commodities” as the demeaning of indigenous tradition.” Rivera is able tomake this statement subtly by using his imagery on multiple levels and this gives profound sentiment tothe mural.

This belies Patrick Marnham’s comment about the mural found in his recent biography of DiegoRivera, that “Pan American Unity is outstanding illustration...but it does not move us.”12 if oneconsiders the fact that the portrayal of Indian civilization in the mural is at one and the same time areflection of the Indigenismo movement of post-revolutionary Mexico, central to the theme of unitybetween the American North and South as the origin of the gifts that the South has to contribute, as wellas the mural’s silent commentary on the racism generally exhibited towards Latin America by the UnitedStates, it becomes hard to countenance Mamham’s statement of disregard. The images of Women,Workers, Peasants, Artists and Crafts people, although perhaps not as strident as similar images in othermurals by Rivera, do carry a quiet dignity that stands in mute witness to the depth and complexity of theimagery. Throughout the mural these everymen and everywomen are a reflection of the evolution ofRivera’s understanding of revolutionary ideology. In this regard it is interesting to also note the relativeabsence of people of color from the part of mural concerned with the North’s contribution. Thecommentary that this absence makes on race relations in the United States is biting, but not overt. Theonly person of color is depicted in Panel five and appears to be a mission Indian laborer, but his face isdowncast and indistinct and he works at a mill wheel without relief. Directly under this image is furthercommentary on the subjects of race and class in the image of a wood carver making a Cigar Store Indian.The wood carver is mirrored above in Panel four by the representation of a masthead carver, who in theage of industrial technology has become as extinct as the native culture of the North that the woodenIndian in traditional dress symbolizes. There is thoughtful complexity to the Pan American Unity Muralthat is multi-layered in its symbolism and as politically conmiitted as Rivera’s other murals, althoughperhaps not as rigidly married to specific ideology.

This low-key approach may have been intentional on the part of Rivera in order not to antagonizethe United States’ own view of itself as a guardian of liberty and democracy. His hope that the UnitedStates would enter the war against Hitler’s Germany might have encouraged him to broaden thephilosophy beyond Vasconcelos’ nationalist vision to incorporate all the Americas into a unified wholededicated to resisting fascism and totalitarianism. Rivera was an internationalist by virtue of hispersonal travels and experiences as well as his choice of political affiliation. This fact stemmed as wellfrom the parallel evolution of the two revolutionary societies of Mexico and Russia and Rivera’sexperiences in both. He was a founding member of Communist Party of Mexico in 1922. following a

visit to Moscow in 1927 Rivera resigned, had himself expelled, or was expelled, depending on whichversion you read, from the Mexican Communist Party in 192$. His hopes for revolution, like the hopesof many others, were great. One would expect he would have been greatly disturbed by the repressivedirection taken by post-revolutionary Stalinist Russia. What would be more unappealing to anindependent artistic spirit? Conformity. Therefore it is no wonder that he very early sought membershipin the International Communist League affiliated with Trotsky’s opposition to Stalinism. He would evenco-author, with Trotsky and André Breton, father of the Surrealist movement, a manifesto entitled Foran Independent Revolutionary Art,H which called for an “International Federation of RevolutionaryWriters and Artists to resist totalitarian encroachments on literature and the arts.”3 William Richardsonclarifies Rivera’s relationship to the political ideologies that were close to his heart:

It was never the doctrines of revolution that appealed to him. Instead he respondedemotionally to human misery and the exploitation of one man by another. He wantedrevolution as part of his utopian hope for change and improvement of the lot of the poor.His enthusiasm for Russian Marxism-Leninism was a result of the promise, not its‘method’ or its practice.’4

Thus he saw his artistic endeavors in muralism as “his duty as an artist and a citizen to keep therevolution alive on the walls...even if it had died in the hearts of government officials.”5 All of theseissues and events seem to have drawn Rivera to a conclusion about the Americas as whole that wassimilar to the Muralists conclusion about Mexico specifically, that a new art, and ideology to define it,must be born from the experiences in the Americas. It could not merely be copied from a Europeanheritage that only partially represented the richer heritage of the complete populations of the Americas.Hayden Herrera’s observation of Frida Kahlo’s art is telling in regards to the idea of a purely AmericanArt and seems to reflect Rivera’s viewpoint as well.

Frida’s outlook was vastly different from that of the Surrealists. Her art was not theproduct of a disillusioned European culture searching for an escape from the limits oflogic by plumbing the subconscious. Instead, her fantasy was a product of hertemperament, life, and place; it was a way of coming to terms with reality, not of passingbeyond reality into another realm.’6

Rivera’s own style, like Kahios, also contained the elements of magical realism, an artistic genrewhich some claim originated in the art and literature of Latin America. In fact, Franz Roli coined theterm in an essay published in 1925 as the next phase for art post Expressionism. The concept refers tothe fantastic portrayed against a realistic backdrop. Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Colombian author of manyliterary works crafted in the style of magical realism, explains that this artform is one that is able to take“something which appears fantastic, unbelievable” and transform it “into something plausible,credible...by tell{ingJ it straight, as is done by reporters and by country folk.”7 Rivera’s work on PanAmerican Unity reflects an understanding of this genre; the imagery in the mural is the personification ofRivera’s thematic call for an original art form.

Although Patrick Mamham, like Anthony Lee and Bertram Wolfe, is right to point out thecontradictory and amorphous nature of Rivera’s political beliefs and loyalties none, of Rivera’sbiographers give the proper emphasis to the advent and evolution of truly novel international politicalstructures that had come about in Russia and Mexico during the artist’s lifetime. The shifting growth ofunderstanding about the ideologies as they were put into application would, one would think, encouragean open minded person to be somewhat fluid in the boundaries of their own personal ideology. The very

5

fact that Rivera was an artist made him inherently concentrated on distilling his individual essence. Hecertainly cannot be accused of being a conformist. This fact also made him an astute observer. PerhapsRivera was less willing to blindly embrace dangers he had seen with his own eyes arising from theabsolutist interpretation of revolutionary ideology. This path seemed only to contribute to demagogueryand totalitarianism that was occurring in Russia under Stalin in the late 1920s. Rivera was traveling inEurope, under the auspices of a grant from the Mexican government awarded by Vasconcelos, to studyfrescos in Italy.’8 It actually was a good period for Rivera to find work elsewhere, since Plutarcho EllasCalles, who succeeded Obregón in 1924 as president of Mexico, did not like the Muralist Movement.Supporters of the new president called for him to destroy Rivera’s work because it made people look likemonkeys.’9 Still, William Richardson, in his article, “The Dilemmas of a Communist Artist: DiegoRivera in Moscow, 1927-28,” makes the pertinent point that not until Rivera’s experience in Moscow in1927, where Stalin had begun to consolidate his power, did it become evident that he could not remainundecided about totalitarianism.

By 1928 he was faced with a choice that would have an impact on his position in theUSSR and with his Mexican comrades: he could bend to the demands of theneotraditionalists increasingly supported by the government, or he could throw in his lotwith the innovators who appeared to be fighting a losing battle.2°

Rivera believed that in whatever style a public mural was painted, as long as the message were clear thepublic would gain an opportunity to not only raise their political consciousness, but to improve theirlevel of understanding and appreciation of art. Thus, the artist would have fulfilled his duty to theworker and his artistic contribution would not be an obstacle to progress in the field.2’ Rivera seems tohave had a greater estimation of the public’s power of intellect to grasp the avante garde andexperimental than his comrades.

Contrary to this was the Stalinist view espoused by the Party organization, the Association ofArtists of Revolutionary Russia (AKhRR), which stressed that forms of art had to be “realistic andcomprehensible to the broad masses of the workers”.22 This would make official commissions difficultto come by in Mexico as well as abroad, within radical circles. Access to large commissions in thecapitalist art circles of North America were already difficult to come by due to the controversy thatsurrounded some of Rivera’s projects there in the late 1920’s, early 1930’s. The Michigan public forwhom it had been painted had rejected the industrial imagery of the Detroit Institute of Art murals asinappropriate. The Rockefeller Center Mural was destroyed because of its communist paean to Leninand Trotsky that was unacceptable to arch capitalist John D. Rockefeller, whose son Nelson was thepatron who had commissioned the work. Rivera was an artist unwilling to compromise his vision andhad paid dearly for his attitude by the time of the commission from Pfleuger.

When Pfleuger traveled to Mexico City in the spring of 1940 to invite Rivera back to SanFrancisco, he met the painter at a most propitious moment. In the arena of Mexicanpolitics Rivera was a self-declared Almazánist with an uncomfortable antilabor agenda.On the international leftist stage he had recently broken with Trotsky, perhaps the onlymajor leftist who championed his work. Behind his perimeter wall, he continued to betargeted by Stalinists for harboring a treasonous criminal. His artistic skills were calledinto question; his major competitors were at work on grand projects; and he had receivedno major commission in years. He greeted Pflueger enthusiastically and by June wasback in San Francisco.23

6

Certainly, as Lee contends here, it was an opportune moment for Rivera to get out of town. But it doesnot detract from the Rivera’s commitment to voice his protest to the violence occurring in the world atthat time.

As has already been discussed, Rivera’s experience of Stalin’s early repression of Soviet societymade him question absolute obedience to ideology dictated by such a will. Likewise Rivera had earlyexperiences of Hitler prior to WWII. Once again his artist’s sense and keen observation noticed thedanger of Hitler much earlier than his friend, Meuzenberg, a German member of the Communist Party.When he visited Berlin in 1928, five years before Hitler would be elected chancellor, Meuzenberg andhis fellow German comrades referred to Adolf as the “funny little man.”24 But as Rivera watched Hitlerdeliver a speech in front of the headquarters building of the Communist Party in Berlin he was notamused.

As he left, Hitler’s followers closed ranks around him with every sign of devoted loyalty.Thaelmann and Meunzenberg laughed like schoolboys.. .1 actually felt depressed.. .1 wasfilled with forebodings. I had a premonition that, if the armed Communists herepermitted Hitler to leave this place alive, he might live to cut off both my comrades headsin a few years.. 25

Unfortunately, his intuition would prove correct and his friends would be among the victims ofthe holocaust. Rivera would become familiar with the terror of the war as refugees. Some fellow artistslike Max Ernst were escaping similar fates and sought sanctuary in Mexico. Events began to bepersonally threatening to the artist. Gestapo agents visited Rivera.26 He informed the authorities about asubmarine refueling ship anchored under the disguise of a German merchant vessel.27 Stalinist agents, inthe guise of Loyalist refugees who had been granted asylum after Franco won the Spanish Civil War,were ever present in Mexico at the time.28 So, Rivera’s level of concern must have been very greatindeed when Hitler and Stalin agreed to an alliance between Russia and Germany and signed the Non-aggression Pact of 1939. This event seems to have cemented Rivera’s belief that the United Statesneeded to enter the war in order for conflict to end. It was imperative to engage the United States inconflict as the it was the most powerful industrial nation at the time and the most untainted bycollaboration with these forces of tyranny. The Pfleuger commission for the Pan American Unity Muralwas a perfect vehicle for this purpose.

Given this atmosphere of uncertainty and desperation as well as Rivera’s own involvement ininternational intrigue, much of which would ultimately surround the persecuted revolutionary leader inexile, Trotsky, it is not surprising that the artist’s concerns are made apparent in the Mural. Rivera’sawareness of GPU (the Soviet secret police) and Gestapo activity in Mexico might have led tosuspicions about his government’s loyalty, leading in turn to Rivera’s break in support of his friendCardenas and his inexplicable support of a right wing challenger, Alvaras.29 In Panel Four Riverainundates the viewer with multitudes of Hitlers amplifying his warning of danger, a danger that seemedto be literally stalking him, his loved ones, and the world. While it does not speak directly to the themeof Pan American Unity it does so indirectly by portraying the artist’s desire for resistance to fascism andtotalitarianism. It is also a contrast to the heritage of struggles for liberty and equality that the people ofthe Americas share, as Rivera depicts in Panel Two. He has also placed Stalin in triumvirate with Hitlerand Mussolini. Stalin, who at one point was part of the Revolutionary leadership of the great Sovietexperiment, was now the murderer of a fellow Revolutionary, Trotsky. Stalin is shown holding themurder weapon that was wielded by a proxy assassin in Mexico City a short while after Rivera had leftto begin the mural in San Francisco. The imagery of Hitler is actually drawn from the film “The GreatDictator” by Charlie Chaplin, whom Rivera admired and with whom he would later became friends. The

7

film had not yet been released when Rivera saw a preview of it. By placing such imagery in the muralRivera sought to encourage the United States to enter WWII by acknowledging the uniquely Americanart form of film, but at the same time he got to make a statement using images of the current conflict athand. This part of Panel Four, although somewhat out of context with the broader theme, places thework in specific time. The Hitler panel makes clear the difference between the heritage of liberty inAmerica and that of totalitarian dictatorships current then in Europe. Perhaps, as Lee points out, “inpublic discourse nearly all the formalized leftist positions were closed to him as defensible options.”30Thus Pan American Unity and the mural’s seemingly amorphous humanist position were the onlydefensible positions Rivera could take in the face of the Communist Party’s acceptance of Stalin’scontradictory relationship with Hitler and his own support of Alvaras.

The circumstances surrounding Rivera’s acceptance of the commission at Golden GateInternational Exposition were personally, as well as politically, motivated. The events that immediatelypreceded the assassination of Trotsky were tragic and dramatic, and Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlowould be participants in the final chapter of this legendary life. This period for Rivera was closelyassociated to one of the two important aspects of life for Rivera -- his love for and relationship with hiswife, Frida Kahlo. The effect of this emotion is also prominently depicted in the Mural. LevDavidovich Bronstein, who is known to history as Trotsky, had lived the life of a fugitive since Stalinhad exiled him from Soviet Russia in 1929.31 He was a man who stood alone against Stalin as the restof those who opposed him began to crumble under the pressure of the Purge Trials. These trialscommenced in the 1930s and resulted in the execution of thousands. Trotsky had sought refuge inTurkey, France and Norway and had successively, along with his wife, been kicked out of one countryafter another. Comrades, associates and even his children were systematically being eliminated, killed orimprisoned, by the GPU. “I know I am condemned,” Patrick Marnham quotes Trotsky as saying. “Stalinis enthroned in Moscow with more power and resources at his disposal than any of the Tsars. I am alonewith a few friends and almost no resources, against a powerful killing-machine...So what can I doT’32Things were in a desperate state when he made his way to Mexico in 1937 and the sanctuary Rivera hadsecured for him, but once he was safe he proceeded to actively plan and participate in The JointCommission of Inquiry in the Moscow Trial. This was a counter-trial to Stalin’s purge trials at whichTrotsky was being accused of heinous crimes against the state. The trial was held in Frida Kahlo’sfamily home, Casa Azul located in Coyoacán and was chaired by North American philosopher JohnDewey33. The house was placed at Trotsky’s and his wife Natalya’s disposal for which they were mostgrateful. “It was ratifying, even thrilling, for Trotsky and Natalya to find refuge with such friends,”Deutscher writes.3

Trotsky and Kahlo were drawn together and had an affair for many reasons. This was not thefirst time that there had been infidelity in the KahlolRivera household. Diego was a notoriouswomanizer and Frida had affairs as well. For Trotsky one can only imagine the exhilaration of being ina beautiful country and close to a beautiful woman. He still faced imminent danger, but with a fire in thebelly from his recent legal battle, successfully defending himself against Stalin’s charges. He could nothave been aware that he was entering a relationship that was like a minefield. His own despair isevidenced by his oblivious treatment of his loyal and loving wife, Natalya, who had suffered andsurvived so much alongside her husband, from the days of the Russian Revolution until their timetogether in Mexico. While terror and loneliness might have heightened Trotsky’s need to feel alive,Frida’s participation in the affair with ‘el viejo,” as she called him, was perhaps motivated more out ofrevenge. Rivera previously had an affair with Kahlo’s sister, Cristina, and this affair seemed the pinnacleof betrayal out of the multitude of liaisons in which Rivera seems to have engaged.35 Besides this fact,Cristina may have been the one to inform Diego of Frida’s affair with his revered guest, as she was in hersister’s confidence and does not appear to have been happy that her affair with Rivera had ended.36 But,

8

however it came to be known, Rivera seems to have considered it unacceptable behavior on the part ofhis guest. The artist also appears to have seen this relationship as a breech of the double standard bywhich Diego and Frida lived. He was to be allowed his affairs, but did not want Frida’s liaisons to bepublicly known as it would make him seem a cuckold, which would besmirch his masculinity. Thispreferred arrangement allowed Rivera to avoid tarnishing his macho persona, but the affair betweenKablo and Trotsky was a threat to this arrangement. After all, Rivera had used his influence with hisfriend, Lázaro Cárdenas, who had been elected the president of Mexico in 1934, to gain Trotsky asylumthere. Initially, his empathy for Trotsky’s plight must have been strong due to shared political beliefsand respect for Trotsky’s place in history as a father of the Russian Revolution. These feelings musthave also, at least in part, derived from River&s own fall from favor under the Calles regime in 1924,when his murals were attacked and defaced.37 for a two-year period, from 1937 until 1939, theTrotskys, Diego and Frida remained good friends.

Rivera’s break with Trotsky does not seem to have been motivated by political disagreement. Itseems to have been motivated more by personal, rather than any other factors, since the break occurredafter he became aware of the affair Trotsky had engaged in with Rivera’s wife. The effect that thisinformation had on Rivera, who fancied himself a disciple of Trotsky, can only be imagined. Just as theartist never hinted at his anger towards Trotsky in the public statements he made, so too did Trotskycontinue to express mutual reverence for Rivera as a revolutionary and an artist. Marnham writes thatonly a week after Trotsky had moved out of the Casa Azul, Rivera, in an interview with a United Statesnews agency reporter “described Trotsky as ‘a great man for whom.. .1 continue having the greatestadmiration and respect.”38 Trotsky, even after the break in their friendship and Rivera’s support ofCárdenas’ right-wing rival for the presidency, Almazar, defended the artist against Stalinist attacks.Deutscher writes that Trotsky “expressed undiminished admiration for the ‘genius whose politicalblunderings could cast no shadow either on his art or on his personal integrity.” Trotsky wrote thesewords in 1939 for an article entitled, “Ignorance is not a Weapon of Revolution.”39 But the attempt onTrotsky’s life that Rivera’s old friend and fellow muralist, David Alfaro Siqueiros, had organized and thesuccessful assassination of Trotsky by an agent of Stalin’s which followed, were only possible because ofthe split between Rivera and Trotsky. This act of separation made the exiled Russian vulnerable to suchan attack. Marnham explains that Trotsky was not only a guest of Rivera’s, but of the nation of Mexico.Anything that was done to him would besmirch the nation’s honor, and the GPU agents in Mexico wereunder strict orders that their ties to Moscow remain unknown. All of this was not a concern to Stalin’sagents once the protection of one of Mexico’s “most celebrated figures” had been withdrawn fromTrotsky.4° It is unfortunate that such an unsubstantial emotion as masculine pride should come betweenRivera and Trotsky, but it is hard to believe, given both men’s continued public support of each other,that there was very deep animosity since Rivera was not one to shy away from public confrontation overpolitics.41 Marnham mentions that because Kahlo and Rivera never spoke of the events involvingTrotsky that this is somehow evidence that they did not think twice about the fate of the man they hadboth called friend. It is just as likely that this period of time was so traumatic and that each felt deeplythe tragedy of Trotsky’s assassination on multiple levels. Perhaps they did not speak of him because ofthe knowledge of their own unintentional complicity in his death.

Certainly, the strength of the Kahlo/Rivera relationship is evidenced by their reunion thatoccurred during the creation of the Mural, just as the importance of their involvement with Trotsky wasevidenced by the separation and divorce that preceded it. The couple was remarried in San Franciscoafter Frida was spirited out of Mexico by Rivera. Once he learned of Kahlo’s ill health and herinterrogation by Mexican Police he had her come to San Francisco to be treated by their old friend Dr.Eloesser. Following Trotsky’s assassination and Diego’s separation from frida, his wife had becomedistraught and the stress of all of this had contributed to her ill health.42 Dr. Eloesser, a physician friend

9

Rivera knew in San Francisco, suggested that Diego and Frida remarry as a remedy. This was somethingthat Diego had been attempting to finagle unsuccessfully ever since the couple had split up in 1939. Butthere would be a difference in their relationship the second time around- double standards could not bepermitted, more honesty had to exist. Dr. Eloesser admonished Frida not to expect anything differentfrom Rivera. “He has never been, nor ever will be, monogamous.”43 Just as Rivera would never change,Kahlo did not want be forced to either, so their reunion was accomplished on the basis of a compromise-- they would remarry and share their lives, but they would no longer be sexually intimate, thus avoidingthe trap and pain of jealousy.

There is much of this romantic turmoil contained in the mural’s depiction of women. Thesymbolism of women and what women and love meant to Diego is contradictory in nature and this isreflected in their depictions in the Pan American Unity Mural. He obviously felt reverence by depictingHelen Crlenkovich, the 1939 national diving champion, as the metaphoric bridge between time andspace. The female form is the supernatural conduit for the relationship between North and SouthAmerica. In the center of the mural, presiding over all is Coatlicue, the Aztec Goddess of Life, Deathand the Earth.45 For the Aztecs she was “Lady of the Serpent Skirt,” goddess of all life, gods as well ashumans, animate as well as inanimate.46 For Rivera the creative spirit is embodied in the ancient symbolof the sacred female that also reminds man of the humility in the face of the great mysteries of death andof birth, which woman is so intimately bound to by virtue of motherhood. Yet the scars of thedisillusionment Rivera experienced due to Trotsky and Kahlo’s betrayal (if it can accurately be calledthat, given the structure of Rivera’s and Kahlo’s marriage up to that point) are evident too, but on a morepersonal scale, not meant to compete with the larger image of the sacred female. What’s more, thepersonal disregard he often showed for the women he was involved with, like the outright abandonmentof his first wife, Angelina Beloff, is also evident in the mural. His back is turned toward Frida while hefaces his current paramour at the time, the actress and wife of Charlie Chaplin, Paulette Goddard. Thisimagery is resonant with an insincere petulance of hurt pride, considering the numbers of extramaritalaffairs in which Rivera participated. Still Rivera’s love and respect is also apparent with Kablopositioned at the forefront of the mural. She personifies the theme of unity by benefit of her German-Mexican ancestry coupled with her pursuit of the plastic arts. Naturally there must have been conflictedand confused feelings on Rivera’s part, but the absence of Trotsky does not necessarily mean that Riveradid not still admire the contributions of such an important man. In this regards he does make note ofTrotsky by placing a bloody icepick in Stalin’s hand, the very weapon used to kill Trotsky. flI feelingstowards his wife are likewise arguable as Kahlo is not excluded from the painting either, evidence of hercontinued importance to, and influence on, Rivera.

The universal image of the great mother, as represented by the Aztec goddess Coatlicue, is at theheart of the symbolism of the mural. In fact, it is featured prominently in the mural’s center as itsunifying image. It is important as a symbol depicting the union of North and South America, themachine and plastic arts. It also represents the power and importance of the female as an embodiment ofcreativity. Finally, Rivera’s Pan American Unity Mural is an homage to the Indigenismo movement thatwas the impetus for the official patronage of the Muralist movement in Mexico. There is hope inRivera’s imagery for a unified and productive future not unlike the attitude Trotsky expressed in hissummary statement to the Dewey Commission:

The experience of my life, in which there has been no lack of success or of failures, hasnot only not destroyed my faith in the clear, bright future of mankind, but, on thecontrary, has given it an indestructible temper. This faith in reason, in truth, in humansolidarity.. .1 have preserved fully and completely. It has become more mature, but notless ardent.47

10

While there is a connection between Rivera’s work on this mural and Trotsky’s words, there is as well inthe work a reflection of the magnitude and immediacy of events and conflicts in the world and inRivera’s own life at the time that informed his creation of the Pan American Unity Mural.

The success of Rivera’s Pan American Unity mural in relation to the Mexican (?) muralists’intent to serve as a source of mass education through public works like this would be hard to gauge.Certainly, it was a representation that was part of an to persuade the United States to enter WWII on theAllied side. Although the mural may not have been seen by the greater public, as was the muralists’goal, the fact of the mural’s inaccessiblity is more representative of the awkwardness that resulted fromthe splintering of the left’s opposition to the rising tide of fascism than from any artistic and politicalfailure on the part of Rivera’s creation. The mural was quickly crated after it was viewed by some10,000 people in 1940. It remained stored until 1961, when it was finally installed at City College ofSan Francisco. For over twenty years no one had the opportunity to view and decry, or ignore, themural. Therefore it is difficult to countenance Lee’s assertion that the fact that the mural “was nevershown to working-class San Franciscans” somehow means that Rivera failed. In fact, Rivera’s acceptingthe “Art in Action” commission demonstrated that while there were mitigating personal factors thatmade the offer appealing, Rivera remained faithful in his commitment to the ideal of the muralistproject: to create art for the public regardless of what fate had in store for the finished artistic product.Even the fate of his Rockefeller Center mural, which was ordered destroyed by its patron, would notdeter Rivera from using his art for the purpose of informing as well as depicting. As a visualrepresentation of the theme of Pan American Unity, the mural is an encapsulation of a specific period oftime that is an interpretation of global and personal events by the artist, Diego Rivera. It is, as well, arepresentation of the evolution of the ideology that underlay the muralist movement pioneered by Rivera,Orozco, and Siqueiros in Mexico, an ideology that would make its indelible mark outside their nativecountry as well.

‘Key to The Pan American Unity Mural, published by City College of San Francisco, Public Information Office.2Rivera, Diego (with Gladys March). My Art, My Lfe: An Autobiography, (New York: The Citadel Press, 1960) DoverEdition, 1991, 18.3Williamson, Edwin. The Penguin History ofLatin America (London: Penguin Books, 1992), 392-3.4Pan American Unity Mural, Panel 2, Lower Right Corner.5Vasconcelos, José. “La Raza Cësimca: A New Race and a New Ideal” in Latin America: Conflict and Creation(AHistorical Reader), E. Bradford Bums, editor, (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1993), 128.6lbid, 127.7Williamson, 393.8lbid.9Orozco, José Clemente. An Autobiography, (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1962), 82‘°Knight, Alan. “Racism, Revolution, and Indegenismo: Mexico, 19 10-1940,” in The Idea ofRace in Latin America, 1870-1940, Richard Graham, editor, (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1997), 82.“Lee, Anthony W. Painting on the Left: Diego Rivera, Radical Politics, and San Francisco s Public Murals, (Berkeley:University of California Press, 1999), 210.‘2Mamham, Patrick. Dreaming With His Eyes Open: A Lfe ofDiego Rivera, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1998), 300.‘3Deutscher, Isaac. The Prophet Outcast: Trotsky, 1929-1940, (New York: Vintage Books, 1963), 431.‘4Richardson, William. “The Dilemmas of a Communist Artist: Diego Rivera in Moscow, 1927-28,’ Mexican Studies, 3:1(1987), 52.‘5lbid., 53.‘6Herrera, Hayden. Frida: A Biography of Frida Kahto, (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1983), 258.‘7Marques, Gabriel Garcfa, cited in Lois Zamora “Novels and Newspapers in the Americas’, Navel 23, 1989, 44-62.‘8Richardson, 51.‘9Marnham, 179.

11

20Richardson, 50.21Ibid, 61.22Ibid, 60.23Lee, 205.24Rivera, $5.Ibid, 86.26Ibid, 13 1-2.27Ibid, 142.28Deutscher, Marnham.29Marnham, 291.30Lee, 2073tDeutscher, 1.32Marnham, 276-7.33Marnham, 278; Deutscher, 37 1-2.34Deutscher, 359.35Herrera, 209.36Marnham, 285.37Kettenmann, Andrea. Diego Rivera (1886-1957): A Revolutionaiy Spirit in Modern Art, (Cologne: Taschen, 1997),32.38Marnham, 293.39Deutscher, 445.40Ibid, 292.41Rivera and Siqueiros held a public debate in 1936 where they denounced each other’s political beliefs and shot pistols off inthe air to punctuate their points. Marnham, 276.42Herrera, 301.431b1d, 298.Ibid, 30245Rivera, 151.46Walker, Barbara G. The Woman r Encyclopedia ofMyths and Secrets, (San Francisco: Harper & Row Publishers, 1983),172.47Deutscher, 380.

12