最新提问
我的动态
登录后查看动态
题目内容双击单词支持查询和收藏哦～
题目材料：
This passage relates to the decades immediately following the Mexican Revolution of 1910-1920. Jose Clement Orozco, David Alfaro Siqueiros, and Diego Rivera were artists from this period who were particularly associated with mural painting.
While nationalism can be seen as the primary theme of Mexico's cultural production after 1921, contemporary intellectuals, composers, and artists were by no means bound by ideology nor were they adherents of a single school or movement. Jose Vasconcelos, who as secretary of public education from 1921 to 1924 was the initial sponsor of the mural movement, was above all an admirer of Hispanic civilization. The muralists themselves, as well as other artists and writers, were steeped in European cultural styles past and present. All denounced the Diaz regime [ended 1911] for its alleged disdain of native traditions, especially those originating in the indigenous population, which was seen as the intended beneficiary of agrarian reform and other policies of the revolutionary administrations. But even those who were most committed to improving the lot of the Indians, such as the anthropologist Manuel Gamio and the educator Moises Saenz, envisioned their assimilation into an integrated, Spanish-speaking nation. In reality, despite the affirmation of purely indigenous traditions, mestizaje the blending of the Indian and the European-lay at the root of the cultural nationalism of the era.
A second prominent theme in the artistic discourse of the era was the obligation of painters and others to create work that would be accessible to all, not only in an aesthetic sense but also in a physical one. Out of this conviction grew the emphasis on the painting of murals in public places, where they could be seen by workers and peasants, who might thereby be instructed or moved by the nationalistic, sometimes revolutionary subjects of the murals. What, if anything, the murals signified to the working-class people who saw them cannot be determined, though Jose Clemente Orozco doubted that art alone could spur the masses to rise up against their oppressors. Moreover, as the international fame of the Mexican muralists grew, it was the elites in Mexico and elsewhere that embraced them most fulsomely, and their easel paintings often ended in the collections of North American millionaires. Both Orozco and David Alfaro Siqueiros expressed concern that Diego Rivera and other artists were overemphasizing the folkloric elements in their work—themes that Orozco and Siqueiros considered no longer relevant to Mexican realities but that appealed to foreign tourists and collectors.
While nationalism can be seen as the primary theme of Mexico's cultural production after 1921, contemporary intellectuals, composers, and artists were by no means bound by ideology nor were they adherents of a single school or movement. Jose Vasconcelos, who as secretary of public education from 1921 to 1924 was the initial sponsor of the mural movement, was above all an admirer of Hispanic civilization. The muralists themselves, as well as other artists and writers, were steeped in European cultural styles past and present. All denounced the Diaz regime [ended 1911] for its alleged disdain of native traditions, especially those originating in the indigenous population, which was seen as the intended beneficiary of agrarian reform and other policies of the revolutionary administrations. But even those who were most committed to improving the lot of the Indians, such as the anthropologist Manuel Gamio and the educator Moises Saenz, envisioned their assimilation into an integrated, Spanish-speaking nation. In reality, despite the affirmation of purely indigenous traditions, mestizaje the blending of the Indian and the European-lay at the root of the cultural nationalism of the era.
A second prominent theme in the artistic discourse of the era was the obligation of painters and others to create work that would be accessible to all, not only in an aesthetic sense but also in a physical one. Out of this conviction grew the emphasis on the painting of murals in public places, where they could be seen by workers and peasants, who might thereby be instructed or moved by the nationalistic, sometimes revolutionary subjects of the murals. What, if anything, the murals signified to the working-class people who saw them cannot be determined, though Jose Clemente Orozco doubted that art alone could spur the masses to rise up against their oppressors. Moreover, as the international fame of the Mexican muralists grew, it was the elites in Mexico and elsewhere that embraced them most fulsomely, and their easel paintings often ended in the collections of North American millionaires. Both Orozco and David Alfaro Siqueiros expressed concern that Diego Rivera and other artists were overemphasizing the folkloric elements in their work—themes that Orozco and Siqueiros considered no longer relevant to Mexican realities but that appealed to foreign tourists and collectors.
以上解析由 考满分老师提供。
