3 ms·
I don't like it either, but the reason I don't like has less to do with the fact that this is communist art, which yeah I sometimes find to be pretty ugly, and
by remarkEon 4y ago
I don't like it either, but the reason I don't like has less to do with the fact that this is communist art, which yeah I sometimes find to be pretty ugly, and more with how it clashes with the neoclassical architecture of the actual building. It looks like graffiti to me, but well intentioned and obviously done with a lot of effort.
Naturally this is all subjective.
- twobitshifter 4y agoThis is intentional for the art style. In Mexican Muralism, the indigenous identity of Mexico was being displayed in public in the buildings of the colonizers. “Many of the murals from the muralist project took on monumental status because of where they were situated, mostly on the walls of colonial era government buildings and the themes that were painted.[5] The mural painters of Mexico freely shared ideas and techniques in public spaces in order to capture the attention of the masses.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_muralism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_muralism
- ggm 4y agoFair. But asking an artist to reach back into time and decorate in a style not theirs, is probably a recipe for disaster. They hate it, unless they own it. You might have struggled to find one with a big name in 1930s America who was up to the job. All the federal and state public architecture of the recovery era have massive socialist realist or cubist relief sculptures all over them. Post offices, the Hoover dam, you name it. It was the look.