May 23, 2005 City College of San Francisco Latin American & Latino Studies (LALS 14: Diego Rivera: Art & Social Change) Spring 2005 Diego Rivera – Oral Interview Transcribed and translated by Ileana Gadea Rivas, a student in Dr. Greg Landau’s class. Daughter: Father, some architects, colleagues of mine, and some young artists are interested in your opinion about the social role of the artist. Diego Rivera: Well, in order to assert what, in my opinion, is the social role of the artist, first it is necessary for you and me to reach an understanding, and if we cannot do so, at least for me to tell you clearly, what is my definition of art, and also my definition of artist.

Art has been defined from philosophical, literary, poetic, and political points of view; however, none of the definitions given so far would provide a thorough definition. We first need to establish what is art, fundamentally as a biologic, as well as a physiologic phenomenon, and therefore, social, and political. There is absolutely nothing to help us learn about the ancient past of humanity, and human society, other than the traces left behind in the manner of works of art. There is no other element for this study, except for some work tools, initially quite rudimentary.

On the other hand, the more we go back in time, the more we find admirable traces of humankind. There is nothing stronger, more perfect, more realistic, more poetic, and better observed -and there is no more efficient utilization of materials in the production of works of art- than cave paintings, which some authors date back to the ice ages. In those paintings men reached in fact, I mean to say, human beings -given that there are indications that those who painted them were either women or a being who participated of both qualities- then humanity reached the highest expression of its genius. Since then, the means have varied, but the expressive quality, such formidable quality, has not changed.

There is nothing comparable, not even better, but simply comparable, in terms of aesthetic quality, as well as realistic quality, to the paintings of the cave painting period. Not even the best artists, such as my master Picasso, my master Posada, my master Velasco can be compared in terms of expression, particularly in terms of dynamic

expression of life in movement, to cave painting. Perhaps the only comparable artist might be Picasso, but, obviously, he does not reach the vitality and the spontaneity of cave paintings, although he is the most brilliant of all living artists. Thus we may, given that you are asking me what the social role of the artist is, throw out something that can be called hypothesis, based, though, on actual facts.

There is no doubt that during the early times of humanity, society was much less stratified in classes, as compared to current society. The human being of those periods had to be skilled to survive, otherwise he would have perished, it would not have been feasible; consequently, he had to have the eye sufficiently trained to perceive forms, movements, as well as the lifestyle of animals, because without the sacrifice of those animals, survival would have been impossible, given that human beings obtained nourishment from their meat, obtained clothing from their skins, and fabricated their work tools and their ornaments from their bones, in addition to employing stone and wood. Thus, such society of migrant hunters, who walked from the South Pole almost to the North Pole, had to have tremendous vitality, and their society could not have been stratified in such a complex manner, as it evolved later on in time. We may almost assert, without much doubt, that the peoples who created those paintings belonged to a society which was not divided in classes. Therefore, we may reach such conclusion, because as soon as society divided itself in classes, those who exerted power have always tried to control the production of art to make it serve their interest and consolidate their power. The perfection of the paintings, prior to the division of society in classes, is due precisely to the fact that they were produced within a society which was not divided in classes. Consequently, if sometime in the future -and I am sure it will actually happen- perhaps soon, the world is able to live in a society not divided in classes, the perfection of the works of art will first equal cave painting, and eventually it will surpass it because we possess more complete means of expression.

Now, what is art? Why is it that since the early steps of humankind on earth, we find works of art as testimony of those steps? It has been said that works of art are a manifestation of superstructure. Some philosopher has indicated that art is the banquet of civilization; another philosopher has said that it is the splendor of truth, another philosopher, that it is the splendor of goodness. In fact, it can be all that, there is no problem -it all depends on individual opinion- but what art is in fact, it is an agent. The work of art is an agent capable of producing some specific physiologic phenomena,

notably of the renal glands, which provide the human body with the necessary elements for human life, such as the elements which the digestive system extracts from what is ingested through the process of ingestion, mastication, digestion, etc. Thus, the reality is that art is a vital necessity for human beings. This quality can be compounded by other characteristics, but the work of art is essentially a necessity. That is the reason why the work of art is useful to human life, just like hunting, as it provides human beings with the meat to eat, the skin to cloth themselves, the plants that provide corn or wheat to make bread, the vegetables, fruit, everything else. It is an essential element.

On the other hand, Professor Marx, from the first lines of his book, Capital, A Critique of Political Economy, establishes that commodity is anything that is useful to human life, no matter if that usefulness concerns the digestive system or the imagination. Now, the truth of the matter is that the work of art equally concerns the phenomena of nutrition, digestion, than that of the imagination; therefore, the work of art is a commodity of exceptional importance. That is the reason why an English philosopher, commenting on the work of Marx, indicates: “it is precisely for those commodities which concern the imagination, for which we pay the most” and that is obvious. If you purchase a book of poetry, what do you pay for? Do you pay for the paper in which it is printed, the cost of the edition, the weight of the paper, the utilization of that paper in something other than reading? Obviously not, because there are better quality papers available, which are even more suitable for other functions. Thus, if what you are buying at the bookstore is not the paper, and it is not the material which makes up the book, what is it that you bought and paid for? You have bought poetry and have paid for poetry. If you pay admission for a concert of a great symphonic orchestra more money that what you would for breakfast or dinner, what is it that you are purchasing? Are you purchasing a seat to rest, are you purchasing the right to show off a night gown, or the right to get together with friends, or are you paying for the music? You are paying for the work of art. You are purchasing a commodity which has an existence only in the succession of sounds produced by a group of individuals handling instruments, who earn a salary, as a compensation for such handling, a salary generally low, considering the effort put forth. In other words, the act of producing music, any kind of music, be it profane or religious, constitutes an industrial organization, a commercial organization to provide you and the rest of the public with a commodity which is necessary to human life. The same occurs with a statue, the same occurs with a

painting, what you pay for is not the price of the stone or the price of the bronze. You do pay for it indeed, but, in addition to that, you pay for something which is neither the weight nor the value of the metal or the stone. Thus, you pay for the amount of sensibility, the amount of imagination, the amount of genius, eventually, the labor accumulated by the artist to execute the work of art. In other words, you are purchasing art because you, and the rest of the society, need it for your life; if that was not the case, you would not purchase it. The work of an architect entails all that! However, if a house is just for living, if a factory is just for producing, it would not be completely functional because the workers that labor at the factory, those same workers and those who are not – it does not matter whether they are workers or capitalists- when inhabiting a house, they have the same needs for their nervous system inside or outside the house they live in. Therefore, if what surrounds them is not capable of eliciting what we call aesthetic emotion, the only agent that will prompt the glands to function, to provide the secretions necessary for human life, so necessary for human life, I reiterate, as the digestive phenomena, your architecture would not be complete, and it would not be functional, to say the least. That is the reason why nowadays, as it frequently happens, one can build a “huacal”, (huacal is a structure which our peasants carry over their shoulders) a steel huacal or a concrete huacal; one can cover its surface with glass or bricks, without making architecture for that matter. In a human dwelling architecture begins when the capacity of that construction to produce an emotion of beauty also begins, it is only then, when one can talk about functional architecture.

Industrial architecture, these days, has greater conditions, in this sense, than the architecture that it is not called industrial -which is nothing more than commercial architecture- because its purpose is the exploitation of those who inhabit it by both the builder, as well as the landlord, in the event that it is for rental. Industrial architecture requires very precise conditions for its proper functioning, it has to have the right air quota, the proper amount of light, natural or artificial, the necessary space for the engines, and also one of the conditions for an engine to function properly, which is the utilization of the exact material, the right proportion, the precise functioning, to produce a certain object, predetermined precisely; those are the conditions of a Mayan sculpture, a primitive Greek sculpture, or an Hindustani sculpture. In other words, the laws, those universal laws that govern an engine, and consequently, industrial architecture, are the same laws that govern the production of works of art. That is why nowadays, those of us

who have a certain amount of sensibility prefer a thousand times, as architects, the contemplation of a wheat storehouse, of vertical cylinders of a good plant for the extraction of oil from cotton seed, a good foundry, than 99 ½ % of the constructions with aesthetic pretensions, made by individuals, who call themselves architects, although do not have the basics to practice such profession, which is sensibility and plastic talent. That is what we are currently experiencing in Mexico City to a large and deplorable extent! A magnificent city could have been built in Mexico. It has been built so fast, and it has grown with such an unprecedented speed into the most horrible city in the world, due to the lack of organization, and the lack of aesthetic sensibility of the builders.

Naturally, there are some exceptions. We begin to see numerous exceptions, and now – that I have had the opportunity to see in the provinces some of the productions of your colleagues, precisely people of your age – I have found that they are a hundred times or a thousand times better that those made in Mexico by individuals of ill reputation, heirs, physically the sons of terrible academic architects, who continue being as academic as they were in the past, without doing anything other than replacing the old pattern, (the same pattern which in the past derived from the worst French academic), with another pattern derived from the worst French academic of these days, Mr. Le Corbusier.

Thus, we conclude that the work of art is not an ornament. The work of art is a product of superstructure in society, but at the same time it is also a product of base. In other words, the work of art plays a similar role in social organization to the role played by the blood, which is activated by the heart, the myocardium, but it travels the human body from the feet to the brain. It is in the brain, in the cortex, the superstructure, the cerebellum, and then you also have the base; however, nothing is possible without the blood circulation. The same applies to art; art is undoubtedly a sort of circulation. Is it fair to compare art with blood circulation? Such comparison is not quite satisfactory because, in addition to the role of the blood circulation, art plays in society the role of the neural circulation, of the circulation that nourishes and makes it possible for the proper functioning of the nervous system, which concerns the speed of neuro-transmission, as well as other phenomena.

Thus, art is an essential activity for human life, just as essential as nutrition; a commodity as important as wheat, meat, cereals, vegetables, fruit; it is essential to human life.

Now, if art is an essential activity for human life, what is the role of the artist? The question that you are asking is perfectly clear. The role of the artist in society, biologically speaking, is that of provider of nourishment. Just like the peasant provides nourishment for the digestive system, and the cattle rancher provides it, the farmer, the artist provides nourishment to the nervous system. Consequently, the artist is a humble worker, and his humility bestows upon him the same greatness, that essential greatness, of the peasant, the flower grower, the farmer, the chemist, the physician; he is an essential worker, he is not an ornamental worker. The decorative quality, the character of dessert in the banquet of civilization which has been assigned to art, derives from the interest of class, individuals, or groups who exploit the masses of workers, to make art appear as something intangible, as something which depends exclusively upon the rich, (the owner of wealth, the only person capable of understanding it, the only person able to afford it) to elicit in the masses an attitude of admiration towards something beyond their reach. The reality is that art, since it is an essential activity for human life, cannot be, and it is not, privilege of a few. Just like not all men are good speakers, but all have the ability to use words to communicate with one another -they know how to speak- also all men, all human beings are capable of expressing themselves through shapes, through color, through mass, and through sound. Whoever has any doubts about this, only needs to pay attention to children’s drawings. In the schools of the entire world, whenever a child has not yet suffered the deformation imposed by the teacher, (because school is not in the entire world, with the exception of the socialist world, more that an institution to deform human life in a direction that will facilitate its exploitation), before the teacher manages to deform them, all children of the world have the talent to paint, all the children of the world have the talent to create shapes of sculpture, all the children of the world have musical talent, and they all have poetic talent. Therefore, we may, and we must state that art is a human language, a means of expression, and it is, in general, ownership of all beings which belong to human society. The specialization of labor imposed by capitalism prevents the general development of such potential. For that reason, we can conclude again, as we indicated at the beginning, that in a better organized society, with greater justice, in a classless

society, art will reach unforeseen heights. Only that way, society will be able to surpass the art that humanity produced when it was not yet divided in classes.

And the role of the artist? Well, given that it is a provider of nourishment to the nervous system, it has the ability to do the same as the dairy farmer, the winemaker; he can either provide, or sell a product beneficial to nutrition and public health, or he may provide a toxic product to the public. The role of the artist can be positive or negative. The people in power, individual, group, or social class invariably try to co-opt the artist, just as it co-opts the baker, the cattle rancher, the dairy farmer, so that their products will serve their class interest and the exploitation of workers by the rulers; consequently, they try to bestow upon art a quality conducive to serve their interests.

As we take a look at history, we find that as soon as art leaves behind the cave

painting period, immediately it acquires a religious character, it refers to the gods, it refers to all the mythological figures which have played a role in keeping the masses deceived within the falsehood which makes exploitation possible; or it refers to the rulers, the kings, the chiefs, the generals, and all those individuals who have dominated the masses. There are no exceptions. Exceptions begin only when the masses rebel. Then people produce artists who become allies, whom we call revolutionary artists.

A typical example of those artists is, in the Middle Ages, in the late Middle Ages, the formidable Giotto; later on, closer to the modern era, the wonderful painter Bruegel. On the other hand, when society is united, whenever there is a well established consensus, a phenomenon which occurs particularly in the military theocracies, such as in ancient America, art reaches greater unity, it has the quality –such quality which your colleagues are searching for- of the integration of plastic arts, because if there is a general opinion, a general sentiment, then all the people create works of art, and it is impossible to determine, like in the wonderful Pre-Hispanic art of America, it is impossible to determine, where astronomy ends to give way to engineering, where engineering concludes to give way to architecture, and where are the limits of architecture, as it relates to sculpture and painting. It is a whole, because society itself was a whole. Undoubtedly, also whenever we are able to have a classless society, art will have precisely those characteristics because education will no longer be a factory of citizens obedient to the police officer, taxpayers of unfair taxes for war and other calamities, but rather, it will be a society of human beings aware of their rights and

responsibilities, which will allow us to live in perfect harmony, the harmony of mankind with the earth, and of men with one another.

In a classless society, we will be able to regain all the potential for genius, all the expressive potential, to produce the greatest beauty in art. Whenever the artist allows the ruling classes to dominate him, the work of art acquires the character of the ruling classes. Sometimes the ruling classes manage to get the artist to serve them, they get the genius of Velásquez to dedicate itself to paint princesses, to paint horse-riding kings, and walking jesters; they manage to turn the genius of Rubens into an ambassador to a queen, and her lover at the same time, to the advantage of her kingdom; they manage to turn the artist into a servant. Nowadays, the bourgeoisie in power is not able to accomplish that, they no longer manage to do that! In the entire world, there is not one single artist these days, so despicable, so subservient, and vile that would paint in his works of art praises to capitalism. We would search in vain for one; we would not be able to find one, not even around Wall Street!

When the Rockefeller, unhappy as it is known, with the fresco that I had painted, tried to find a North American artist to replace my work, not one single North American artist, old, or young, either conservative, or liberal, revolutionary or academic, abstract, or concrete was found, willing to betray their ancestry, the ancestry of Jefferson, the ancestry of Lincoln, the ancestry of John Brown, and Walt Whitman, and Frank Lloyd Wright, to deny what was obvious. Not even for all the gold from Wall Street, was there anybody that would agree to replace with falsehood the truth that I had depicted at the building of the Rockefeller. One could not have expected any less, given the essential character of the North American people, its historic character.

And, given that the artist is always an expression of the people among which he works, what has capitalism accomplished? Capitalism has accomplished, given that it was not able to buy our word, capitalism has managed to purchase the silence of some of us. The art, which does not represent anything, the poetry that does not say anything, the intrascendent comedies, as they are elegantly called, what are they? They are commodities that neither cause indigestion in the bourgeoisie that pays for them, nor elicit any excitement in the poorly compensated worker to rebel against low wages.

In other words, it is a commodity perfectly equivalent to morphine, to cocaine, to opium, whenever it is administered in such a way as to produce first the alleviation of the pain, and eventually addiction. This way the artist, who contributes with his creative

potential, with his potential to create beauty in such circumstances, what is it, what is his role in society? He is precisely a drug trafficker, it is a despicable criminal; it is a public toxic. The role of the artist, as an ally of people, who tries to express the honest truth of the society in which he lives, all the beauty of the wonderful world which surrounds him, and who is in direct communication with the masses of the society in which he works, who sides with justice and progress, such an artist performs a positive role, just as a negative role is played by the latter. Such is currently the role of the artist, it is either the role of producer of anesthetics, of drugs, or that of producer of food for the progress of mankind, there is no in between. Does this mean that all works of art ought to be a call to insurrection? Does it mean that, invariably, all works of art ought to be created for agitation purposes? No.

In one occasion, in the largest of the socialist countries, my friends and I asked directly this question to a group of workers, and they responded “We want in our factories (this is stated in a historic written resolution, addressed to the October group, to which I had the honor of being part of, in the city of Moscow), the resolution states: “We want in our factories, in the walls of our factories, of our clubs, of our schools, of our public buildings, in the interior and exterior walls, paintings that will remind us of our struggle in pursuit of our rights, and the fruits of the ownership of our rights, the struggle as well as the difficulties, prosperity as well as the great results accomplished. However, in the interior of our houses, inside our homes, where we return after a long day of labor, tired with the desire to rest, there we want to have paintings which will provide to us the relaxation we need, paintings like those which you call landscapes and still lives, (they were addressing a group of artist, me among them), like those paintings which you call landscapes or still lives, which will remind us of the fruit and food which we enjoy, but not always have access to –since we do not always have the same seasons-, paintings which will remind us during winter about what spring promises, what autumn will bring, and which also will present, for us to see, the places around the world which we do not have access to, except during holidays, given that we must work in an industry which is located according to the products of the soil, that is the reason why we want landscapes and still lives”. That demonstrates that the role of the artist in society is an important one, an essential one, which may be either in allegiance with the general interest of society, a positive role; or in allegiance with the interest of the ruling classes which exploit the basis of society, a negative role. Is it possible to have an in-between

position? What would it be like? Would it limit itself to produce landscapes and still lives? You will tell me, “Well, in that case, it will be useful to both sides. If painters would only paint landscapes and still lives, and would not paint political paintings, the bourgeoisie would not get upset. Nobody is afraid of a bunch of apples, a plate full of pastries, or a well painted lamb chop; they please the rich and the poor, the exploited as well as the ruler!

Now, what is the position of the individual who will only paint landscapes and still lives? Well, he will not be able to remove himself from their particular character. Someone who is willing to serve the ruling classes will not see the landscapes of the earth in the same way as someone who is willing to help, and to become an ally of the exploited, so that they will no longer be exploited. Thus, even a landscape or a still life will have specific characteristics, they could be progressive or not, that is why there is not an in-between position. Shall work of arts be propaganda or not? All works of art are propaganda, absolutely all of them; the same with a Venetian channel that attracts tourists and lovers so that the hoteliers and merchants profit from them, or a religious painting, or a political painting, the only difference is the purpose of the propaganda. Abstract painting is propaganda as well, in that it is propaganda to remove oneself from reality, to recreate oneself with pure color or shape, as to not concern oneself with external issues, in other words, to escape from reality. Thus, there is no possible third position; whoever wants to take a third position is nothing more than an opportunistic. That is the role of the artist in society.

Having an idea of the social role of the artist, we may test out; we may prove what we have stated. In order to prove it, we need observation; in other words, we need to take a look at the current artistic production being created around the world, what has been produced in different historic periods in society. That is the only thing that will allow us to demonstrate that what we have asserted is true, or to determine that is not true, that we have lied. Let’s us look, let us examine historic periods that we are familiar with, with the purpose of dispelling any doubts. For instance, let’s take the period in which the Spanish and their allies in the empire of Charles V fought against the Flemish to dominate them, against the Netherlander, and we will look at the art produced in that period. It is precisely in that period, when we find the great artist Bruegel. What are Bruegel’s paintings like? Bruegel’s paintings are wonderful landscapes. What he painted is the stage of life. Nobody painted the flatlands and the valleys as he did. He

painted the mountains in wintertime, in the spring, in the summer, and in the autumn, the entire life of the earth, and he populated it with images that accurately represented -given that he also included cities in his landscapes- the life of his fellowmen. He took landscape further beyond the reality which surrounded him; he went with his landscapes up to the mountains which separated his country from the invaders’ country. He went even further; he entered history and painted a landscape representing the Tower of Babel, in other words, the root cause of linguistic and racial differences which resulted in wars – which he witnessed- based on what in those days he was in a position to be aware of, the bible, the Holly Scriptures. Therefore, he depicted the circumstances surrounding him, based on the Holly Scriptures, the mythological period of humanity. What was surrounding him? The arson of towns, looting of cities, murder of men, women, and children, as well as the execution of those who defended their country. He was surrounded by injustice, but also by the heroism of his fellow compatriots defending themselves against the Spanish invader. Was he able to represent directly those facts? He would have suffered repression. Hence, in order to evade such repression, and nonetheless, represent the truth, he assimilated what surrounded him to scenes from the Holly Scripture, from The Old and The New testament. Thus, the invader, who called himself a Catholic, was unable to deny the truth of the gospel; consequently, Bruegel was not constrained to paint what was happening, due to the fact that there had been, in fact, a massacre of innocent children ordered by Herod. He painted the massacre of the innocent, with a small image of Herod. It was perfectly easy for the oppressed people to replace Herod with Charles V, the Duke of Alba, or any of the other Herods who oppressed them.

Therefore, Bruegel realistically rendered the massacres that he had witnessed, the fires, as well as the violations. He assimilated the hero, who defended his nation, with the crucifixion, the execution of Christ. It was perfectly easy for the people to make the connection with the execution of those who defended them, the men who fought for the people. He painted the storm, the naval combat; he painted the emperor heading his army across mountains to invade the Netherlands. He painted the battles between armies, based on the story of Saul in the Holly Scriptures. Before Bruegel, Giotto had done that. Giotto, in Italy, had painted the life of Francis of Assisi, the brother of the water, the brother of the sun, the wonderful Francis, brother to all, who loved all, and who naturally would reproach those who did not love one another, but would exploit them

instead. Giotto’s frescoes are an accurate translation of the life that surrounded him, taking the great example of Saint Francis to criticize not only the emperor, but also the Italian lords, and the Pope, the Pope, who sometimes would forget his mission of pastor to adopt a position of wealthy farmer, wealthy owner, and great lord of temporary powers.

Just like Dante would place some Popes in hell, Giotto also knew how to show them the way to hell when they did not comply with their mission. Later on, during the democratic bourgeoisie revolution, what do we find in terms of art? We find a plethora of poets who led people to their liberation, to the creation of the progressive class, which Marx called the most powerful in history, the bourgeoisie, which took place a hundred years ago. And, what was produced back then? All kinds of things! A whole series of poets, Schiller, Andres Heine, and also David, the painter, and also the great painters, the formidable painters, Honore Daumier, and Gustave Courbet. Honore Daumier, at the same time that attacked to the point of destruction, the poor legal organization of those times, he also took up arms to fight in the barricades. He went to prison for defending the rights of the people, for defending the democratic rights of the people, and while in prison, he created masterpieces. Later on, Courbet produced masterpieces as well, and Courbet was among those members of the Central Committee who addressed the Declaration of the Liberation of the World, called The Paris Commune. He suffered exile; he suffered imprisonment, and he fought in war. Today he remains in one of the central galleries of the Louvre, just like Daumier, as one of the greatest representatives of human genius.

There is no artist that can be considered superior to him; there are artists comparable to him, such as Cézanne, Seurat, Seurat, wise physicist, revolutionary; Pissarro, socialist, revolutionary; Cézanne, a friend of all popular, democratic struggles, etc. etc.

The truth is that in all the important historic periods of advancement, of progress towards true freedom, towards true democracy, all the great artists have sided with the people. Today in this period of great difficulties, in this period of intolerance -in countries such as the United States, and other countries influenced by the United States- of prosecution against anyone who disagrees with Mr. McCarthy, in all those countries, there is an artist who has earned mountains of gold, and that perhaps might be able to continue doing so, despite his opinions. The intolerant bourgeoisie becomes tolerant

when it comes to purchasing his works of art, because they have the greatest value, the most prestige and the highest quality in the world. That painter, that man of genius, who encompasses one whole period in the history of art, the last period, the last third of the XIX century, and part of the XX, that great man’s name is Pablo Picasso, and he is a regular, active, militant member of the communist party. Such quality would not allow him to visit Mr. McCarthy in Washington, for he is banned by law. However, every painting by Picasso which enters the United States is fought over by museums, collectors, who, despite his membership in the communist party, would not hesitate to pay many thousands of dollars for art of such high quality. That is absolute proof that art is a necessity, a human necessity that overrides temporary circumstances.

Mr. McCarthy is absolutely temporary, just like all the Presidents of the Republic are; they remain in power for 18 years, and people become unhappy if they intend to remain longer than that. However, the works of Picasso will last for centuries to come, in the event that the atomic bombs do not destroy them. He is a combatant for peace, he does not want the atomic bombs to destroy art; however, he especially does not want for the atomic bombs to destroy human solidarity, he does not want for them to destroy humankind, he does not want for non-combatant men, women, and children to die, just because those in power have decided to go to war.

Picasso is a combatant for peace, his role in that capacity is splendid. The most important book on drawings has been recently edited; it is perhaps the most important book of drawings of all times, and it is a book about peace. It contains all the studies, all the sketches made by Picasso for two of his greatest masterpieces, one is about peace, the other about war, based on the material he created to arrive to the super production of two great masterpieces. The best book in favor of peace has been published with such temporary material, from which many masterpieces are so often created.

Thus, you can see that in the Middle Ages, there was a painter, a seraphic painter, a mystical painter, a wonderful painter by trade, who seemed to pray when he painted; the painter of the Martyrdom of Saint Ursula and the Eleven Thousand Virgins in the house of relics of Saint John’s Hospital in Bruges; a painter who, despite those refined feminine qualities, magnificent qualities, was at the same time captain of the archers of Bruges. And the artisans of Bruges, as well as those from the coast-sides –of what would become free cities- were oppressed in that period by a vicious feudal lord, Charles the Temerarious.

Eventually, the artisans decided to take up arms, and given that the oppressor constrained their livelihood –their ability to live in peace and with dignity from their labor- they decided to put an end to oppression and to establish peace. That is when they decided to appoint as chief of the army the best painter, for he was the best painter, the most renowned painter, and due to that fact, Hans Memling led the army of workers and artists of Flanders, which in the battle called, “Battle of the Golden Spurs”, defeated Charles The Temerarious, the vicious feudal lord, oppressor of kings, vassals, and artisans.

The defeat was such that all which the invader had left, as he fled in defeat, was the company of two hunting dogs, and such were the deeds of the finest painter, probably the most delicate in the whole history of European painting, Hans Memling.

Thus, you can see the examples of the social role of the artist. The artist is not an artist if he is not, first of all, a human being, and a human being profoundly human, up until the end. If the artist is not able of feeling all the feelings of humankind, if the artist is not able to love, to the point of self denial, even if necessary, to the point of self sacrifice, and the sacrifice of his own genius; if the artist is not able to risk his life – like the workers in 1848- his genius, his brain, creator of masterpieces; to take a chance to be the target of a bullet which will put an end to his creation, as Honore Daumier did, as Gustave Courbet did. If the artist is not willing to leave behind the magic brush to take up the lead to defeat the oppressor of his people, as Hans Memling did, as Phidias had done in Greek times, as Michelangelo did in defense of Florence, in that case he is not an artist.

A great artist is a great lover of his fellow men, who lives and works exclusively to contribute, as much as he can, (if he is not able to do much, what can he do?) to the harmony of men with the earth, and of men with one another. You might wonder, and the others? Those who are not that way? And those who have maintained in their palace in Venice a great collection of beautiful women for the enjoyment of visiting ambassadors, with the intention of -once satisfied by women, delicacies, and wines- enticing them to commission paintings from him?

Well, Christians say that divine mercy is endless; they say that god’s plans are unknown. We only analyze the ends, the plans. When the man of genius surrounds himself by corruption, when the man of genius employs bribery with the magnate, so that he can get compensation for his creative work, but who is still brilliant, who is still

sensitive; in other words, who does not renounce his human qualities, all the circumstances which surrounded -the despicable circumstances that surrounded- his business dealings, which took place around his works of art, disappear. Who cares if Titian Vecelio ran a brothel for his clients? Who cares if he had hired a corrupt poet, named Arecino to write favorable critics on his behalf, attacking his fellow painters and praising him? It does not matter, given the beauty of Titian’s work, the humanity of Titian’s work, where there is indeed no lie, where there is no corruption, we forget about that.

However, is there at all a painting by Titian that can be compared in intensity, in power, in quality to the paintings of his contemporary and colleague Tintoretto, -in the building called today the Fishermen Union of Venice, Saint Rocco, patron saint of fishermen- those wonderful paintings, which depict the oppression of the people, the torment of fishermen in the prisons of the “Serenísima República” , the popular desire for a better life, which resulted in extreme tragedy for the people, or in popular vindication. Is there anything by Titian compared to Tintoretto’s masterpieces? Not at all! The genius of the master was spent on lesser works; he did not even try to create any work of the scope of Tintoretto’s work. Probably because he knew that given his lifestyle, it would have been in vain to even try to do so; to reach, as Tintoretto did, that expression of popular sentiment, to accomplish -in his own circumstances and environment- something equal to what Memling did. Memling was a victorious general, Michelangelo was a defender of his city who fell, but fell heroically, Phidias gave the victory to his people in the battle of Salamina. Tintoretto left a plastic example for the fishermen, so that all the workers of his time, and the workers of times to come, will view his work as a clear indication of the need to fight against the oppressor, to fight for their rights. Titian did not do that, so you can clearly see the difference between the two men.

Titian’s work is still exceptional because of his great genius. Now we forget, after a few centuries, the role of narcotic that it played; however, Titian’s work does not play a vital role conducive to human progress, as the work of his counterpart Tintoretto does. That is the fate of those who side with the people, and those who are against the people, or not in favor of the people. And those who are not in favor of the people, are against the people; that is why the social role of the artist cannot differ from that played by Walt Whitman who enlightened his century (and will enlighten two or three more centuries to come, because he was the greatest interpreter of the progressive sector which

make up 80% of the American people) towards a better society, a better industry, a better agriculture, and the love for one another also greater, given that through industry, agriculture, science, and the applied arts, a better standard of living will be established, so that we may love one another with greater peace, with greater tranquility, so that we may live a superior life towards which the popular democracies and the socialist republics are headed, and towards which one day also -beyond all contemporary circumstances, beyond all sorts of intolerance- the great people of the United States will integrate all the peoples of the continent at the forefront of peace and progress.