Photo of "Crossroads" before its destruction.
Like most things I see on the internet, I have no recollection how I came across this Glenn Beck clip on the art at Rockefeller Center, but I was intrigued to hear what he had to say because of the topic and the notoriety surrounding him. It appears he is using Rockefeller Center as a high profile example for the argument that socialist propaganda surrounds us and affects us though we do not notice it. He claims even presumed capitalists like John D. Rockefeller are part of a large-scale movement supporting oppressive messages from Communist leaders via Communist artists by weaving them into the fabric of American life, and that their influence is pervasive and dangerous. Even if this sounds incredibly far-fetched, I believe the claim is worth exploring, as it would give support to the idea that art, and artists, can influence us deeply and profoundly, even without our knowing it.
As a professional performing artist, I often wonder what is it that makes the audience pay attention or not, and when they leave, what impact has my singing had on them, if any? Keeping all this in mind, I’d like readers to consider some facts about the art at Rockefeller Center, its creators, and its content.
The Art of Rockefeller Center
According to Wikipedia (which seems to have a well-cited article on this topic),
[Rockefeller Center] was the largest private building project ever undertaken in modern times.[7] Construction of the 14 buildings in the Art Deco style (without the original opera house proposal) began on May 17, 1930 and was completed on November 1, 1939 when he [Rockefeller?] drove in the final (silver) rivet into 10 Rockefeller Plaza.
Principal builder, and “managing agent”, for the massive project was John R. Todd and principal architect was Raymond Hood, working with and leading three architectural firms, on a team that included a young Wallace Harrison, later to become the family’s principal architect and adviser to Nelson Rockefeller.
This synopsis indicates that Rockefeller, despite being the raison d’etre and source of funding for this project, was not its main conceptual architect. Any accusation of Rockefeller’s supposed desire to spread socialism via subliminal art messages rings hollow. What is more likely is that Rockefeller and his associates wanted significant art contributions by famous artists of the time to add to the prominence of the already-impressive undertaking.
One of the artists mentioned by Beck who had been commissioned for Rockefeller Center was Diego Rivera, a long-time beneficiary of generous funding from Abby Aldrich Rockefeller, John D. Rockefeller, Jr.’s wife. He was to paint a mural for the lobby of the then RCA, now NBC building.
Diego Rivera's signature with hammer and sickle.
The fact that Rivera was a prominent supporter Communism, as a member of the Mexican Communist Party, and intellectual and artistic supporter of The Soviet Revolution is well-documented. (The Agitator, left.) However, whether or not Rockefeller or his associates knew or cared about Rivera’s involvement appears to be debatable.
In either case, once Rivera’s controversial depiction of Man at the Crossroads showing an iconic male figure led by Lenin and other Soviet leaders away from American Capitalism toward the light and triumph of Soviet Russia was revealed, it was promptly destroyed by Rockefeller. Clearly he was not keen on explicit exaltation of the Communist state and marginalizing his own image. (A replica called Man, Controller of the Universe is located in Mexico.)
So, what of the remaining supposedly Communist art at Rockefeller Center mentioned by Beck? In my brief research on the topic, it seems the pieces are only a small part of the impressive Art Deco oeuvre that is Rockefeller Center. The website for the Center itself contains a lovely section on all the works of art displayed there, explaining,
John D. Rockefeller Jr’s resolution to make Rockefeller Center contemporary and innovative can be felt with every artwork and attraction. Take a look through the Gallery and get to know a remarkable collection of treasures, themed “New Frontiers”, signifying man’s development in spirit, science, industry and more.
I can only conclude that any Communist influence in the other works of art was too subtle for Rockefeller to detect, or he simply did not care to destroy every piece created for his laborious project which may have had the slightest taint of socialism. But as a nod to those in agreement with Beck, if the art is Communist in nature, we are still left with the issue of how it is influencing us, if at all.
Art is never dangerous, unless it tells the truth
The movie, Cradle Will Rock, about the Federal Art Projects of the 1930′s depicts the controversies in the arts world at the time, including the Rivera-Rockefeller fight over the Man at the Crossroads. I must point out that as a private donor, Rockefeller had final say in what kind of art he commissioned, and there can be no further commentary upon his “rights” to destroy Rivera’s art. He had every right to do so, as the art was effectively his own private property.
However, the film attempted to portray the tenuous relationships between artists, donors, and the public during the Great Depression when art was not considered a necessity. Federally-funded art laborers supported by the famous Works Progress Administration (WPA), felt they were being silenced not because of funding shortfalls, but because oppressive government bureaucrats and capitalists were trying to destroy their message.
According to Wikipedia,
The film [provides] a picture of life in the 1930s where some people wait in endless unemployment lines attempting to get work, while others enjoy their wealth engaging in parties and purchasing expensive works of art. As the musical nears production, the WPA cuts the budget for the [Federal Theater Project] FTP, and puts a halt to all new productions. This announcement comes following the House Committee on Un-American Activities’ questioning of many of those involved in the FTP, and the musical [Cradle Will Rock] itself due to its leftist themes around labor and union organizing.
Despite being canceled, the director, Orson Welles (Angus Macfadyen) and producer, John Houseman (Cary Elwes), lead the cast to another theater that they were able to secure at the last minute. The cast is forbidden to perform by their union, so Blitzstein takes the stage alone at an upright piano to perform the show himself, only to be joined by many of the cast members who deliver their lines from the audience. Robbins juxtaposes this final triumphant moment of the theater with images of the destruction of a mural commissioned by Nelson Rockefeller (John Cusack) because the artist, Diego Rivera (Ruben Blades), refused to remove the image of Lenin’s face from the piece.
The movie’s tagline, “Art is never dangerous, unless it tells the truth” can be taken as a trite and treacly nod to the novelty of the theatre, or it can be taken as something far more powerful. Did the art and performances of the 1930′s with a purportedly (little-c) communist message influence future generations? Did the art “tell the truth” and did the government and others in power sense its “danger” in presenting it to the public? It appears Tim Robbins and Glenn Beck, though on different sides of the argument, feel similarly about the power of art to convey, deeply and purposefully, the intentions of the artists who bring the messages to the public. Again, from Wikipedia,
In tying together stories of labor issues and steel strikes, censorship in painting and theater, and the disparities of wealth and power, [Director Tim] Robbins is able to paint a picture of the 1930s that goes beyond simply recounting past events and questions the boundaries between art, power and politics.
What do my readers think about this? What is the impact of art? Of Communist art? What, if any, lasting impact does the art of the 1930′s have on us today?
The (other) Wagner Effect
Could it be art can stand on its own, without the taint of its creator? This is what we could coin, The Wagner Effect (distinct from the Wagner effect in entomology, but of the composer, Richard Wagner): the phenomenon where art is enjoyed purely for its aesthetic value, not for any additional meaning imbued by its creator. What do I mean? Wagner is famously regarded as an anti-semite. Yet, his music is still widely performed, even by Jewish artists, though it is boycotted by many others. Why is this? Can art created by despicable people still hold aesthetic value important for a society to experience? Are the dividing lines between aesthetic value and intended value blurred or distinct?
We could perhaps conclude that those who listen to and appreciate Wagner’s music, do not do so because of his depraved personal life, but in spite of it. This theory could apply to Communist artists like Rivera, as his murals are considered some of the greatest works of contemporary art, in spite of his controversial messages. Of course there may be those who appreciate the art because of the message. I am not the final arbiter here, but am interested in these questions.
It would appear society is willing to look past the personal lives of artists, and judge their creations for purely aesthetic value. But should they?
