The avant-garde in the architecture and visual arts of Post-Revolutionary Mexico

Commenting on an exhibition of contemporary Mexican architecture in Rome in 1957, the polemic and highly influential Italian architectural critic and historian, Bruno Zevi, ridiculed Mexican modernism for combining Pre-Columbian motifs with modern architecture. He referred to it as ‘Mexican Grotesqu...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Fernando N. Winfield
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: UCL Press 2012-10-01
Series:Architecture_MPS
Online Access:https://uclpress.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.14324/111.444.amps.2012v1i3.001
_version_ 1797896170094198784
author Fernando N. Winfield
author_facet Fernando N. Winfield
author_sort Fernando N. Winfield
collection DOAJ
description Commenting on an exhibition of contemporary Mexican architecture in Rome in 1957, the polemic and highly influential Italian architectural critic and historian, Bruno Zevi, ridiculed Mexican modernism for combining Pre-Columbian motifs with modern architecture. He referred to it as ‘Mexican Grotesque’. Inherent in Zevi’s comments were an attitude towards modern architecture that defined it in primarily material terms; its principle role being one of “spatial and programmatic function”. Despite the weight of this Modernist tendency in the architectural circles of Post-Revolutionary Mexico, we suggest in this paper that Mexican modernism cannot be reduced to such “material” definitions. In the highly charged political context of Mexico in the first half of the 20th Century, modern architecture was perhaps above all else, a tool for propaganda. In this political atmosphere it was undesirable, indeed it was seen as impossible, to separate art, architecture and politics in a way that would be a direct reflection of Modern architecture’s European manifestations. Form was to follow function, but that function was to be communicative as well as spatial and programmatic. One consequence of this “political communicative function” in Mexico was the combination of the “mural tradition” with contemporary architectural design; what Zevi defined as “Mexican Grotesque”. In this paper, we will examine the political context of Post-Revolutionary Mexico and discuss what may be defined as its most iconic building; the Central Library at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mexico . In direct counterpoint to Zevi, we will suggest that it was far from grotesque, but rather was one of the most committed political statements made by the Modern Movement throughout the Twentieth Century. It was propaganda, it was political. It was utopian.
first_indexed 2024-04-10T07:38:34Z
format Article
id doaj.art-1994392b24f14f8abd39ff50bb500c38
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2050-9006
language English
last_indexed 2024-04-10T07:38:34Z
publishDate 2012-10-01
publisher UCL Press
record_format Article
series Architecture_MPS
spelling doaj.art-1994392b24f14f8abd39ff50bb500c382023-02-23T12:08:15ZengUCL PressArchitecture_MPS2050-90062012-10-01110.14324/111.444.amps.2012v1i3.001The avant-garde in the architecture and visual arts of Post-Revolutionary MexicoFernando N. WinfieldCommenting on an exhibition of contemporary Mexican architecture in Rome in 1957, the polemic and highly influential Italian architectural critic and historian, Bruno Zevi, ridiculed Mexican modernism for combining Pre-Columbian motifs with modern architecture. He referred to it as ‘Mexican Grotesque’. Inherent in Zevi’s comments were an attitude towards modern architecture that defined it in primarily material terms; its principle role being one of “spatial and programmatic function”. Despite the weight of this Modernist tendency in the architectural circles of Post-Revolutionary Mexico, we suggest in this paper that Mexican modernism cannot be reduced to such “material” definitions. In the highly charged political context of Mexico in the first half of the 20th Century, modern architecture was perhaps above all else, a tool for propaganda. In this political atmosphere it was undesirable, indeed it was seen as impossible, to separate art, architecture and politics in a way that would be a direct reflection of Modern architecture’s European manifestations. Form was to follow function, but that function was to be communicative as well as spatial and programmatic. One consequence of this “political communicative function” in Mexico was the combination of the “mural tradition” with contemporary architectural design; what Zevi defined as “Mexican Grotesque”. In this paper, we will examine the political context of Post-Revolutionary Mexico and discuss what may be defined as its most iconic building; the Central Library at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mexico . In direct counterpoint to Zevi, we will suggest that it was far from grotesque, but rather was one of the most committed political statements made by the Modern Movement throughout the Twentieth Century. It was propaganda, it was political. It was utopian.https://uclpress.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.14324/111.444.amps.2012v1i3.001
spellingShingle Fernando N. Winfield
The avant-garde in the architecture and visual arts of Post-Revolutionary Mexico
Architecture_MPS
title The avant-garde in the architecture and visual arts of Post-Revolutionary Mexico
title_full The avant-garde in the architecture and visual arts of Post-Revolutionary Mexico
title_fullStr The avant-garde in the architecture and visual arts of Post-Revolutionary Mexico
title_full_unstemmed The avant-garde in the architecture and visual arts of Post-Revolutionary Mexico
title_short The avant-garde in the architecture and visual arts of Post-Revolutionary Mexico
title_sort avant garde in the architecture and visual arts of post revolutionary mexico
url https://uclpress.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.14324/111.444.amps.2012v1i3.001
work_keys_str_mv AT fernandonwinfield theavantgardeinthearchitectureandvisualartsofpostrevolutionarymexico
AT fernandonwinfield avantgardeinthearchitectureandvisualartsofpostrevolutionarymexico