The editorial categories are research topics that have guided researchers during the recovery phase and continue to be the impetus behind the Documents Project’s digital archive and the Critical Documents book series. Developed by the project’s Editorial Board, each of the teams analyzed this framework and adapted it to their local contexts in developing their research objectives and work plans during the Recovery Phase. Learn more on the Editorial Framework page.
The art critic Raquel Tibol, an Argentine native who arrived in Mexico in 1953, uses mural works in progress by David Alfaro Siqueiros, Jorge González Camarena, and Fanny Rabel, as examples of the vitality of the post-revolutionary pictorial movement in Mexico. And she adds: “it has not stagnated as some people wish to suggest.” For the author, muralism will be the precursor “in the very near future, to a humanistic phase of synthesis.” On the other hand, Tibol believes that in the work of certain artists, the “exclusive exaltation” of elements inherent to the work, in detriment of others elements, has failed. A situation as such “has been clearly proven in the premature aging of the formalist compositions of Carlos Mérida or the constructivist-expressionist vagueness of Rufino Tamayo.”
This is an article in defense of the so-called Mexican school of painting, as it confronted the presence of a variety of avant-garde movements in the art world, all of which arrived in Mexico following World War II. Tibol makes an analogy between these movements and “an anatomical dissection” of painting, valid as a means for studying the behavior of elements intrinsic to the work. With this positivist metaphor she concludes that, just like in the field of medicine, once such “dissections” are undertaken, they should be placed again at the service of a “living organism.” In the field of visual arts, this would imply a return to figuration with social content. Tibol’s article refers to Henri Matisse’s opinions regarding art that, for this critic, are tantamount to giving it “a narcotizing function, . . . ridiculous in their falseness.”