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.
A short article in which the critic Raúl Flores Guerrero tries to mediate a dispute among journalists set off by José Luis Cuevas, who has taken a position against muralism. It is a brouhaha that has been already going on for a few months. Flores Guerrero criticizes the attitude of the draftsman that, given the current situation, he finds anachronistic: “The so-called Mexican School is drowning, unassisted, in its own academic misery,” according to Cuevas. The writer maintains that judgments about David Alfaro Siqueiros have not been made on proper grounds, and, as for Diego Rivera and José Clemente Orozco, there is no reason to attack them when they passed away and are no longer with us. In Flores Guerrero’s opinion, Orozco, in particular—as opposed to the others—“is an example” to be followed.
Flores Guerrero defends the values of Mexican nationalist painting in the face of ongoing attacks from José Luis Cuevas (b. 1934). He admits that the “Three Greats,” and even Rufino Tamayo (1899-1991), “have spewed out sufficient material to assemble an anthology of nonsense.” However, the critic recognizes them as “consecrated” artists and therefore worthy of respect. In fact, the writer recalls the draftsman’s early days, when Cuevas asked for and welcomed approval of his works by David Alfaro Siqueiros (1896-1974). The article accuses Cuevas of concocting “machinations” against him—through a great media campaign intended to his own benefit.