It is probably true that all of us believe that we are modern: Ramses and Socrates and Helen of Troy no doubt considered themselves modern in their time. This is no doubt one of the reasons that it can be so difficult to define exactly what Modernism is in art: We are constantly conflating it with what is contemporary, but by now post-modern. This paper examines one of the defining painters of Modernism, the Mexican painter and muralist Diego Rivera. By an analysis of three of his paintings, we can come to a greater appreciation of his own work as well as a broader understanding of both Modernism and Primitivism, another school that Rivera worked within.
Before beginning to look at these three paintings, it may be helpful to provide a sort of baseline definition for Modernism. The concept of Modernism within the realm of art - like that of other styles and movements including Romanticism, Realism and Postmodernism - cannot be fully understand in isolation. Modernism can only be understood within the specific historical and cultural context of its evolution and development - just as is true of other stylistic schools. It arose from something, not nothing, and gave way to other specific ways of seeing.
While the exact beginnings and ends of all artistic schools and the boundaries of their stylistic concerns are in truth much fuzzier than the neat categories in text books would have us believe, Modernism is in fact a much harder artistic style to define than either Romanticism or Realism - although not as difficult as Postmodernism. This probably results in part from the fact that the closer a style is to one's own moment in history the more difficult it is to assess, but it also has to do with the fact that Modernism is itself a complex movement. Modernism was not a (relatively) straightforward reaction against the movement before it. This was the case with Realism; Realist artists were not unlike adolescents doing whatever it is t...