The Mexican Revolution

    First, read Hutton’s article starting on page 41 with "In the Mexican Revolution..." and end on page 42: "...come to grips with his Zapata". In Mexican history, Zapata is the hero of the peasants. Hutton makes the following remark about Orozco’s Zapata: "It is this ambiguity to which most American critics objected, lamenting the absence of a 'key' by which to interpret the work" (42). For Hutton, Orozco’s Zapata is vague and does not offer a clear understanding. . 1) Do you agree or disagree with Hutton? How so? Answer Hutton’s remark taking into consideration the observations on doors made by Moore and with the knowledge that you already have on the Mexican Revolution. For this part, do the following: a) State whether you agree or disagree with Hutton and why. b) Elaborate on the why of your stance and use Moore’s reading to further defend your argument. Parts (a) and (b) should consist of at least twenty-five sentences. 2) Browse through the pictures you have taken with your cell and see if there are any pictures in which there’s a door present (perhaps the door wasn’t the focal point, but it is part of the picture nonetheless). Describe the possible significance of the door and its connection with the picture taken. If there's no door in your pictures, then focus on a household door. Ten sentences will help you come up with a good and decent comment.

Sample Solution

  I agree with Hutton that Orozco's Zapata is ambiguous and does not offer a clear understanding. However, I believe that this ambiguity is intentional and that it is one of the strengths of the work. Moore's Reading Moore's reading of Orozco's murals is helpful in understanding the ambiguity of Zapata. Moore argues that Orozco's murals are full of symbols and allusions, and that these symbols can be interpreted in multiple ways. This ambiguity is one of the things that makes Orozco's murals so powerful. They can be interpreted in different ways by different people, and they can continue to be interpreted in new ways over time.

Full Answer Section

  The Mexican Revolution The Mexican Revolution was a complex and chaotic event, and there is no single interpretation of it. This ambiguity is reflected in Orozco's Zapata. The mural is a powerful image of the Revolution, but it is also an ambiguous image. It can be interpreted in different ways, and it can continue to be interpreted in new ways over time. Conclusion I agree with Hutton that Orozco's Zapata is ambiguous and does not offer a clear understanding. However, I believe that this ambiguity is intentional and that it is one of the strengths of the work. The ambiguity of Zapata reflects the ambiguity of the Mexican Revolution, and it allows the mural to be interpreted in different ways by different people. This ambiguity is one of the things that makes Orozco's Zapata a powerful and enduring work of art. In addition to Moore's reading, I would also like to add that the ambiguity of Zapata can be seen as a reflection of the complexity of the Mexican Revolution. The Revolution was a time of great upheaval and change, and it is impossible to capture all of its complexities in a single image. Orozco's mural is a powerful attempt to do so, but it is also an imperfect attempt. The ambiguity of the mural reflects the ambiguity of the Revolution itself. The ambiguity of Zapata can also be seen as a reflection of the different ways in which the Revolution has been interpreted by historians and artists. There is no single "correct" interpretation of the Revolution, and different people have different perspectives on it. Orozco's mural reflects this diversity of perspectives, and it allows viewers to come to their own conclusions about the Revolution. In conclusion, I believe that the ambiguity of Zapata is one of its strengths. It allows the mural to be interpreted in different ways by different people, and it reflects the complexity of the Mexican Revolution.

IS IT YOUR FIRST TIME HERE? WELCOME

USE COUPON "11OFF" AND GET 11% OFF YOUR ORDERS