Even in the introduction, Article #2 says that its main focus will be on the political myths associated with the painting. The article presents the Virgin of Guadalupe as a tool for the political advancement of the Spanish. In their conquest for the land of present day Mexico, the native people were almost forced into a conversion to the Christian lifestyle. However, the painting helped to unite the people in Mexico and later, in the world. The interpretation in each article was based off the initial background information or historical information on the Virgin of Guadalupe.
The historical information in both the articles has identical information. The both explain how Juan Diego was the original visionary of the Virgin of Guadalupe. They both characterize the painting as a miracle, where in Article #2, it describes how he unrolled his cloak to reveal the painting on his tilma. However, the interpretation in these articles is of the replicated version of that miraculous event. In addition, they both talk about the historical significance of Tepeyac, where the miracle took place and a shrine as been built with a Spanish replication of the Virgin of Guadalupe. In conclusion, the articles both characterize the Virgin of Guadalupe as a significant character within the Mexican community, whether it …show more content…
Peterson gives evidence on how many different people could have been considered the painter of this piece. One of the people is Marcos Cipac de Aquino, who scholars have the greatest speculation of being the artist. Peterson explains that in this time, it was not in the indigenous tradition to autograph and date works of art, and the archbishop may have intentionally not wanted the painter to become known to avoid criticism. Since the painting was clearly done using native techniques and visual imagery from the San José school of