#art, Frida Kahlo: Conclusion

I just wanted to add a couple of things about Frida Kahlo to complete these three posts about the artist. But I must first be truthful with you my friends and subscribers, especially those who love, admire or even venerate Frida Kahlo. I do not like her or her work and here are some of the reasons why I do not. And this does not reflect anything personal as obviously I never met her. I just base myself on what she herself has written about her life and about herself and, naturally, her paintings.

First: I find that she is quite popular because she painted things that could be considered patriotic, or from the Mexican national folklore. This made her very appealing to the people of her country and even to the government to position her almost as a national identity. And there are many that do believe that. And she was also looked at as a woman that suffered, and practically a martyr, and that sells.

Second: She painted very few works. This makes her paintings more valuable. But the themes of her paintings are not too varied. She seemed preoccupied with what we now call “selfies”, as she painted self-portraits over and over. It seems to me that she was in love with herself and was totally immersed in her own mystique. And in many of her paintings she glorified, and even deified Diego Rivera, her husband.

Three: Well, a lot of women think of her as a feminist icon. I do not really understand that one at all. Frida was submissive. If you read her diary you can read her own words of submission to Diego Rivera. Being in love and passionate about a man or a woman does not detract from feminism, but being submissive to another does. Why? Because when you submit you are recognising that the object of your submission is a superior being and that you are lesser in their eyes…and in status…and you must submit to gain approval and acceptance. That is not a good human trait, for women or for men. And this is evident in the portraits she painted of herself and Diego Rivera. There are several (at least two) where she places his face on her forehead and paints a third eye on Diego, thereby making him a god of sorts.

Fourth: Her paintings are what some might call Naïve art, which is supposed to be art created in the simplest manner and going against all the formalisms of the classicists. I think it really is a euphemism for bad art. There are some interesting paintings done by naïve artists but Frida’s really do not even reach that leve. Not all of them thought, there are some good ones. For example, the one below I do like.

So… I think I have stated my case quite clearly. There are some paintings by Frida Kahlo that I like, although I really do not spend much time on them, and the majority of her work I can do without. I do not see her as a feminist, quite the contrary. One thing I do see that since the 80’s Frida Kahlo merchandising has become incredible. Many entertainers like Beyoncé and Madonna have tried to pursue the Frida look and have even dressed like her, modelling their attire (and even poses) after photographs of Frida Kahlo. And of course we have the millions of Halloween costumes of Frida Kahlo, for the kids enjoyment, naturally…

And finally, one last thing that I really do not like at all about the Frida mystique is that she has stolen attention that should have been given to other female artists. Women like Leonora Carrington, Remedios Varo, Louise Bourgeois and Dorothea Tanning (more or less from the same generation). These were exceptional artists whose life was dedicated to the development of their work and their philosophy of art.

CHEERS