#art, On Warhol and Frida Kahlo (parts 1 and 2)…

Frida Kahlo (Coyoacán, Mexico City, Mexico 1907-1954) is widely respected for her deeply personal and symbolic self-portraits, but I do not believe it and I can argue my point that she is not a valuable addition to art history with critical perspectives on her legacy:

Limited Formal Innovation: Her technique was not particularly ground-breaking…far from it…in terms of formal or technical development. Her style was rooted in Mexican folk art and a sort of surrealism-light that did not innovate in terms of form, compared to…dare I…contemporaries like Picasso or Kandinsky, which were real artists in every sense of the word. For me Picasso and Kandinsky were the greatest innovators of the 20th Century and true geniuses. Kahlo does not fit in that company.

Overemphasis on Personal Suffering: Her fame leans too heavily on her personal story—her chronic pain, relationship with Diego Rivera, and her political identity—rather than on the artistic merit of her works themselves. And of course, she was a martyr and martyrs sell and are well accepted by the general public.

Cult of Personality: Her image (iconic unibrow, flower crown, traditional Tehuana dress) has become commodified to the point that she’s more famous for being Frida Kahlo the icon than Frida Kahlo the painter. She…and this was through no fault of her…became the queen of merchandising. I mean even little girls for Halloween dress up like Frida Kahlo. And pop stars, beginning with Madonna, have also dressed like her to capitalise on the image. But that says nothing about artistic significance…