Reading the body makes it clear that the author believes she is a talented painter, though. Maybe it’s their way of indicating she’s untrained? shrug
Could also just be that the author didn’t realise Kahlo had already had an artistic career for some years when this was written. She hadn’t been widely recognised by that point and had only been in Detroit (the article was published in the Detroit News) for a year, so while the language is quite condescending I can give the writer some benefit of the doubt that she was trying to shed light upon an unrecognised talent
This comment made me realize the article itself was written by a woman, which kind of surprised me given the era.
I don’t believe it was meant maliciously - more a manifestation of the common cultural casual sexism that leads women to often be defined by their husbands or male partners, regardless of their own talents or achievements, simply as a matter of perspective.
Subtly, and for a female reporter this was likely necessary, she’s actually doing the opposite of the casual sexism. This is actually a fairly savvy rhetorical piece that simultaneously spotlights the artist’s work and personhood while not throwing off any alarms for the patriarchy to revise, censor, or overreact to. I imagine a contemporaneous female vs male readership would interpret this article very differently.
Writer almost never writes the headline. So, two different people with two different views.
Didn’t she refer to herself as as “Rivera’s wife” instead of herself as an artist at least up until the early 30’s?
After reading the body I sort of think this is just irony.
The actual article seems quite positive about her art. Why that title was written to sound so dismissive, I do not really understand, it’s not at all in line with the content. If her art was thought to be so irrelevant, it wouldn’t merit an article in the first place. Maybe it was meant to be positive by conveying her non-academic background and “natural”, intuitive approach to painting (I think that naïve/outsider art was already gaining some positive interest at the time).
It’s interesting that the article was written by a woman too.
Titles are typically written by editors, not the journalist who wrote the article. So what’s sympathetic article with a condescending headline makes some sense.
Frida didn’t hit her stride, generating her most popular, and defining works until shortly after this article. 1938 being a prolific year for her. Her husband was more well known at this point but she would eclipse him with certain audiences within the decade.
Yeah, i dont read the article as dismissing her. In fact they seem to appreciate her work and personality!
Diego Rivera, for anyone else that had forgotten his name.
Its like saying “Michelle Obama, and her politician husband, pictured.”
I actually once saw a picture with the caption “Human rights attorney Amal Clooney and her husband, an actor.”
Why was she so legendary? Most the art I’ve seen by her is just ok, nothing epic. Was she involved in other social movements or something?
Why was she so legendary? Most the art I’ve seen by her is just ok, nothing epic.
Art is highly subjective - modern artists who become famous typically do so because of novel approaches to their material rather than raw technical proficiency. Frida Kahlo was pioneering in her usage of folk culture and surrealism, combined with a (if you will pardon the fact that 90% of my comparisons go back to my obsession with Rome) verism-like dedication to detail, while (in a very un-Verism like manner) hewing to a distinctly stylized form.
So, she impressed other artists? I’m guessing it’s like when I see videos of a musician talking about how awesome a song is, then listen to it & think it’s just ok, only to find out that they think song is awesome because it’s performed in an obscure time signature or something.
Anyway, sounds good, I’ll remember that now.
Bit more of a pioneering thing. The “Seinfeld is unfunny” sort of thing, where something is so groundbreaking that it just gets widely adopted going forward and then isn’t always seen in a pioneering light by casual observers. We live in a blessed time for artistic styles, in that incredible amounts of human history and creativity are at our fingertips to experiment with, combine, refine, and distort. We owe that rich artistic heritage we enjoy to innovators like Frida Kahlo. (edit: swapped the last letters initially lmao)
*Frito Kamala
Yes, being appreciated by people who actually know what they’re talking about is usially a good thing.
Music a lot of people think is just OK or completely hate, while musicians/critics will think have changed the world: The pixies. (Loud quiet loud) Nirvana. (Loud quiet loud but Leadbelly) Radiohead. (11/6,12/7,13/8, what’s a martenot?)
If I look at something that I don’t understand but that a large group of people clearly values very highly, trained experts in the field included, my first instinct is not to form a dismissive opinion based on personal preference. I’ll typically try to find whatever is hidden from me upon first glance. You clearly adopted a different strategy.
How did you arrive at the conclusion that your judgement of art is ultimately meaning-, or even insightful?
I have eyes. Her art looks like something an amateur would do. Everyone has and uses judgement, my judgement of art is not less valuable than anyone else’s, which is why I asked why she’s considered to be so good.
That’s also a super elitist view. As if only highly trained artists can have opinions about art. Enjoy your walled garden I guess.
I have eyes. Her art looks like something an amateur would do.
Get your eyes fucking checked.
That’s pretty neat, still looks pretty sloppy. Looks like a drug trip.
It looks like something a 3rd year art school student today would paint while they took drugs.
The thing is, these are not just random images slapped onto a canvas, or even the product of a drug trip, but each part of this painting is symbolic of something to the artist (and, in much of Kahlo’s work, its some kind of pain). People going through similar things in their life might be able to pick out the symbolism in each part of the painting, connecting with it in a way you can’t. Not every art piece is about technical skill or realism (which is something you seem to value highly in the art you enjoy).
Yeah, I get that. I’m not sure why it’s not ok to express that according to all these other comments.
That’s pretty neat, still looks pretty sloppy. Looks like a drug trip.
Ah yes you’re right! I forgot that photo-realism is the only art form, thank you for reminding us all! There’ve never been other forms of art, it has only been a race to be a camera, I totally forgot!
What an insight into art, we need to inform people to take down all paintings drawn by Frida Kahlo at once! Some guy on the internet thinks it’s easy to do and sloppy!
We all enjoy what we enjoy, why’re you so mad about someone expressing that?
They are not talking about what they enjoy, they’re trying to explain that an artist is unskilled for their art which others enjoy. I feel like you have this backward.
Okay amateur, let’s see you produce something as technically crafted, symbolically stylized, and emotionally evocative as she did. If you don’t feel you have enough pain to draw on, we can break your spine and give you Lupus.
I’m not an amateur because I don’t paint. But her work looks like something some one in art school could paint today & wouldn’t get recognition.
One thing a trained artist knows better than you is that an amateur couldn’t have done that
An amateur painter, like an art school student, could paint some of the things I’ve seen by her. I get you guys are fans, but your subjective opinion is not reason to lash out at others that don’t agree.
Wow what a comment lmao
Hey dude, I don’t know, that’s why I asked. Someone else explained it to me, so I get it now, but I’m still going to have my own tastes.
Progressive newspaper believes women can someones do things.
They are probably gonna lose subscribers, thats just stupid.
/s
