Legendary artist Frida Kahlo being casually dismissed in contemporary American newspaper headline, 1933
Legendary artist Frida Kahlo being casually dismissed in contemporary American newspaper headline, 1933
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 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.
One has to keep in mind that they were in the USA because he had commissions to make murals, therefore treating him as the arrived artist and her as an enthusiast isn't technically wrong.
Also covering her artistry isn't something a newspaper would do, if they didn't think that there wasn't something exciting about het art.
It sounds dismissive, but within the frame of a patriarchal society the article is actually quite positive of her works and may have contributed to het being taken seriously as an artist further down the road.
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.
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.
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