Frida Kahlo

I went to the Tate Modern last year and saw her exhibition.

I went from thinking she was ok enough to go and see, to,she cant paint/draw at all!!!!To oh my God im gona cry her work is so fantastic.

Mexico isnt a favourite culture of mine at all but knowing of her past accidents and how they effected her, and this being shown in her work is quite moving.
She isnt the best artist in the world but she certainly gets her point across.

That first picture of her spine as a collapsing column really got to me.Id always thought it was a gun(!!!)being pointed upwards to her head but when I looked closer and saw what it was it was so sad.Show how much pain she was in.

I have to admit I now love the way Mexicans dress, all that colour and flowers in her hair.
Since i saw the exhibition I even dont mind my slight moustache that I have,I think of it as being in homage to Frida.

Been meaning to see the Frida film with SAlma Hyak for age but as yet, have not got round to it.

I recently went to the Museum of Woman's Art in DC and saw her most famous piece, gorgeous.

To understand Kahlo's work it is important to know her life. The film is good, but it's even better to read this excellent book:
Frida: A Biography of Frida Kahlo by Hayden Herrera

Il have a look out for the book.Should be interesting.

The Hayden Herrera book is very good, I think. I also like the facsimile publication (in color) of Frida's private diary, which allows you a glimpse of her personal concerns, her fascinating handwriting (in what seems to be instinctively varied hues), some small but remarkable sketches and doodles. I also have enjoyed researching the photographs of her, with her, and by her--some involving Tina Modotti (a notable artist herself), some Diego Rivera. Frida's father was a photographer, and she took more pictures than most people are aware of--though often with someone else's camera. Of course, I prefer Frida's paintings, but, if you've never seen the photographs, you may be excited to visit them.

I agree. Her life is mirrored in her work. I do prefer the work of her
Exhusband, Diego Rivera, though. he was much more diversified in
his work.

CJ, I believe Rivera once remarked that Frieda was his artistic superior (or at least that she painted better).
I personally find her work difficult to relate to: too painful and too narcissistic. But that may merely reflect my own cowardice and narcissism.
Nice thread: only the really good ones bring out Miklos.

My wife has an interesting notion about Frida. Frida's father was German, and although Frida's house (the one displayed so beautifully in the film) was almost an exaggeration of MexicanISM--recall that her husband, Diego, was one of the great muralists who gave artistic expression to the culturally nativistic movement, i.e., glorifying the virtues of Precolumbian Mexico--she was a great lover of European art, including the music of Beethoven.

Hm, hard to believe JL, Rivera might have said that while
still madly in love with her, but comparing his paintings to
hers, there is no doubt, who's the better artist, don't you think?

Incidentially, I love Mexican artist, even Bustamante.
There is in one official building in Guadalajara a wall painting
(black-white) I liked very much. I have to ask again
where it was and who....

BTW, my wife is a native of Mexico City.
I too prefer the work of Rivera. He was a consumate master. Even his early cubist work (done while he was in Paris) surpasses, for sheer beauty, that of many of the original cubists, with the exception of Juan Gris.

Years ago I saw a documentary about Frida Kahlo at the Fox Venice theater, which had different movies scheduled each day but sometimes reran the short films. Thus I saw that documentary at least twice. It went on and on (I thought) about her and her suffering and her painting about her suffering. Now why we managed to see it twice even though once was enough, I don't remember. I overdosed on the selfinvolvement - at the same time I felt guilty about my irritation since she did really suffer. That was in the late seventies. I've not seen the recent movie - you might have to drag me, after chloroforming me, into the theater.

But I've liked Modotti's photography and very much like Rivera's painting.

On the black and white mural in Guadalajara, that is ringing a faint bell, CJane..

I've been looking at google to see if I could find the documentary. This might be it - it's in the range of years when we went to the theater that showed it.

FRIDA KAHLO
1983 62 min. VC #4032
RM Arts
Profiles the life of the Mexican artist through many of the self portraits in
which the she charted not only physical changes, but also the events in her life,
including love, loss, politics and the relationship with Diego Rivera.

While I had trouble with it, at least back in the day, others might enjoy seeing it.

Yes, osso, I have to ask my European friend who lives in
Guadalajara, as I don't remember exactly where the painting
was.

I agree, Frieda was very much involved in self pity and
her illnesses.

JL, Juan Gris reminds me more of Picasso, and a bit of Kandinsky.

"I agree, Frieda was very much involved in self pity and
her illnesses."

Definitely, Frida was very much involved in her illnesses--that would have been inavoidable, considering her degree of suffering--but I would hesitate to say that she was given to great self-pity. She was a VERY tough woman, both physically and mentally. Although she had frequent (and, unfortunately, often ill-conceived medical treatment), she was continuously trying to be well and to deny her increasing handicap.

Thank you very much, JL, for the reference to Diego's paintings. I'll go check them out right away!

I, at first, preferred Diego's art to Frida's, but I have come to feel that she did more with what was available to her.

How so Miklos?
I see a repetitiveness in Frieda's paitings that are not necessarily
artistic. Diego Rivera's paintings are so much more significant in color
and expression. My opinion of course.

I'll have to stand up for self involvement to some degree here - a delightful yet serious woman who showed with us at Piante (whew, now I can mention the name on a2k) - and her's is Juanita Larson - did watercolors related to her own life. Her own recent life has been trying, but even in the trying she had a light touch... as in her piece on the three fates, depicting a woman at three phases, the last skeletonized, though, as I remember, with a charming hat.
I guess some could see it as saccharinic but most of us saw steel in her work.

Another artist who showed with us is Sonya Fe. She paints in broad swath, what an ebulliant personality, and it shows in her every brush stroke. My business partner and I were individually crazed for much of her work, but neither of us could afford it at the time - in particular re the paintings. She had a great huge jungle-in-memory piece called When She Calls, He Comes (or something like that) - the painting something like 4 x 7 feet, with various monkeys depicted and banana flying and bird in space, great colors, one never got tired of looking at it... so, I am saying she painted with joy and some other elements. But she had dark dark dark work too, re child abuse. A couple of people who saw those walked away crying. I wish I could have sprung for one of those, they weren't that much but beyond my own budget at the time. Not the sort of thing for the living room, but serious work. She also has done a children's book with Arturo Vasquez. He is sharp too.

Anyway, I know this real life person of strength who paints like hell, and just can't get excited about Frida. Not to compare people, but I back away from a lot of idolization.






Here's Sonya's website, ahem, not recently updated.
http://www.sonyafe.com/about.htm

I guess I'll stick up for zoning in on one subject too.... thus we have Morandi.

Somehow the combo with Frida and that movie sent me over the edge on her.

checked Sonya's site and a lot of her work that steps out of these bounds isn't on it yet.