It’s a woman, in case you were wondering.
Mexican artist Frida Kahlo, to be precise.
The Asheville Art Museum will be screening “Frida”, the award-winning film about Mexican artist Frida Kahlo, May 3-4 at 2 pm. The film, starring Selma Hayek as Kahlo, was nominated for 6 Oscars, and won 2, in 2003. The Asheville Citizen Times writes: “Kahlo’s life was a beautiful and tragic one that intertwined her painting, politics and sexuality.” (4.25)
It’s the sexuality that’s most obvious to me. As I alluded to earlier, her self portraits seem to indicate some deep-seated gender issues. I saw the Frida exhibit at the Philadelphia Museum of Art in March, and while I was transfixed by the vibrant colors she used, I found the masculinity of her portraits frankly disturbing. Amid the paintings were black and white photos of Kahlo in her youth–she was actually quite beautiful (admittedly, the unibrow needed to go).
It has since occured to me that part of why I find her self-portraits disturbing is because I understand how she felt, somehow. Growing up, my brothers were my heroes, and I wanted nothing but to be just like them. Perhaps Tomboy would be the appropriate word… I cut worms in half with bricks, sported a super-short haircut, climbed trees, wore hand-me-down neon Umbros… you get the point. And while I’d hardly call myself masculine-looking nowadays, I do look in the mirror occasionally and think to myself, I look like a boy, all evidence to the contrary.
Anyway, perhaps the most interesting detail of all her paintings can be seen below:
Compare the size of her feet to her husband’s. He is much larger than her overall in this photo, but the feet are especially striking. What do you think it means?
3 Comments
August 7, 2008 at 2:57 am
While a fan of Kahlo’s work, I haven’t spent any significant time researching her. One observation that I am familiar with that has been made about this painting is that her dainty feet seem to float above the ground, while Diego’s are firmly planted. I take this to mean a lack of grounding. Perhaps a part of her didn’t feel solid and significant without the support of a male or marriage? Maybe this points back to the gender confusion you talk about, that she had confusion around her role as a female? For such a strong personality, she paints herself as diminutive and very traditional (in terms of the Mexican feminine) in this portrait. But these are just my musings. I’m sure someone has written about this somewhere in the chronicles of modern art history, and therefore has a much more educated opinion than mine.
September 28, 2008 at 4:24 pm
I love the roots painting!
October 5, 2008 at 8:14 am
I think personally she was not always sure of who she was on the outside or in. Her brow defined her from anyone else. She wanted to see her own face understand what others found in her so intriguing. She could tell she was pretty only wished to be beautiful on her own terms and she was. Like take me as I am or not at all. And flaunt it to a world that was watching in rapt fascination!