Frida

Since we didn't have time to discuss the reading for "Frida," this post should address the two articles. What points do you find especially pertinent? Do you agree with their assessments of "Fridamania"? Why do you think Frida Kahlo suddenly became so popular--popular enough to generate a whole "Frida industry" and a major motion picture?

The main idea both articles point out is what draws people into Frida: her life experiences. Her life captivates the audience in a profound and unusual way that leaves us wanting more. I think this partly has to do with society's fascination with the "artist," stereotyping he/she as a tortured soul, who is a product of their own demise through unhealthy addictions and choices. However Frida's biography tells a story of a series of unfortunate events that left her physically disabled and emotionally tortured throughout her relationships and self-acceptance of the disabilities. Fridamania came about as a reaction to post-feminism where there was a need within society for a "rebel artist," a female artist who was not accepting of her "victimhood"(Mencimer pg. 30). Although, the same personal pain that she translates to her art, is the same pain which we (as an audience) are attracted to, because "people like to see women as victims"(Mencimer pg. 30). Instead of accepting her role in society as a suffering woman, she threw her experiences in our faces through the rendering of her compositions which were stylistically exhilarating and eccentric as well as tragic and passionately dramatic in their subject matter. Commenting on Frida's work Mencimer stated, "Her paintings tap into sex and violence, life and death, in original and profound ways"(Mencimer 32). I found it interesting that Joy Press's article noted Kahlo for her rejection of idealized beauty. Frida didn't lay down and accept what was given to her; in fact, she exploited it, and when it comes to her unconventional looks, "she emphasized what we would consider the ugly parts and made them beautiful"(Press 40). I believe this point is important because it adds to the universality of Frida's work. Frida shows that no one is perfect, and the imperfection "appeals to many people because it tells them you can make something extraordinary out of ugliness"(Press 40). This concept also applies to how Frida lived her life and the portrayal of her biography that we have come to know and the creation of Fridamania. The other point I found intriguing was in Mencimer's article, the discussion of how Frida's life actually overshadows her work. This idea relates back to society's fascination with Frida's biography and the events that inspired her work. Lets face it, her story alone (even without all the surrealist imagery) is equivalent to Hollywood entertainment. Though, what Mencimer points out is the exploitation and heightening of the events in Frida's life in order to add some "spark" to the Hollywood drama. Thus, we then get caught up in her story and seeing Frida as a suffering person rather than recognizing her as a talented artist. Mencimer states, "This elevation of the artist over the art diminishes the public understanding of Kahlo's place in history and overshadows the deeper and more disturbing truths in her work"(Mencimer 27).

I think the assessments of Fridamania drawn from these two articles collectively explains the new found obsession with Frida Kahlo. Simply, she [Frida Kahlo] has an interesting story to tell. With such a unique "heroic sufferer" I think its easy to say that most people within the creative realm (writers, artists, film makers, etc) is naturally drawn to Frida because her story is a ready-made instillation of entertainment. Quoting Julie Taymor (the director of "Frida"), Joy Press stated, "I think what turns us all on is the humor and foul mouth and free sexuality of Frida--that's what makes her interesting to do as a film"(Press 39). As an audience, we are drawn to her story, her suffering, her loud artistic style and her rejection of cultural norms. But besides society's fascination with the biography of Frida, I believe that Frida herself helped to add to the Fridamania; simply by using herself as the artist as well as the subject in her art. In a sense, she branded herself and gave society a tangible piece of visual iconography that can be directly linked back to an event in her life. "She made herself an icon. She took her imperfections and made them the ultimate"(Press 40). Through her art, we are constantly reminded of her dramatic life, and her life is the origin of our obsession--like the exploitation of the modern day celebrity (where we must know everything that has to do with their personal adventures), Frida too has a cult of followers hang on every word of her tragic biography.