Frida Kahlo’s artwork was only considered great or noteworthy after she had died; it was not recognized until after her life was dramatized in films. Only then were others able to realize that Kahlo was no ordinary artist, she was a genuinely creative person that portrayed her life experiences through her work. “A life lived artistically and intensely becomes the outward manifestation of the creative spirit that lies within...” argues Tina Lent, author of “Life as Art/Art as Life.” Lent believes that, when heightened, the emotional nature of the female artist drives the creativity they use to make masterpieces.
In order to be recognized and respected as a successful artist, Kahlo had to be removed from the conventional stereotype of a female artist and placed into the monograph of talented male artists. A monograph is something that conceptualizes an artist based off of similarities in facades that exist between other talented artists. The monograph of male artists is that they are born with talent and predestines their own greatness – making them seem almost godlike. In contrast, the monograph of a female artist is that she must be exceptional and her talent is only achieved by diligence, not genius as their male counterparts, and a male mentor has initiated their talents or success. Only after Kahlo’s life had been dramatized by Julie Taymor’s film, Frida, did people understand the complexity of her artwork and the stories hidden within them.
Between 2000 and 2002, there was a spark of renewed interest in Kahlo’s work and her life was dramatized in seven works. By using the films as examples, the public is able to see the life of Frida Kahlo and what inspired many of her grotesque, and somewhat disturbing pieces of art. Kahlo escaped the generalizations and preconceptions of female artists, and emerged as one of the most unique, profound artist of her time, regardless of the biases that exist within the art world.
According to Lent, the film Frida “went further than the other media by portraying the fictional Frida’s life as a work of art itself and then showing how her art is a direct transcription of that life.” The movie was not the usual, lackluster biography providing us with events that occurred in her life, but instead provides an emotional insight of Kahlo’s life. The movie removes Kahlo from the traditional monographs of female artists and highlights what defines as a great artist. Kahlo was a bisexual, disabled woman of mixed race – making her an ideal contemporary choice for the film. She represents monographs of both male and female. She is hypersexual, self-taught, suffering, and exceptional, as a male artist would be. She is strongly influenced by the males in her life, so as most female artists. I think that this is what sets Kahlo apart from other female artists of her time. She was not just your typical artist, she was unique and captivating - there was no way that Kahlo’s work could go unnoticed, nor her physical being.
The film was also to capture and focus on the emotional suffering that Kahlo experienced. Marriage, Divorce, Abortion, Accidents, Remarriage, and Disease are all emotional factors of Kahlo’s life that are portrayed in her pieces of work. The focus of the film was mainly of her life, with her husband Rivera. The pain and suffering that she endured while with him, was transferred into creative – art was created out of the worst circumstances. Proof of these events can be found in many of Kahlo’s pieces of work. For example, the painting A Few Small Nips represents the pain and rage that she felt after she learned of the affair her husband had with her younger sister. These pieces of art that Kahlo created were not things that randomly came into her mind, these were real life experiences that she endured.
I think that Kahlo treated her canvas as others treat journals; art was her very own diary that she shared to the world. She used her canvas as an outlet to release her emotions and thoughts; it was a way for her to escape her tragic life. I never thought of art as a representation of life and vice versa until I read this article. It is clear to see that Tina Lent is indeed correct when she said that an interesting life becomes a “manifestation of the creative spirit.”
Source: Lent, Tina. "Life as Art/Art as Life." JPF&T - Journal of Popular Film and Television. 2007. Vol. 35 Issue 2. p 68-76.
No comments:
Post a Comment