Upon further examination of some books of her paintings and writings, I have reached the conclusion that Frida Kahlo is one of the most overrated artists of all-time. She was a psychotically self-obsessed and whorish woman with badly limited technical skill and craft. Her paintings obsess over lame symbols (motherhood, death and rebirth, blood and roses) she simply stole from surrealistic and neo-primitive art to cover up her own lack of imagination. Her writings prove her to be maniacal, mentally disturbed and sub-literate. Her letters to Diego Rivera, a far more interesting and humane artist, are full of high-school poetic posturings about their love being "el fuego del nino de amor" and a 'revolution of flesh' and other such hilarities. What bothers me most about her are her disgusting and ill-informed politics, including her blind support for murderous men (she painted loving portraits of Stalin and Mao) and regimes to fit with her typically psychotic love of communism. How strange for a feminist icon to be so subservient of murderous, racist, mysogynistic, tyrannical and insane men! This all leads back to my hatred of young naive leftists who lovingly read "The Communist Manifesto" and talk like the hyper-complicated and interconnected world still has some sort of Hegelian/Marxist dialectic as if it's the 19th century Prussian state. They sport their Che shirts (a favorite of those 'humanistic progressives' whom love men that put homosexuals into work camps and executed thousands without trial), they read their Feminist theory, their Deuleuze, their Foucault, the Gramsci. The defend Castro and Chavez and their allies blindly as if they are Zapatas and other revolutionary heroes of yore, when indeed they are often as non-thinking, dull and terroristic as our disgusting regime to those of the less fortunate. How lovingly they gaze upon Chavez as he hugs the President of Iran, himself an alleged murderer with an atrocious human rights record and who does nothing about the enslavement of women. Frida would approve of all of this with a mustached smile.
(This also reminds me of the great character of Senecal the immoral Socialist in Flaubert's Sentimental Education. Flaubert, being a thinking man, sees the fatal flaws of both sides of the ideological spectrum and stresses skepticism and reason over blind hatred and idealism. Fundamentalism of any stripe, religious, Marxist, fascist, atheistic, conservative, liberal, is fundamentalism, i.e., not clear thinking:
"Senecal expressed no opinion about his candidature. He spoke about himself and the state of the country. Pitiful though it was, he rejoiced over it; for things were moving towards Communism.
To begin with, the administration was going that way willy-nilly, since every day that passed saw more things brought under Government control. As for Property, the Constitution of '48, for all its weaknesses, had been anything but indulgent to it; in the name of the common weal, the State could henceforth appropriate anything it thought fit.
Senecal declared himself in favour of Authority; ...The Republican even thundered against the inadequacy of the masses:
'By defending the rights of the minority, Robespierre brought Louis XVI before the National Convention, and saved the people. The end justifies the means. A dictatorship is sometimes indispensible. Long live tyranny, provided the tryant does good!'")
What is hard for us, is clear thinking. I certainly am not capable of it as you can see that I should really get back to writing about music. But I simply cannot get behind people who love death and violence so. I also simply can't praise bad art.
But then again, 'Que scais-je'?