Of course, there is no one truth; however, a problem that arises in art history, as well as other scholarly fields, is that one narrative dominates the literature. Usually, this narrative can be traced back to one or two particular scholars who provided groundbreaking research. Other scholars coming into the field later accept the narrative and continue to promote it. We're all dependent upon what others have written, but when researching a book, it is paramount that we step back and try to see things anew with fresh eyes. It's not as easy as it sounds.
JJ in your comment you mention that you'd like to know how Frida's art was viewed in her time period. I always tell my students that we have to time travel and try, as best as we can, to put ourselves in the mindset and visual environment of the period and culture we're studying. Part of this process involves reading what the critics had to say about a particular work of art. In Frida's case, this is a bit more difficult in the 1920s and 1930s because she didn't have a solo exhibition until 1938. If a photograph of her portrait of Miguel Lira was reproduced in Panorama, then there might be some commentary that accompanied it. Without art criticism to provide a bit of insight into how Frida's work of the 1920s and 1930s was perceived, we can look to letters to see if any of her contemporaries commented on her work and we can look to histories of Mexican art in the 1920s and 1930s to see if her subjects and styles coincide with other artists' works.
My posts right now are focused on Frida's letters of the 1920s in order to gain a better understanding of her development as a person and artist while recovering from the bus/trolley accident, but I intend to expand upon Frida's inner world by looking more closely at the paintings she created in the late 20s while still in Mexico. Then, we'll travel with Frida to the United States to see how this experience affected her on a personal and creative level.
JJ in your comment you mention that you'd like to know how Frida's art was viewed in her time period. I always tell my students that we have to time travel and try, as best as we can, to put ourselves in the mindset and visual environment of the period and culture we're studying. Part of this process involves reading what the critics had to say about a particular work of art. In Frida's case, this is a bit more difficult in the 1920s and 1930s because she didn't have a solo exhibition until 1938. If a photograph of her portrait of Miguel Lira was reproduced in Panorama, then there might be some commentary that accompanied it. Without art criticism to provide a bit of insight into how Frida's work of the 1920s and 1930s was perceived, we can look to letters to see if any of her contemporaries commented on her work and we can look to histories of Mexican art in the 1920s and 1930s to see if her subjects and styles coincide with other artists' works.
My posts right now are focused on Frida's letters of the 1920s in order to gain a better understanding of her development as a person and artist while recovering from the bus/trolley accident, but I intend to expand upon Frida's inner world by looking more closely at the paintings she created in the late 20s while still in Mexico. Then, we'll travel with Frida to the United States to see how this experience affected her on a personal and creative level.
RSS Feed
