We three Leos’ have read your books which were handed down from one to another. First, it was Lia, who once was a little toddler that crossed the border from Hungary in 1956 with mommy and daddy. She was sick and they were granted passage on a plane to get her to America more quickly, I believe from an Austrian camp. Then it was her mother, Marika neni who read it next. Marika neni has told me her story many times of coming to this country. She was a woman I grew up with, who was like an aunt but more of a sister to my stepfather. Lia was our babysitter in my formative years. Marika neni and my stepfather met at Camp Kilmer in New Jersey, when a group of refugees decided on Wheeling for their new home.
Of all the women in history, I think I can identify with Catherine the Great the most. I read Carolly Erickson’s book many years ago and was really caught by certain similarities. She married at a young age to an abusive man. She had her sons taken from her (for different reasons than I, naturally, but both political). She was a survivor and saw love as a way to redeem the much needed emotional vacancy within herself. She also never remarried (it is possible she married Grigory Potemkin but it is not documented). When I had heard about the Russian TV series Ekaterina (the correct Russian spelling is Yekaterina), I sat down to indulge myself in the two season portrayal of this great monarch.
It is important to watch this if you love women’s history. There have been other versions from different countries, all of which I have seen but they pale in comparison. The fact that this series comes from the country that she reigned over, a place that annihilated their last monarch so that there would never be one again was tempting to me. I had heard that the series was true to life. I was surprised though as I did not think Russia allowed such things to occur. Communism did away with so much from the past, so much that she worked so hard to bring to this country.
Catherine II was not Russian though. Sophia Friederike Auguste was brought from Prussia (which is now Poland) into the country as a bride for the heir presumptive Peter. She spoke German when she came to meet Peter and his Aunt Elizabeth, who was the Empress at that time. Empress Elizabeth was a very strict Roman Catholic and, well, strict is hardly strong enough a word to describe this very disturbing woman. Catherine was modest and intelligent enough to see how to play her cards the minute she stepped food on the royal carpet. She impressed the Empress yet immediately she was forced to give up her culture, speak Russian (which she had been learning) and take the name of Catherine. This is not too unusual when you look at the Native Americans being kidnapped by the Catholics and stripped of their heritage. It is typical in a power play and, for her, better than being brought somewhere as a slave. There are many attributes of Empress Elizabeth that are not played out in Ekaterina, as they focus more on Catherine. They did allude to the fact that she preferred torture over death (for example: skinning alive, branding, and hanging by their arms behind their back).
The show also showed how Empress Elizabeth came to power and this was by taking the infant heir Ivan VI and imprisoning him so that he could not claim the throne. Later, she was obsessed with finding an heir different from her ignorant nephew, Peter, who was the equivalent of an entitled rich kid in today’s society. When Catherine gave birth to their son, the Empress took the child, the moment it was delivered and Catherine could not see her son again, except on very rare occasions. She and her son, Paul I (Pavel Petrovich), never regained a relationship ever again either. This is even after Empress Elizabeth died and Pavel was eight years old by now. From a psychological perspective this makes a lot of sense.
Children who are removed from their parents early on (and have multiple caretakers – which he did, as Elizabeth did more harm then good as a surrogate), generally suffer from attachment disorders. In extreme cases Reactive Attachment Disorder. The mother has a hard time attaching back to the child because it is as if she hardly knows this person and suddenly she is supposed to have maternal feelings. This may sound crude because it sounds easy to just give a child a hug. However, it is an extremely difficult process to re-connect. When you have a child taken from you, at such a young age, it is emotionally wounding. The mother, in order to protect herself, must detach and emotionally protect herself. This is where Catherine began to replace love with men (she hoped to have other children and with someone she loved). You can’t replace the loss of a mother’s love. One love cannot be exchanged for another.
In this series, they did a good job for the most part. The actors reminded me so much of the book I had read. I felt like I was seeing the actual people for the first time. While they did not look alike, as you see above, their ability to portray their characters personality was very accurate. Marina Alexandrova (as Catherine II) was a woman of power. She came across as a very strong, willful, persistent, aggressive woman who started out as a young silly girl, yet bright and grew over the course of the two seasons. Julia Aug (as Empress Elizabeth), while a beautiful woman, came across as a very ugly ogre. Aleksandr Yatsenko, (as Peter III) was very immature and even more stupid than I had imagined in my mind. His performance was so great as he seemed to have an ease with being the court jester. All three seemed at ease yet I think his role was more difficult because he had more behaviors to portray (or facial expressions to personify) rather than just prancing around in skirts.
The only drawbacks from the film, that I found distracting, were some of the publicity stunts. It was portrayed as a “love story,” which almost made me not want to watch it, knowing that it was anything but. Catherine II had a great many lovers and this was used against her as she became the butt of many jokes internationally and throughout the court. The film also made a big deal of her love affair with Grigory Potemkin and even showed a marriage which is only a possibility. They also showed Pavel with a black servant (politically correct nonsense?) From what I can find there was a black family that served Peter the Great but they left the castle once he died and lived out their days on an estate. The second season dulls in comparison to the first season and this is because Catherine II is now in power and so it is more a season of “Which lover shall I choose,” and drama with her teenage son. In other words the second season was just a day in the life of a Queen and the first season was a lot of extreme drama and suspense. I feel they should have ended the series at Season I, which appeared to have initially been the end (they stated in the last episode’s credits that she reigned for 34 years).
One note of interest and I may be wrong about this but I believe the paintings on the wall were the actual paintings of each of the people being portrayed. In the second season there was a scene in the palace where Catherine II leaves the room and the camera angle lingers toward a painting on the wall that I am very sure was the Empress in old age. I found these aspects touching to pay homage for those of us watching who are history buffs. The end of the second season they tried to portray a humbling experience of Catherine II getting in touch with her spiritual side and becoming a more enlightened woman. It came across appropriately but then the show ended so quickly (telling rather than showing). It would have been nice to show the various changes that Catherine II created for her country, in the second season, rather than being so focused on war, teen angst and conquests of men. I don’t really think she came across in such a great light because reading her accomplishments on the screen credits is not the same as showing her love for the arts, philosophy, science, and many other intellectual pursuits. Catherine II was the longest running monarch in Russia.
What the life of Catherine the Great gives us, as women, is a look at a woman’s rise to power. It is insightful to read about her story, even today, as you think and compare her life (minus the castle), with that of a young single parent trying to have a career and even gain an education. Women complain too much in today’s modern society. They whine about what they can and cannot do. It seems to me that they are unable to take responsibility for their own behaviors in the situation in question, they just want to blame. Catherine II’s story also shows us that women are not perfect or the ideal person in power. She was not dominated by a paternal society, she was the matriarch of her kingdom and her word (and Empress Elizabeth’s word during her reign), was the final straw. In actuality, women have accomplished many great things in history and they have done many bad things as well. It is not about what gender or race or culture that is in power but what that person is capable of accomplishing. We are too desperate today to have a woman or a black or a gay in power and this cloud’s our judgement in making choices for who that person should be.
Adolf Hitler and Che Gueverra were both socialists with different views of what was right. Both hated art (unless it was about them) and destroyed art and artists. They both killed people for different reasons. The same occurred within the communist movement and amongst religious zealots in history who wanted to take control over people. They have killed people too for different reasons. All thought they were fair, right and just for doing so. Now we have the feminist radicals who have gone to the extremes in many ways. We are no longer just seeing “Women are better than men,” thought processes but witch hunts from the “MeToo” movement and destruction of art, “Baby It’s Cold Outside,” to fit their purposes. They are destroying men and art and even women who don’t agree with them for the sake of beliefs that they believe is right and just. This radical approach to turning the world around to their perspective, and this causes them to be incapable of looking at another side of things or listen to their instincts (not their ego). The “I am Right and You are Wrong,” is like with any radical thought process mentioned above, it is always “wrong,” as it is based on the ego, not a mature mindset and destroys society.
To be an intellectual, you have to be a mature person who is capable of criticizing art from an intelligent standpoint vs. a radical opinion. I personally hate most modern art but I still recognize the value of the contribution. I don’t hate all of it because I find that some modern art actually peaks my interest. I think most everyone can stare at a red dot on a white background and say, “Oh, I could do that,” and then the cliché’d phrase will be, “Yes, but you didn’t.” The point is that I wouldn’t say “It is stupid or ridiculous,” just because it doesn’t suit my tastes. Instead, I would comment on the piece and talk about what about it doesn’t suit me. The fact that the piece of art has captured someone’s attention, that they can make some decisions about it and agree that it is their perception and not a given, is being an intellectual.
An intellectual is capable of having a broad perspective because they have knowledge of history, art, theater, politics, or a well-rounded education on the world around them. You might not agree with them but you don’t have to. There is democracy in a conversation where people are “arguing” that the film had artistic merit but did not really engage you as a storyline. It ceases to be an intellectual discussion when you are just there to get people on your side. Politics have become like a gang where it is all about whether you are on the red team or the blue team. There is no longer an intellectual discussion about politics, amongst the political; there is only death to the other side who is “stupid” and “wrong.” We have missed out on so much with the lack of verbal intercourse.
I was on a group recently on Facebook which was a fan club for classic films. A woman was destroying “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” because it didn’t fit within the politically correct realms of today’s society. She and another woman were making non-intellectual judgements about the film and got a few others to join in. I questioned this because I wondered “Why are you in a ‘fan’ club if you are here to bash the films?” The moderator at this point doesn’t seem to be paying attention. It is a movie, so worrying about whether or not a cat is thrown out of a taxi is not relevant. This is not an animal rights documentary. It is relevant that people have to make tough decisions at times in their life. City life is not conducive to having pets. At that time, there weren’t “animal rescue groups,” so it was feasible that an action like this may have happened. It was about the story and the passionate place the character was in. Audrey Hepburn’s character hated having to do this act, which was more than obvious in her facial expressions, but felt forced to. In the end “cat” (the name of the cat character) came back into her lap “and they lived happily ever after.” Even then, the director knew it would not make American’s happy to see a cat being thrown away. We, as a whole, like happy endings.
The woman leading the bash of the movie also suggested that she just couldn’t get into the film. I told her she should try and put herself in that time period, rather than coming from the perspective of 2018. This is the problem with radical people. They bash history on film, paintings, songs, statues, books, all because they are incapable of putting themselves in the shoes of those that came before then. History is not about 2018. To try and judge others in 1815 or 1938 or 1960 by 2018 standards is missing the lessons of that time. It is disrespectful to our ancestors.
Paintings are all we have, until the creation of the camera, to show us what life was like in those different centuries. Yes, bad things did happen then but you don’t destroy art because you are uncomfortable with history. Women who posed nude for paintings were distraught peasant women who were desperate for a penny. They took their clothes off because it was easier than washing clothes all day long for the same amount of money. I am quite sure they were sexually abused by some artists or the men who watched the artists paint. We don’t destroy the masterpiece because of this; we discuss it and have an opinion on this. We certainly don’t take the piece of art out of the gallery because we found out the woman in the painting was sexually abused or paid only a penny.
“Baby it’s Cold Outside,” is a song. It was written by a husband and wife team in a time period when there was no social media. People actually gathered together in people’s homes to have conversations and enjoyed each other’s company. They “liked” each other in real life. They became “friends” with people they met, through others, at these gatherings which boasted lots of food, song, games and plenty of booze. I was a kid then but it was a lot of fun. I enjoyed watching people laugh and dance. Later, as an adult, I went to a few parties in the 20 years before the Internet became a “thing.”
The song “Baby it’s Cold Outside,” was created to get people to go home (hint, hint). The couple who created and sang this song became quite the item at parties and were actually invited to come and sing this song at the end. Later on, the husband sold the rights to the song, (which upset his wife), to the studios and the rest became history; as it floated up the charts. Cleveland women recently became enraged by this and forced radio stations to stop playing it because the song made them uncomfortable. I have no idea whether it was the action of a feminist organization in Cleveland or just a bunch of radicals who took the initiative. Once there were a local group of women in Salem, Massachusetts, who determined to get back at older intelligent women and thus many people (I believe 19 was the number) were hung for witchcraft. They were not witches, just people that they wanted to destroy.
Rap music on the other hand, also art, but mostly written and “spoken” to a racist audience (not much different than if the Neo-Nazi group began a type of spoken word), and as in most cases; written to destroy people. The Neo-Nazi movement is not much different than inner city folks who feel their rights are being impinged upon. Different history but the same philosophical anger. Rap music once had to be given ratings to protect children from listening to Rated R words, but now parents do not seem to care at all. At least, I haven’t heard of any measures to protect from these newer lyrics which continue to degrade. This music is now allowed by the White slaves of the Politically Correct movement. People who have been shut down by social media for having an opinion so they acquiesce to save face. You can’t say anything wrong about Black people in today’s society because you are considered a racist, even if they are making racist or sexually degrading comments about your person. You can say something wrong about Neo-Nazi groups because it is taboo in today’s society; even though we are in a democracy, where they do have freedom of speech. (Now I must make a disclaimer to ignorant people who may catch this article and state that I am not a Neo-Nazi, I am making an intellectual statement). Therefore, as we see White slaves to the PC movement in today’s society, it is okay to play rap music on the radio but not a cute, flirtatious, song like “Baby it’s Cold Outside,” that was written by a man for his wife.
Personally, I find the play “Hamilton,” extremely offensive as it panders to White slaves of the Politically Correct movement as well. It is racist against White people because it is destroying our culture by putting Black people in the role of White people, showing that figures in history are just meaningless insignificant people and it is not relevant what their race was. It is dishonest because it is lying about history and making a mockery of it at the same time. Playing rap music for the ignorant who aren’t capable of coming to a historical play with some merit; if it were to use music, costumes, hairstyles, from that time period. It is art of course but it is dishonest. Just like the art work that depicted witches as devil worshippers or ugly old hags with pointy black hats, torn black dresses and striped stockings in pointy toed shoes. Most intelligent people today know that this is dishonest and ridiculous but we don’t throw it in the trash. It is a testament to how far the religious zealots went to force pagans, witches and druids, into Christianity or other religions. It is part of history because it reminds us of how ignorant people were (or still are). One day the play “Hamilton” will, hopefully, at some point in the future, be a testament to the ignorance of our society today. Especially when children become confused about historical characters and forget about the history of African’s who were forced into slavery around that same time period.
Films today, in America and abroad, have sought to expand upon themes by placing politically correct but historical inaccurate characters in period pieces. Thanks to the radical celebrities – many who had no artistic merit in the first place, to be considered for an Academy Award, complained that there weren’t enough awards given to the Black people; so the Oscars were therefore racist. It didn’t matter that the awards were voted on by a very diverse group of people, from around the world. The Oscars are voted on by members of the Academy – which equals people who are past recipients. It also didn’t matter that the films, that were selected for awards, along with those who worked on the production; were of superb quality. The fact that enough actors weren’t of color – not the fact that they weren’t grade “A” professionals, but not enough, was more significant. This caused White slavery of the Politically Correct world to become more international. Now you see period pieces where black people are thrown in, even though they would not have been there (in that time period). You will also see the proverbial gay character storyline; attached to all these films – even though this was very rare then, as it is now, and has nothing really to do with the time period or storyline. Having the gay storyline in the film is not much different than having a sex scene that just isn’t relevant and is only there for the sake of having a sex scene (e.g. Death Comes to Pemberley). This is not how art is congratulated.
Films should be awarded a prize because an actor has gone to a place that is exceptional and on a level that far exceeds. My feeling about the Oscars being “racist” is that if the Black community wants Oscars, they should make better quality films. This comment is not based on “Let them eat cake,” a cliché from history; that was taken out of context in that time period. It is a comment based on Black films I have ventured to watch that were uninteresting, typical or copycat. Copycat by taking storylines from “White” movies to begin with and turned them into Black, which lacks originality (of course this is typical for Americans – who steal from foreign films all the time).
Meanwhile there are many men and women in Black history; that exceptional movies could be made about. By only creating movies about the inner city or slavery, it is saying that there were no intelligent Black people in history, that accomplished something worthy of value or merit; which could be turned into a movie. And yet, notable Black people in history, has the potential to be a storyline worthy of merit. It would show society exactly what this culture wants us to know. With good trained actors and exceptional focus on detail (clothes, plot, cinematography, direction, history) there are so many untold stories – why the need to steal movies that have been done? Why are ignorant White people trying to take care of them by inserting them into films where they wouldn’t have been? This is even worse because White directors are saying that they feel sorry for the Black culture so they will give them a job to make them feel better. It is insulting to their culture that they have to be placed in historically inaccurate roles because they weren’t capable of doing anything on their own.
It is not art, however, when people flock to the streets and demand that statues of General Robert E. Lee be destroyed. It is ignorant people who aren’t capable of opening a history book so that they understand this human being had nothing to do with slavery. Perhaps they need to make a rap musical about him and have General Robert E. Lee played by a Black actor so that our uneducated audience can understand. This is art being destroyed because our society wants to pick and choose what is acceptable art and what is not acceptable, not much different than what Adolf Hitler did in his rise to power.
All art is acceptable as it makes a statement, whether we like it or not. Whether it is offensive or not is a personal viewpoint and the point of art. We shouldn’t shut down or destroy this as it is a reminder of the times. We should see a statue of Adolf Hitler or Che Gueverra or a Communist Leader or a religious zealot and it should make us angry. The job of art is to get a rise out of people, whether negative or positive. This is no different than selling “Mein Kampf,” at the book store, which was written by Hitler and explains his way of thinking. This is education, it builds a stronger intellect to learn and understand. General Robert E. Lee was a soldier who was chosen to lead the south; after he turned down leading the north. It was based on family and his upbringing not on his personal views about slavery. The Civil War wasn’t created to put an end to slavery; it was a war about gaining power because the southerners were in disagreement with the northerners and wanted to split the country. It is not much different from the Republicans and Democrats fighting for attention and power today. The difference is we are no longer in different sections of the country; political sides are mixed together in each state.
Then there is fashion; another form of art. It is not art to wear holey blue jeans 24/7 and have no respect for ones’ self. This is not style, it is laziness. Chanel, Dior, Balenciaga, Poiret, Schiaperelli, and others; this is art and significant to call fashion. They are masterpieces whereas jeans, they are merely graffiti on the wall, by the train station of a freeway underpass. Anna Wintour has decided to focus on having a penchant for politics rather than keeping her perspective strictly on clothing and style. Fashion is based on politics and the current events of the day but those in this field don’t ignore art or style simply because they don’t like their husband. Therefore, talking down about Melania Trump who has brought back elegance, style, intelligence, in a way that is reminiscent of Jacqueline Kennedy, a true connoisseur of fashion would applaud this not destroy it. An intelligent person would not make fun of a woman who speaks multiple languages and is said to have a high I.Q. and appears to be a dedicated mother and wife. She is “in vogue,” for all these reasons which should be enough for the magazine. Anna Wintour would not have gotten away with her behavior in a more dignified society of our past. She continues to bring down the magazine in agreement with the radical opinions of women in our society today. She ignores the point of the magazine, which was to accede to high fashion. The magazine was made for elite women not radical feminists. We have MS. Magazine that was created for feminists and many others that have followed since then.
How far will we go in the destruction of art in our radical society today before we have completely annihilated authentic history and a fondness for nostalgia? The women’s movement, originally, was not created to destroy history but to improve upon the conditions for women and children in the future. The feminist movement sought to continue this once we had the right to vote and gave rise to new expectations for women and children in the workplace and society. This has nothing to do with replacing art with more comfortable lyrics, paintings, or theater productions. Abolitionists sought to give freedom to all people and the NAACP movement and other Black organizations were created to protect their rights, not destroy art and re-create history to massage their egos.
We are in a place in society where we have no sense of values, only extremist mindsets, which have created group think. Social media has caused fear and unrest from bullying, lies, conspiracy theories, and turned all news into sensationalist rags. We can no longer handle the truth and this is not an intelligent society but a very ignorant, intellectually depleted group of people who are destroying our Earth. Will we ever start rising up again or are we destined toward a future that is ruled by violence rather than intellect?
Holier than thou Hollywood continues to gain power over our society with their extreme left thinking to over compensate for their anger at the right. Hypocritically speaking out about tolerance and freedom of speech and then firing someone for just that. It is okay for Samantha Bee to disrespect a president’s daughter and call her a F-cking C-nt and for Kathy Griffin to want to decapitate a world leader, or for Joy Behar to trash Christians. All “comedians” but when a well-known, controversial, funny woman Roseanne Barr says something she is fired from her own TV show. Let’s look back at a couple of her more interesting quotes:
“I like to get people talking. I am a provocateur, and I do like getting on Twitter and riling people up. You know what, after a while some sane dialogue and sane conclusions come of that kind of thing.”
“I’m either mentally ill or Jewish. I can’t sometimes tell the difference.”
“I’m a comic, and I’m supposed to outrage and make people laugh, Part of makin’ people laugh is to shake up their thinkin’. That’s what I came here to do.”
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/roseanne_barr
Whatever happened to “Hey man, that’s not cool?” the person would apologize and say “Okay, maybe I went too far,” or just letting it go because you can’t trash White people and get away with it but trashing Black people means you’re a racist. You’re a racist whether you are trashing White people or Black people. No excuses as to why it is okay to trash White people. If you want to become a better class of people, you rise above it. I could understand a Christian doing this and using the biblical quote “an eye for an eye,” but most people in Holywood are not Christians, they are just pretending to be when they win an award.
There was a time when it was shocking to nab legendary celebrities for being communists. People lost their jobs, were blacklisted, committed suicide, it was a very horrible time for actors. We look back on this now and are outraged by this time period. People have a right to their opinions, whether we like it or not. Shaking up society with a comment is detrimental yes but telling at the same time. If you put a lock on people’s mouths like women’s chastity were once protected, where is this getting us in a “free country?” It is saner for a person to get something off their chest than to annihilate their voice for doing so.
Be very afraid Americans, not of Trump because he says what he thinks. There is no question about that. Be afraid of the far left that are judging your every move and telling you how to live your life. It is almost as if we need a hotline to call so we can ask a liberal “Is it okay to say this?” or do this, or act like this, or have a photo with our child. The last post asked whether being politically correct has gone too far. The answer is undoubtedly yes. We are becoming China and North Korea a place most Americans wouldn’t want to live. Yet telling people how to live their lives, firing people for saying something untoward, being a hypocrite by driving around in a car that says teach peace, teach tolerance, or some other self-righteous comment and this is about as red as you can get. We have to grow up and learn to take the good with the bad. We don’t need some smarta… liberal or conservative, for that matter, telling us what we can and cannot do on social media. Bullying laws, yes, this makes sense. There is a difference between someone making a smarta… comment about someone because they are pissed vs. someone who is trolling and harassing someone on a daily basis. If you are a celebrity you are used to getting fired upon vocally, if you are a child or a non-celebrity, you are not. But fired?
Here are the new rules for our society, according to the far left (just in case you haven’t gotten your newsletter).
- It is okay to trash Christians but not Muslims (Teach religious tolerance though).
- It is okay to say the “N word” if you are Black but not if you are White and live in the same inner city, rap, speak Ebonics and hang out with these people in the “hood” (Oakland schools fight to speak Ebonics in the classroom). The use of the word niggardly, is now taboo, even though it is not a derogatory word, it just sounds like it is.
- It is okay to be a racist if you are Black but not if you are White (Teach Tolerance though).
- It is acceptable to deface your country if you are Black.
- You can have pride if you are Asian, Hispanic, Black, or Muslim but not if you are White.
- You are a racist if you are White and won’t sleep with anyone (or marry someone) that is not White, except if you are in an “acceptable” cultural group or race.
- The word pride means you are gay, as does the word “gay,” and girls are no longer allowed to have girlfriends because this means they are lesbians. If men travel together or women travel together, you have to tell people you aren’t gay, just good friends who don’t want to travel alone, or out having fun with the boys or the girls.
- It is okay to have plastic surgery underage and dress the opposite of your sex in school because educating our children is not important anymore, f—king them up mentally takes precedence (Brains don’t fully develop until 21). Indulging them to become entitled children so that they will live in your basement and become a “gamer” or have to be evicted in a court of law at the age of 30.
- Being a patriotic person means you are a born-again who owns a gun, flies the confederate flag and are a conservative.
- You can’t sexually harass women but we can sexually harass you!
Art should be regarded as a spiritual experience for when you find a piece that you like, it is speaking to your soul. When I first met a Frida Kahlo, I was in a university class that had to do with Women in Art (I don’t recall the specific title). Our professor showed us a piece of her work and I asked the teacher if she had been in some type of an accident and explained what I saw in the photo of the painting. She told us a little about the history of Frida Kahlo and I felt stung. Until that moment, my experience was usually to look at paintings in a museum and admire them. While I had been to many art museums and had my favorites, I had never been this moved by art.
Since then, I have begun to look at art differently. I have begun to focus on the picture and think about the symbols, the way they are arranged, and what the artist might have felt. I have also seen the movie of Frida by Selma Hayek, read the biography by Hayden Herrera, had a friend copy a painting by Frida so that I could have my own genuine recreation and I have had friends give me books and old magazine articles that are about the artist and her paintings. When you research someone to this depth, you become one with the artist.
Frida Kahlo painted portraits and recreated interpretations of her life on canvas the way we journal in a diary now. The intensity of her work began after she was in a “bus” accident in Mexico at the age of 18. To explain, a bus in the 1920’s in Mexico was similar to a hay wagon with benches nailed along the sides. This old fashioned mechanism collided with a streetcar which threw her and others from the bus and caused her to have many almost fatal injuries. She spent much of her life in body casts, laid out on a bed. She also underwent many surgeries for this over the years before she died at 47. Frida was a survivor and from her bed she began to paint, not for the first time but in a new way.
The first opportunity she was able to get out of her bed, it was the same time that Diego Rivera, a well-known Mexican painter, was working on a mural nearby her home. They met and eventually married. Señor Rivera was known for his philandering but she knew this and asked, not for his fidelity but for his loyalty. He accepted. Their marriage was full of liaisons; hers with both men and women. They lived in two homes joined by a bridge so that each had their own space. Unfortunately, it was here where Señor Rivera went a bit too far with his affairs and slept with her sister Cristina. Between this and her on-going setbacks to give birth to their child, which her doctors had explained would be impossible; their marriage began to go downhill. They continued to remain together though, until her end.
Both Señora Kahlo and Señor Rivera, were very passionate about communism as well. This was incorporated in their art work depicting laborers in Mexico. Their beliefs were controversial, even then but they fought continuously to try and bring this philosophy to their country.
It is quite doubtful that Señora Kahlo and I would have been friends had we met during that time. When you are captivated by a piece of work, it is not about likes or dislikes of personal opinions. Art stands alone, though it captures that person’s beliefs and feelings, what you gain from this is not always going to be the same. I was intrigued by her work as a woman, as a survivor, her bravery, her determination and will. All of these qualities I saw on the canvas and all of these adjectives she would probably have brushed aside indignantly. People like this do not want accolades for anything except their work, not their essence of being.
What I became fascinated with, when I learned about Señora Kahlo’s history, was her homage to ancestry through her clothing. While she was both Hungarian and Mexican, she only knew of her Spanish cultural ways. Her father’s Hungarian parents immigrated to Germany before sending their son to Mexico as a young man. While in Mexico, he married her mother and never returned to his homeland. She only had an idea of what her grandparents looked like. The way Señora Kahlo dressed herself was not indicative of the times in Mexico and so when she travelled with her husband, it was often seen as odd or eccentric. Now it is how one would recognize her through photos, though her work is quite obvious once you have had the opportunity to view a few pieces. As a woman she made a statement. Quite literally she was a work to behold. A piece of art always in progress.
While travelling in Mexico, I noticed that far too many shopkeepers hold vigil to her in their windows; along with homage to their religious symbols as well. Even in America, many Mexican restaurateurs will display her reproductions around their diners. Frida Kahlo is a legend. If you have not had the chance to explore her work, I invite you to research the name and see where it leads you.