371
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2024
371 points (96.3% liked)
HistoryPorn
4596 readers
363 users here now
If you would like to become a mod in this community, kindly PM the mod.
Relive the Past in Jaw-Dropping Detail!
HistoryPorn is for photographs (or, if it can be found, film) of the past, recent or distant! Give us a little snapshot of history!
Rules
- Be respectful and inclusive.
- No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
- Engage in constructive discussions.
- Share relevant content.
- Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
- Use appropriate language and tone.
- Report violations.
- Foster a continuous learning environment.
- No genocide or atrocity denialism.
Pictures of old artifacts and museum pieces should go to History Artifacts
Illustrations and paintings should go to History Drawings
Related Communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Reading the body makes it clear that the author believes she is a talented painter, though. Maybe it's their way of indicating she's untrained? shrug
Could also just be that the author didn't realise Kahlo had already had an artistic career for some years when this was written. She hadn't been widely recognised by that point and had only been in Detroit (the article was published in the Detroit News) for a year, so while the language is quite condescending I can give the writer some benefit of the doubt that she was trying to shed light upon an unrecognised talent
This comment made me realize the article itself was written by a woman, which kind of surprised me given the era.
Writer almost never writes the headline. So, two different people with two different views.
I don't believe it was meant maliciously - more a manifestation of the common cultural casual sexism that leads women to often be defined by their husbands or male partners, regardless of their own talents or achievements, simply as a matter of perspective.
Subtly, and for a female reporter this was likely necessary, she's actually doing the opposite of the casual sexism. This is actually a fairly savvy rhetorical piece that simultaneously spotlights the artist's work and personhood while not throwing off any alarms for the patriarchy to revise, censor, or overreact to. I imagine a contemporaneous female vs male readership would interpret this article very differently.
After reading the body I sort of think this is just irony.
Didn't she refer to herself as as "Rivera's wife" instead of herself as an artist at least up until the early 30's?