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
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.
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
After reading the body I sort of think this is just irony.
Writer almost never writes the headline. So, two different people with two different views.
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.
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.
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?