oh i guess my frida kahlo post got popular again
that post summarized my feelings about reducing a latin@ women to a marketable image/consumable object when she very much rejected western politics and ideals. she was a mexican communist first and foremost and her art/style of dress etc etc celebrated pre-columbian indigenous culture. but she was also a disabled woman in love and interpreting her art through that lens is important as well. i just feel that whenever someone embraces kahlo as their ‘style inspiration’ or paints her portrait on the back of their punk denim jacket they’re disrespecting the nuanced artistic legacy she created for her country, not western ones.
i like rookie mag. teenage girls need a smart publication that celebrates them, and doesn’t belittle or infantilize them. but they’ve done some shitty things in the past and a lot of their readers ignore that. i’m not accusing all rookie mag readers/appreciators of anything, just trying to spread awareness. however, rookie mag should expand their kahlo flower crowns tutorials and acknowledge that they’re borrowing from mexican culture, something that kahlo wanted to perpetuate and protect.
anyway i hope that explains my post better bc people have been reblogging it with defensive commentary and i agree with some of them. it probably should have been worded a little bit differently.
this is a great article about kahlo if anyone would like to learn more: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0206.mencimer.htmlhere