New Frida Kahlo Collection Denounced as a Fake

by Art Fag City on August 21, 2009 · 48 comments Newswire

POST BY PADDY JOHNSON
art fag city, frida kahlo
Finding Frida Kahlo by Barbara Levine.  Published by Princeton Architectural Press

If there is an archive of fake Frida Kahlo paintings and ephemera awaiting publication, it would appear its time has come.  The Art Newspaper reports the contents in Finding Frida Kahlo, a book of unpublished Kahlo work belonging to Carlos Noyola and Leticia Fernández, has been denounced as fake by scholars.  Not that you need much academic training to spot a phony two dollar bill when you see one–in my brief perusal of the book only a few days prior to the controversy, I had mistaken it as a collection of bad contemporary art inspired by the artist.  A few highlights from the book below illustrate my point, (apologies for the poor picture quality).


All photos AFC

Frida and Diego in box.  Nothing says “handle me with gloves” like a cut out picture of Frida, a muscled Diego, and an inscription reading, “Fucking Diego! You cure everybody’s souls and hemorrhoids But with me you cure not even A drink of pulque Diego kills 40 years.”


At last, Frida Kahlo’s long lost frog humping penis drawing has been found!  The text for this? “This toad is indeed a bastard. He has a very big cock of you want to meet him…” I’m not joking.


The requisite skillfully executed skull.


And finally, for those who can’t get enough self portraits, Frida on a painter’s palette.

Some of the work may appear slightly more authentic than the ones I chose to reproduce, but it’s fairly clear these works weren’t all executed by Frida Kahlo.  For this reason, it’s a mystery why  Princeton Architectural Press went to press with the project in the first place.

While the publishing house maintains these doubts are addressed in the book, they fail to mention that their publication materials describe the found work in a far more positive light. From the press release:

Finding Frida Kahlo presents, for the first time in print, an astonishing lost archive of one of the twentieth century’s most revered artists. Hidden from view for over half a century, this richly illustrated, intimate portrait overflows with fascinating details about Kahlo’s romances, friendships, and business affairs during a three-decade period, beginning in the 1920s when she was a teenager and ending just before she died in 1954. Full of ardent desires, seething fury, and outrageous humor, Finding Frida Kahlo is a rare glimpse into an exuberant and troubled existence: A vivid diary entry records her sexual encounter with a woman named Doroti; a painted box contains eleven stuffed hummingbirds, concealed beneath a letter in which she laments her discovery that her husband, Diego Rivera, had been monstrously dissecting “these beautiful creatures” to extract an aphrodisiac; an altered French medical book describes the pain she was suffering from the amputation of her right leg, written by Kahlo upon pages that illustrate an amputation technique; a letter to a friend expresses her loneliness, and a simple request for coconut candies. Frida Kahlo never wrote an autobiography. Instead, she left behind a much more complex material universe. Finding Frida Kahlo offers scholars and fans alike an opportunity to examine firsthand Kahlo’s secret world and draw their own conclusions about how she imagined her place in it.

At no point do the publishers mention that Finding Frida Kahlo’s author doesn’t claim to be an authority on the subject.  Additionally, from the way they describe the material, scholars would never need to discuss its authenticity, only its contribution to Kahlo’s history. When asked for comment, author Barbara Levine who told the Art Newspaper via email that the book is about her “personal encounter with the materials.”  While this may be true, Finding Frida Kahlo certainly suggests she thinks the material is legitimate.  Even a small excerpt from her visit to the Noyola shop in first pages of the book indicates as much,

“I am not a Kahlo scholar; I have no credentials to support any opinions I might have had about the authenticity or importance of the material in these cases. In the midst of it all, however, my intuition, my collecting instincts, and my museum experience converged, and I was drawn to the cases and their contents.  The thought that I should stop handling these valuable artifacts without white gloves occurred to me, even though I understood that others had seen this collection in this same casual manner and I couldn’t help but think there are scholars, curators, and conservators and protocols that apply when a discovery of this kind is made. [emphasis mine]”

Given some of the reproductions Finding Frida Kahlo attributes to the artist, this statement gives me pause.  While Levine may not be an authority on Kahlo, she is the former Director of Exhibitions at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art.  This at least makes her something of an authority on art.  Given her experience, Levine seems to think it may take years to fully evaluate the authenticity of each work in the collection.  I’m no Frida expert either, but based on the images I saw, I doubt it will take as long as she thinks.

{ 48 comments }

C-Mon August 21, 2009 at 6:38 pm

well that could explain the uber tacky gift shop tied to Kahlo’s SFMOMA exhibit…

C-Mon August 21, 2009 at 6:38 pm

well that could explain the uber tacky gift shop tied to Kahlo’s SFMOMA exhibit…

C-Mon August 21, 2009 at 6:38 pm

well that could explain the uber tacky gift shop tied to Kahlo’s SFMOMA exhibit…

C-Mon August 21, 2009 at 1:38 pm

well that could explain the uber tacky gift shop tied to Kahlo’s SFMOMA exhibit…

charles August 21, 2009 at 7:17 pm

Is it me or is the box in the second picture really bootleg? It looks maybe 10 years old at most, and probably from Chinatown. This stuff screams fake. The artist pallet portrait of her is laughable. I’m not a big Kahlo fan, but she was a better painter than whoever made this stuff. I can’t believe they put out a book before authenticating it further. The book will be in the $1 section of your local B&N real soon I’m sure.

charles August 21, 2009 at 7:17 pm

Is it me or is the box in the second picture really bootleg? It looks maybe 10 years old at most, and probably from Chinatown. This stuff screams fake. The artist pallet portrait of her is laughable. I’m not a big Kahlo fan, but she was a better painter than whoever made this stuff. I can’t believe they put out a book before authenticating it further. The book will be in the $1 section of your local B&N real soon I’m sure.

charles August 21, 2009 at 7:17 pm

Is it me or is the box in the second picture really bootleg? It looks maybe 10 years old at most, and probably from Chinatown. This stuff screams fake. The artist pallet portrait of her is laughable. I’m not a big Kahlo fan, but she was a better painter than whoever made this stuff. I can’t believe they put out a book before authenticating it further. The book will be in the $1 section of your local B&N real soon I’m sure.

charles August 21, 2009 at 2:17 pm

Is it me or is the box in the second picture really bootleg? It looks maybe 10 years old at most, and probably from Chinatown. This stuff screams fake. The artist pallet portrait of her is laughable. I’m not a big Kahlo fan, but she was a better painter than whoever made this stuff. I can’t believe they put out a book before authenticating it further. The book will be in the $1 section of your local B&N real soon I’m sure.

Mab MacMoragh August 21, 2009 at 10:11 pm

The publication of this book seems fated to be an astonishing embarrassment to Barbara Levine and Princeton Architectural Press.

However it is undoubtedly a coup by Noyola and Fernandez. That they were able to convince anyone that the pastiche is authentic is a feat in itself.

Mab MacMoragh August 21, 2009 at 5:11 pm

The publication of this book seems fated to be an astonishing embarrassment to Barbara Levine and Princeton Architectural Press.

However it is undoubtedly a coup by Noyola and Fernandez. That they were able to convince anyone that the pastiche is authentic is a feat in itself.

tom moody August 21, 2009 at 10:33 pm

“Bad contemporary art inspired by the artist” seems right on the money here. “Fakes” is a bit harsh, at least when applied to whoever originally produced the “trove.” It’s like a work of Star Trek fan fiction that some unscrupulous literary middleman was trying to peddle as a “lost Gene Roddenberry manuscript.”

tom moody August 21, 2009 at 5:33 pm

“Bad contemporary art inspired by the artist” seems right on the money here. “Fakes” is a bit harsh, at least when applied to whoever originally produced the “trove.” It’s like a work of Star Trek fan fiction that some unscrupulous literary middleman was trying to peddle as a “lost Gene Roddenberry manuscript.”

Fraud Detector August 22, 2009 at 6:43 pm

Wow, you guys are good. You can spot a fake just by looking at a few images in a book, no paint, paper, or other chemical analyses needed! From somebody who purports to be interested in revealing some of the pseudo-intellectual hypocrisies of the art world, this is an awfully quick jump onto a bandwagon of people who have formed an opinion without any actual forensic work or even first-hand examination of the materials. One art historian compared this to a doctor who makes a diagnosis without actually examining the patient. Most of the “experts” cited in the Art Newspaper piece are people with a vested interest in denouncing this collection as fake. What is your interest in repeating opinions are unsubstantiated as the collection itself? If you won’t do even the most basic journalistic exercise of presenting both sides of this controversy, then who will? But since your “brief perusal” of the book allowed you to form an expert opinion about the collection’s authenticity, then why waste the time, I suppose?

Fraud Detector August 22, 2009 at 1:43 pm

Wow, you guys are good. You can spot a fake just by looking at a few images in a book, no paint, paper, or other chemical analyses needed! From somebody who purports to be interested in revealing some of the pseudo-intellectual hypocrisies of the art world, this is an awfully quick jump onto a bandwagon of people who have formed an opinion without any actual forensic work or even first-hand examination of the materials. One art historian compared this to a doctor who makes a diagnosis without actually examining the patient. Most of the “experts” cited in the Art Newspaper piece are people with a vested interest in denouncing this collection as fake. What is your interest in repeating opinions are unsubstantiated as the collection itself? If you won’t do even the most basic journalistic exercise of presenting both sides of this controversy, then who will? But since your “brief perusal” of the book allowed you to form an expert opinion about the collection’s authenticity, then why waste the time, I suppose?

Art Fag City August 22, 2009 at 10:14 pm

Placing quotes around the term “experts” implies that someone like Mary Anne Martin has questionable qualifications. That is simply not the case. The dealer almost single handedly established the market for Latin American art. And I don’t see what vested interest the dealer would have in proclaiming the work a fake if she didn’t think the answer was clear. Her reputation is at stake.

While I don’t claim to be a Kahlo expert, I worked at a Latin America art gallery for close to a year in 2001-2002. I know far more about Kahlo’s market, work, and the fake Kahlo industry than the average person. Certainly enough to know the major players in the field and identify the more obvious fakes. With that said, I don’t ever say they are all fakes in the post — just that you don’t have to be an expert to know that many look that way.

Based on your response, I would guess your views represent a vested interest in the book.

Art Fag City August 22, 2009 at 5:14 pm

Placing quotes around the term “experts” implies that someone like Mary Anne Martin has questionable qualifications. That is simply not the case. The dealer almost single handedly established the market for Latin American art. And I don’t see what vested interest the dealer would have in proclaiming the work a fake if she didn’t think the answer was clear. Her reputation is at stake.

While I don’t claim to be a Kahlo expert, I worked at a Latin America art gallery for close to a year in 2001-2002. I know far more about Kahlo’s market, work, and the fake Kahlo industry than the average person. Certainly enough to know the major players in the field and identify the more obvious fakes. With that said, I don’t ever say they are all fakes in the post — just that you don’t have to be an expert to know that many look that way.

Based on your response, I would guess your views represent a vested interest in the book.

Jed Paradies August 22, 2009 at 11:25 pm

Having seen the Noyola Collection and the results of studies by well respected scientists and important experts on Frida I am suprised by the critics attack of the collection without having seen any of the work in person. This is a serious collection that deserves serious study.There is protocol to authenticate or disqualify a work of art, none of which these detractors have yet to begin.A cursory look at photo-images does not a study make.The Noyolas have been working for more than four years on the collection consulting with scientists and experts in an array of fields. The pigments of the paintings have been dated to the 1940s.(no one was forging Frida in the 40s) The signatures are integral to the paintings. The studies were done by Javier Vasquez Negrete the only scientist who sat on the Frida Kahlo panel during the 07 Frida retrospective at the Bellas Artes in Mexico. He is well known having worked for the Bellas Artes for many years. Graphological studies have been performed attesting that the hand writing is that of Frida’s. Arturo Garcia Bustos, Arturo Estrada two members of the “Fridos” (students of Frida Kahlo for more than 10 years have authenticated the work of their teacher) as well as Rina Lazo who worked with Diego Rivera on his murals and signed two of his murals with him. These are famous artists in their own right as their magnificent murals in the Anthropology Museum in Mexico attests.Who better than her own students to recognize their teacher? They were very close to Frida, involved in her art and life, painting side by side with her.There are no others (except the Fridos) living or dead who can make such a claim. There are 1200 works in the collection they all deserve a proper unbiased vetting. Thank you.

Jed Paradies August 22, 2009 at 6:25 pm

Having seen the Noyola Collection and the results of studies by well respected scientists and important experts on Frida I am suprised by the critics attack of the collection without having seen any of the work in person. This is a serious collection that deserves serious study.There is protocol to authenticate or disqualify a work of art, none of which these detractors have yet to begin.A cursory look at photo-images does not a study make.The Noyolas have been working for more than four years on the collection consulting with scientists and experts in an array of fields. The pigments of the paintings have been dated to the 1940s.(no one was forging Frida in the 40s) The signatures are integral to the paintings. The studies were done by Javier Vasquez Negrete the only scientist who sat on the Frida Kahlo panel during the 07 Frida retrospective at the Bellas Artes in Mexico. He is well known having worked for the Bellas Artes for many years. Graphological studies have been performed attesting that the hand writing is that of Frida’s. Arturo Garcia Bustos, Arturo Estrada two members of the “Fridos” (students of Frida Kahlo for more than 10 years have authenticated the work of their teacher) as well as Rina Lazo who worked with Diego Rivera on his murals and signed two of his murals with him. These are famous artists in their own right as their magnificent murals in the Anthropology Museum in Mexico attests.Who better than her own students to recognize their teacher? They were very close to Frida, involved in her art and life, painting side by side with her.There are no others (except the Fridos) living or dead who can make such a claim. There are 1200 works in the collection they all deserve a proper unbiased vetting. Thank you.

stepfordnot August 23, 2009 at 2:55 am

It’s such an interesting question though. Why wouldn’t the people who wrote the letter want to at least look at the stuff first hand? Isn’t that their job?

stepfordnot August 22, 2009 at 9:55 pm

It’s such an interesting question though. Why wouldn’t the people who wrote the letter want to at least look at the stuff first hand? Isn’t that their job?

tom moody August 23, 2009 at 6:43 am

“You can spot a fake just by looking at a few images in a book, no paint, paper, or other chemical analyses needed!” I hate to break it to Fraud Detector but most connoisseurship is based on the eye and judgment, not lab work. The amount of basic science invested in this collection already suggests more bamboozlement than common sense. (As with all the viscosity studies and fling rate testing on the obvious non-Pollock a while back.)

tom moody August 23, 2009 at 1:43 am

“You can spot a fake just by looking at a few images in a book, no paint, paper, or other chemical analyses needed!” I hate to break it to Fraud Detector but most connoisseurship is based on the eye and judgment, not lab work. The amount of basic science invested in this collection already suggests more bamboozlement than common sense. (As with all the viscosity studies and fling rate testing on the obvious non-Pollock a while back.)

James Kalm August 23, 2009 at 6:10 pm

This all sounds suspiciously like the Movie “Who the */&@*5~ is Jackson Pollock”, the case of a $5 painting bought in California flea shop and touted as a lost masterpiece. They hired tons of “experts” even found a partial fingerprint (?). But there’s no way the piece was a Pollock. (Ever see an acrylic Pollock?) However, they still generated enough interest to form an investment group, finance the film, get the lady truck driver, who owns the painting, celebrity status, and get a portion of the art world yakking.
Post-Modernistically we might have to accept this “archive” whether genuine or not, as what it is, a questioning of the value of originality vs an obsessive attempt to recreate authenticity. Just hang a big name on your project and people will be interested. Look for the Dash Snow “Lost Masterpieces” coming soon to a bookshop near you.

James Kalm August 23, 2009 at 1:10 pm

This all sounds suspiciously like the Movie “Who the */&@*5~ is Jackson Pollock”, the case of a $5 painting bought in California flea shop and touted as a lost masterpiece. They hired tons of “experts” even found a partial fingerprint (?). But there’s no way the piece was a Pollock. (Ever see an acrylic Pollock?) However, they still generated enough interest to form an investment group, finance the film, get the lady truck driver, who owns the painting, celebrity status, and get a portion of the art world yakking.
Post-Modernistically we might have to accept this “archive” whether genuine or not, as what it is, a questioning of the value of originality vs an obsessive attempt to recreate authenticity. Just hang a big name on your project and people will be interested. Look for the Dash Snow “Lost Masterpieces” coming soon to a bookshop near you.

Clint Hough August 23, 2009 at 6:53 pm

It is said that Mary Anne Martin has no vested interest in proclaiming the collection a fake without seeing it.
Then why was Carlos Noyola contacted by Robert Littman, in front of witnesses in Mexico City three years ago, to see if Carlos was interested in paying for Mary Anne Martin’s authorization of the collection?
Carlos told Littman at the time that they were not interested in paying for authorization of the collection to anyone.
Seems like a possible conflict of interest to me…

Clint Hough August 23, 2009 at 1:53 pm

It is said that Mary Anne Martin has no vested interest in proclaiming the collection a fake without seeing it.
Then why was Carlos Noyola contacted by Robert Littman, in front of witnesses in Mexico City three years ago, to see if Carlos was interested in paying for Mary Anne Martin’s authorization of the collection?
Carlos told Littman at the time that they were not interested in paying for authorization of the collection to anyone.
Seems like a possible conflict of interest to me…

Art Fag City August 23, 2009 at 7:13 pm

@Clint Hough So what if a colleague of Martin’s solicited Noyola for payment for authentication? She thinks the work is fake. Noyola would have paid her to render the same opinion she gave to the art newspaper. Of course they turned the offer down. This comment assumes that if Carlos paid the dealer she would have come to a different conclusion which is just nonsense. No dealer wants their name on an erroneous attribution — it’s professional suicide.

Art Fag City August 23, 2009 at 2:13 pm

@Clint Hough So what if a colleague of Martin’s solicited Noyola for payment for authentication? She thinks the work is fake. Noyola would have paid her to render the same opinion she gave to the art newspaper. Of course they turned the offer down. This comment assumes that if Carlos paid the dealer she would have come to a different conclusion which is just nonsense. No dealer wants their name on an erroneous attribution — it’s professional suicide.

Fraud Detector August 24, 2009 at 3:51 pm

On Mary-Anne Martin’s website, it says there is no charge for authentication, and asks only for a contribution to the Bide-a-Wee animal shelter instead. Since you seem to know or worked for her, can you comment on the rumor that Martin contacted the Noyolas, told them she believed at least some of the materials were real, and offered to authenticate them in exchange for taking ownership of the collection? That seems like a real conflict of interest… And now that she has declared them a fake without seeing them, would be unable to own or represent them if they do turn out to be authentic, which seems oddly shortsighted for a dealer of her savvy.

Fraud Detector August 24, 2009 at 10:51 am

On Mary-Anne Martin’s website, it says there is no charge for authentication, and asks only for a contribution to the Bide-a-Wee animal shelter instead. Since you seem to know or worked for her, can you comment on the rumor that Martin contacted the Noyolas, told them she believed at least some of the materials were real, and offered to authenticate them in exchange for taking ownership of the collection? That seems like a real conflict of interest… And now that she has declared them a fake without seeing them, would be unable to own or represent them if they do turn out to be authentic, which seems oddly shortsighted for a dealer of her savvy.

Art Fag City August 24, 2009 at 4:02 pm

@Fraud Detector. I haven’t spoken to her in a couple of years so I don’t know anything past what you’ve told me. If that’s the rumor though, I don’t believe it for a minute. She is without question the straightest dealer I have ever met.

Art Fag City August 24, 2009 at 11:02 am

@Fraud Detector. I haven’t spoken to her in a couple of years so I don’t know anything past what you’ve told me. If that’s the rumor though, I don’t believe it for a minute. She is without question the straightest dealer I have ever met.

Fraud Detector August 25, 2009 at 3:43 pm

@Tom Moody, I’m obviously not an art historian, but I find it hard to believe that any authentication process can be based primarily on subjective criteria like somebody’s “eye and judgment,” and not something a bit more rooted in science. At that point, doesn’t it just boil down to your opinion vs. mine and an argument about whose judgment is more valid? I wouldn’t like to have you on my jury of peers, if you found me guilty because you just had a feeling or didn’t like my look or something I said! I prefer my forensics to come out of the lab rather than from the gut. Is the state-of-the-art of authentication really not too much more than he said vs. she said? Maybe there’s a bigger and better story in this than in this current Kahlo tempest?

Fraud Detector August 25, 2009 at 10:43 am

@Tom Moody, I’m obviously not an art historian, but I find it hard to believe that any authentication process can be based primarily on subjective criteria like somebody’s “eye and judgment,” and not something a bit more rooted in science. At that point, doesn’t it just boil down to your opinion vs. mine and an argument about whose judgment is more valid? I wouldn’t like to have you on my jury of peers, if you found me guilty because you just had a feeling or didn’t like my look or something I said! I prefer my forensics to come out of the lab rather than from the gut. Is the state-of-the-art of authentication really not too much more than he said vs. she said? Maybe there’s a bigger and better story in this than in this current Kahlo tempest?

Franz Cutbirth August 27, 2009 at 1:06 am

Why would the owners store these priceless items, for many years, in such a haphazard way? If the items do turn out to be real, (they scream SCAM to me), I would hope a museum would buy them and store them properly.

I am aghast that Barbara Levine, a former museum employee, put her name to this book. If I were her and I truly believed that the items were real, I would have urged the current owners to contact a museum (or some other professional archivist company) and immediately begin preserving the treasures. The fact that she cared more about getting her paws on the goods to do a book first tells me that she does not give a flip about the historical significance of the art.

Franz Cutbirth August 26, 2009 at 8:06 pm

Why would the owners store these priceless items, for many years, in such a haphazard way? If the items do turn out to be real, (they scream SCAM to me), I would hope a museum would buy them and store them properly.

I am aghast that Barbara Levine, a former museum employee, put her name to this book. If I were her and I truly believed that the items were real, I would have urged the current owners to contact a museum (or some other professional archivist company) and immediately begin preserving the treasures. The fact that she cared more about getting her paws on the goods to do a book first tells me that she does not give a flip about the historical significance of the art.

tom moody August 27, 2009 at 8:13 pm

Fraud Detector, art history is not a science, neither it is a court of law. In fact, when the law or science get involved in art decisions the result is often tragic (the Koons case, Pollock pseudoscience). I know it’s painful to think of people making evaluations with their “guts” but there you have it.

tom moody August 27, 2009 at 3:13 pm

Fraud Detector, art history is not a science, neither it is a court of law. In fact, when the law or science get involved in art decisions the result is often tragic (the Koons case, Pollock pseudoscience). I know it’s painful to think of people making evaluations with their “guts” but there you have it.

Archie Fudd August 29, 2009 at 6:27 pm

Why is it that everyone that says that the collection is fake refuses to see it? Just as photos can be enhanced to make something look better, they can also be manipulated to make something look worse. The only way to be sure of something, now days, is to see it in person. I have heard that the owners of the collection have had forensic art experts, which do the same work for museums all over the world, analyze this collection. Why don’t the art “experts” that use the results of these real forensic experts for other art works want to see their results of this particular collection?

There are comments here that say that the “experts” do not charge for authentication of artwork, but how naïve can you get? In the real world, this is the way that they become wealthy and by controlling the artwork of certain artists where they can dictate prices and have a take on art sold. This is how things work in the real world. This is why, after getting the value of Kahlo’s work to be worth millions, they don’t want items, that they do not control, of this artist to become available. They are afraid that if that if more of her work becomes available, the value of the pieces that they do control will come tumbling down, and they cannot afford this to happen. This is the real reason that they will always say that work that they don’t control to be fake, even if it is real, but if they did control the collection, then they would sing another tune.

Archie

Archie Fudd August 29, 2009 at 1:27 pm

Why is it that everyone that says that the collection is fake refuses to see it? Just as photos can be enhanced to make something look better, they can also be manipulated to make something look worse. The only way to be sure of something, now days, is to see it in person. I have heard that the owners of the collection have had forensic art experts, which do the same work for museums all over the world, analyze this collection. Why don’t the art “experts” that use the results of these real forensic experts for other art works want to see their results of this particular collection?

There are comments here that say that the “experts” do not charge for authentication of artwork, but how naïve can you get? In the real world, this is the way that they become wealthy and by controlling the artwork of certain artists where they can dictate prices and have a take on art sold. This is how things work in the real world. This is why, after getting the value of Kahlo’s work to be worth millions, they don’t want items, that they do not control, of this artist to become available. They are afraid that if that if more of her work becomes available, the value of the pieces that they do control will come tumbling down, and they cannot afford this to happen. This is the real reason that they will always say that work that they don’t control to be fake, even if it is real, but if they did control the collection, then they would sing another tune.

Archie

Kevin Lippert September 4, 2009 at 1:48 pm

As publisher of the book, it’s hard to refrain from jumping into this discussion, but instead I’d like to point out a piece in this morning’s Los Angeles Times which is by far the most balanced account of this controversy yet published: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/arts/la-ca-kahlo6-2009sep06,0,6241110,full.story
Hope you and your readers find it illuminating.

Thanks,
Kevin Lippert

Kevin Lippert September 4, 2009 at 9:48 am

As publisher of the book, it’s hard to refrain from jumping into this discussion, but instead I’d like to point out a piece in this morning’s Los Angeles Times which is by far the most balanced account of this controversy yet published: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/arts/la-ca-kahlo6-2009sep06,0,6241110,full.story
Hope you and your readers find it illuminating.

Thanks,
Kevin Lippert

Kevin Lippert September 9, 2009 at 1:53 am

Another balanced post on this controversy at http://accidentalmysteries.blogspot.com/2009/09/controversy-surrounds-recent-frida.html I hope you all will enjoy.nThanks,nKevin LippertnPrinceton Architectural Press

Kevin Lippert September 8, 2009 at 9:53 pm

Another balanced post on this controversy at http://accidentalmysteries.blogspot.com/2009/09/controversy-surrounds-recent-frida.html I hope you all will enjoy.\nThanks,\nKevin Lippert\nPrinceton Architectural Press

Urraca September 29, 2009 at 3:39 am

“, the largely self-taught Kahlo had little innate facility”
This quote, from the LA Times piece, tells me an awful lot about the author’s eye.

I am no expert in matters of art authentication, but am an artist who has seen most of the extant ( acknowledged) Kahlos in person…

what I have see of this ‘new” material looks laughably wrong. Offensively wrong. The drawings simply do not look like her hand.

“Little innate facility”, eh?
Also laughably wrong.

Urraca September 28, 2009 at 11:39 pm

“, the largely self-taught Kahlo had little innate facility”
This quote, from the LA Times piece, tells me an awful lot about the author’s eye.

I am no expert in matters of art authentication, but am an artist who has seen most of the extant ( acknowledged) Kahlos in person…

what I have see of this ‘new” material looks laughably wrong. Offensively wrong. The drawings simply do not look like her hand.

“Little innate facility”, eh?
Also laughably wrong.

nycart September 29, 2009 at 4:35 am

It’s easy to dismiss the collection as fake if all you know are Kahlo’s late paintings, but if you look at the existing verified canon of drawings, letters, preliminary sketches, etc many if not most of the sketches/letters have analogues. Kahlo was someone who produced drawings/painting/writing almost daily and there is a great range to her work.

I agree a few of the more finished paintings in the book are a bit more problematic but if the story is true, they could easily be paintings made by students, fans of Kahlo during her lifetime. This is thought to be a collection… she was an incessant collector, and was surrounded by students/admirers during later life. Surely some of them produced hero worship art.

Much of the ephemera should be verifiable, and some of it has been convincingly authenticated. The truth is we don’t know the story behind this cache and it’s a mistake to write it off so cavalierly.

The Mexican art world if rife with political intrigue and there are many people who have reason to dismiss the paintings. It seems to me that the dealers really do believe they have found something important, they are serious people but obviously they have a vested interest in the find being true. The only way this will be resolved will be if the collection is sent out of Mexico for study by a group of impartial scholars unaligned with the various Mexican artworld factions.

nycart September 29, 2009 at 12:35 am

It’s easy to dismiss the collection as fake if all you know are Kahlo’s late paintings, but if you look at the existing verified canon of drawings, letters, preliminary sketches, etc many if not most of the sketches/letters have analogues. Kahlo was someone who produced drawings/painting/writing almost daily and there is a great range to her work.

I agree a few of the more finished paintings in the book are a bit more problematic but if the story is true, they could easily be paintings made by students, fans of Kahlo during her lifetime. This is thought to be a collection… she was an incessant collector, and was surrounded by students/admirers during later life. Surely some of them produced hero worship art.

Much of the ephemera should be verifiable, and some of it has been convincingly authenticated. The truth is we don’t know the story behind this cache and it’s a mistake to write it off so cavalierly.

The Mexican art world if rife with political intrigue and there are many people who have reason to dismiss the paintings. It seems to me that the dealers really do believe they have found something important, they are serious people but obviously they have a vested interest in the find being true. The only way this will be resolved will be if the collection is sent out of Mexico for study by a group of impartial scholars unaligned with the various Mexican artworld factions.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: