Hector Rodriguez Rodriguez itibaren Kitahiroshima, Hokkaido Prefecture, Japan itibaren Kitahiroshima, Hokkaido Prefecture, Japan

I read this because the movie is a favorite. I think what fascinates me the most is that I really disliked Kahlo's style and looked somewhat askance at how much she painted herself before I read the book. But the more I read, the more I came to appreciate both - especially how autobiographical her paintings are. At the same time, I was somewhat frustrated by the attention given to her art, or perhaps the way it was done. I feel like the issue here is with me rather than the biography itself - art isn't a primary subject of interest for me and I can be pretty skeptical about art criticism. Herrera does much in the way of critiquing paintings and explaining the psychology behind them. That can be fascinating if there's confirmation from the artist or the people in her life about her intent. At times there certainly was evidence to back up Herrera's statements. On the other hand, I found myself questioning assertions like this: The still lifes Frida painted in 1951 and earlier are neat and precise in technique, full of refined detail and sly, suggestive wit. By 1952 her style had changed radically; the late still lifes are not just animate but agitated. They have a kind of wild intensity, as if Frida were flailing about in search of something solid, a raft in a heavy sea of impermanence. Yes, she was in decline at the time.... but what if she simply wanted to experiment with another style? While I couldn't help but question Herrera's interpretations at times, this could very well be my own ignorance about Kahlo and an inability to appreciate art criticism. The magnetism of Kahlo definitely comes out, though ultimately I came away wanting for more.