09.09.2026
The ambition? Two exhibitions in one day. Two of the most famous artists in the world. Two artists, I have to admit, that I do not have a particular affinity for.
It began with the Frida. Almost immediately, I noted what the tenor of the exhibition would be. Because there was not much of her work, they were going to pad it all out with other artists and photographs and imitators and those inspired by her. Her style has never appealed to me but the exhibition was keen to show why she was so iconic. She appealed to the women, the feminists, the LGBT+ community, those with medical issues, etc. She was capitalism’s darling as an artist.
I’ve always thought that as a woman artist, much of her reputation rested on her suffering. Because the public wants the artist to suffer. I know it by my own fortunes. They want us to have no money and suffer and suffer and suffer. This, they believe, gives good art. The most iconic artist in this regard is Van Gogh.
Frida was weird. The Suicide of Dorothy Hale, 1938 which depicts a young woman falling from a building was something she intended for the young woman’s mother instead of an idealised portrait. Can you believe it? Where was the compassion for the grieving mother? Frida rubbed in the circumstances of the tragic death instead. The woman lies at the bottom in a blanket of blood. This is what Frida’s art is: trying to show reality. Yet she is associated at the same time with the surreal, the out of ordinary and both realms collide on the spectacle of suffering.
The feminist credentials of the exhibition were iffy, considering she is a feminist icon. We wondered whether the nude intimate photographs of Frida should have been on display. They were private things that she had not authorised to be shown in her lifetime. Shouldn’t Frida have been given ownership of her own body as a woman? Again, Rivera’s work was displayed alongside hers. Wasn’t the aim of the feminists to argue that these women artists that lived in the shadow of their husbands were just as good? Wasn’t it the feminist aim for the art of the women to be seen aside from and apart from the art of their husbands? I found it weird given the context, even though I do not see myself as a Western feminist at all.
If Frida was weird, so was Whistler. He came across in the biographical details as a despicable and aggressive human being. He had fights with all the men in his life. In his time, when relationships were supposed to be for life, he seemed to go through woman after woman and could not keep faith with them. The display showed how petty and argumentative he was as well.
I’ve never admired his art. The best stuff for me was the White on White series, featuring his then love and muse Joanna Hiffernan. Perhaps because this is about love. Perhaps because it is less experimental than the other paintings in my mind.
Whistler was a rule breaker. He was expelled from Westpoint for breaking the rules. And he appeared to break the rules in art as well. However, the aesthetic is not appealing. The portraits all look unfinished and too faint and obscure. The landscapes are all obscured in the mist as well, although some of the nocturnes look okay. He was good as a realist artist as his early ink sketches show, but even there he was not exceptional.
The Peacock room fiasco where he overextended his artistic licence with a rich patron, which led to a bitter quarrel, shows the personality of the man. He believed that because he was an artist, that he was special and that he could do whatever he wanted. He was arrogant. And you can see this arrogance in his paintings. He made the sitters sit for up to seventy times so that he could control them, keep them immobile and under his sight. The man was obnoxious and on a weird power trip where he wanted to impose himself on everything and everyone. It’s not a surprise that he is so rated in a culture which overvalues arrogance and a supposed exceptionalism. The reason that he broke the rules? Because he thought he was too good for the rules.
