Kahlo and Duchamp as Iconoclasts - Essay Example

?Introduction Religion and spirituality has been a part of the art world since time immemorial. Perhaps because religion is so fundamental to the human existence that art has naturally gravitated towards themes surrounding religious institutions and figures. Frida Kahlo and Marcel Duchamp are two very different artists who lived and worked contemporaneously. Kahlo and Duchamp were very different artists, although both had a modern sensibility. Kahlo's figures were representative, and she was best known for her self-portraits and portraits of people. Religious figures were not prominent in her paintings, although several paintings suggest a spiritual side of Kahlo, in which death and its relationship to life are explored. Likewise, Duchamp, being a total iconoclast and a card-carrying member of the Futurist mode of art, eschewed tradition, and, because there is no institution more traditional then religion, Duchamp also did not overtly make religious art. However, like Kahlo, he did make art that can be interpreted in a religious way, even if these paintings are non-representational, non-traditional and make commentary on religions that are in line with his non-traditional, Futurist ways. Religion and Frida Kahlo Kahlo, as explained above, was not overtly religious in her paintings, however, their symbolism does suggest a type of religious sensibility. Such is the way that Herrara (1983) describes The Broken Column.1 Painted after Kahlo suffered a serious accident at the age of 18, in which Kahlo was riding in a wooden bus that collided with a streetcar. Kahlo was impaled with an iron handrail, and, for the first month after the accident, it was not certain that she would live. For many months after that, Frida lay immobilized in plaster casts and other contraptions, her spinal column broken in three places, along with her collarbone, right leg, pelvis, and right foot (Herrera, 1983). The Broken Column was Frida's response to this tragedy, and, on the surface, its meaning is clear - Frida was broken inside. The painting showed an outside of perfection and beauty firm, taut breasts, perfect brown skin, long, flowing hair and a youthful face. However, the opening in the body that shows the steel-plated spine, and the fact that she is shown corseted, tells the true story. Frida was severely injured, and this painting literally shows her injuries. Moreover, the expression on her face, defiant and proud, shows that world that Frida is not about to give up in the face of pain and anguish. The steel spine, while emblematic of the accident, may also literally mean that her spine was steeled, in the sense that she is strong and will not give up. Therefore, a literal interpretation of this painting is of a defiant woman who was broken but not bowed. However, Herrara (1983) states that the painting has a religious symbolism as well. Herrara states that the corsets are evocative of Christ's winding sheet, which ties this painting in with traditional Christian symbolism (Herrara, 1983). The implication for this is clear, in that Kahlo's suffering and pain were somehow transcendent, in that they have made her a martyr, much like earlier Christians. After all, Kahlo got into painting because of the accident Frida stated that, after the accident, she had to keep still, which led her into painting - ?ithout paying much attention, I began to paint, because, after the accident, she was ?ored as hell with a plaster cast, so I decided to do something. I stole from my father some oil paints, and my mother ordered for me a special easel because I couldn't sit [up], and I started to paint(Herrara, 1983). Frida's accident, and the pain and suffering which came after it, was necessary for Frida to find her artistic voice and give to the world her gift. Therefore, like Christ before her, Frida had to suffer pain and sacrifice for the good of the world. Because of this, Herrara saw The Broken Column as Frida's imagery which evokes a Christian martyr, and spiritual suffering. The painting takes on a religious significance that, perhaps Frida meant and perhaps she did not, but was interpreted as such by Herrara (1983). Moreover, there was a sense that ?t was not yet her turn- in other words, God spared Frida from death so that Frida could enrich the world with her artistic sensibility and bring to the world her genius (Hernandez). There was therefore a sense that there was a kind of divine intervention into the accident, which lends another layer of religious meaning to the painting. In examining The Two Fridas2 there is, likewise, a sense of religious imagery and spirituality. One of the Fridas is dressed in white, the other Frida is dressed in contemporary dress. The Frida who is dressed in white unmistakably resembles an angel her sleeves on her dress are puffed and resemble wings. The suggestion is that these two Fridas represent a living Frida and a dead Frida, which seems to hearken back to her accident again, as it was touch and go and there was never a consensus on whether Frida would live or die during the months after the accident occurred. The Frida in white seems to be Frida in death, as if there was a parallel universe in which this was the case and Frida was an angel, as it were. This imagery that the Frida in white was dead is bolstered by the fact that there are two hearts, one on the live Frida and one on the ?eadone, and the heart on the ?eadFrida features a valve that appears to be broken into two pieces. The visible heart on the live Frida does not have this, as the heart appears to be whole. Obviously, a person cannot live with a heart valve broken into two pieces, so this bolsters the interpretation that this Frida is dead. Yet, the two Fridas are holding hands, in solidarity. Assuming that the Frida in white is dead, this imagery suggests that there is a connection between the living and the dead, and the dead are a part of the living. This interpretation is also shown by the fact that the two Fridas are literally connected, in that there is a single vein or artery that runs between the two women's hearts. The overall effect of the painting suggests that Frida did believe in life after death, and that, when a person dies, they are never really gone, but, rather, live on in the after-life as well as living on through those who are still alive. After all, the painting shows one of the Fridas as an angel, which suggests the afterworld, yet connected to the living Frida, which suggests the connection between the living and the dead. Perhaps Frida was not overtly religious, but this particular painting shows that she was spiritual. Helland (1990) sees this imagery of the connection between life and death in another of Frida's paintings, called Luther Burbank.3 As with The Two Fridas, images of death are entertwined with images of life. At the bottom of the painting, beneath the earth, is a skeleton. From this skeleton, beneath the earth, springs a tree. Moreover, the famed horticulturist Luther Burbank also springs forth from this earth, beneath which death is evident. As with The Two Fridas, this painting clearly shows that Frida thought about death and its connection to life, in that life springs forth from the roots of death (Helland, 1990). While it is evocative of the ?ircle of lifeas told in The Lion King an animal dies, becomes a part of the soil, another animal feeds upon the grass that grows in that soil, another animal eats that animal, and the carnivorous animal dies to become food for another animal, etc. it is also evocative of the ethos that life can spring forth from death. As Frida almost died, and this near-death is what gave life to her painting, this could be why she connected death imagery with living imagery in her paintings. Between this painting and The Two Fridas, it is obvious that Frida thought a lot about death and its connection to living, and this represented her spirituality- that nobody really dies, in that they either give life to others through their deaths, or that they are always connected to the living in some way. This view of eternal life is very much a Christian tenet, which would mean that Kahlo's views were in line with that of the Christian's views of ever-lasting life. Religion and Marcel Duchamp If Frida Kahlo did not dabble in overtly religious images, then it can be said that Marcel Duchamp was even less interested in religious images. For Duchamp, looking into the past was not where he received his art inspiration, for he was a futurist, a member of a body that eschewed the past and desired to forge a different path for art (Daval, 1979). Specifically, Duchamp was involved, initially, in Cubism, then, later, his interest was in ?etinalpainting, which means paintings that give life to sensory experiences. Additionally, Duchamp was involved with ?eadymades,in which everyday objects were altered to show hidden meanings such as presenting a urinal as a fountain (Faerna, 1995).4 Duchamp was one of the first artists to explore readymades as art objects, he was the first to explore the concept of retinal paintings, and Cubism was a new form during the time that Duchamp was using the form, so Duchamp was innovative in this way as well. Duchamp's most well-known paintings were abstract and open to interpretation, as well as enigmatic and esoteric. In short, Duchamp was far from being a traditionalist, therefore traditional institutions such as religion did not interest him. There was also little indication that spirituality interested him, as his artwork did not evoke anything particularly spiritual. This is not to say that Duchamp never thought about religious art, and was never influenced by religious art. There was some indication that Duchamp did think about these themes. In particular, Duchamp looked to the religious painters of the Renaissance as an influence upon his retinal art. Duchamp felt that the religious painters of the Renaissance was not painting so much as it was an expression of divinity. In this way, the Renaissance painters were not so much interested in color and technique as they were interested in putting representation of their beliefs onto canvas. Duchamp, in turn, felt the same way about his retinal art. Just like the Renaissance painters of religion, Duchamp was not interested in painting and art so much as he was interested in representation and expression. Like the Renaissance painters, whose art expressed ideas, so did Duchamp's art. Duchamp saw both his paintings and artwork and the Renaissance religious painting and artwork to be functional the Renaissance painter's function was putting their religious beliefs onto canvas, while Duchamp's function was to expand the senses and the mind of the audience (Stafford). Therefore, although Duchamp's paintings were not religious, Duchamp made clear that religious paintings had a profound influence upon him. These paintings helped him to explain his own paintings and what the function was for these paintings. Moreover, there is some indication that Duchamp, while not overly religious and disdainful of traditional institutions like religion, still had thoughts about some types of religious services such as marriages and weddings. This is evident when examining one of his famous paintings called The Passage from Virgin to Bride.5 This painting, with a Cubist base, describes in an abstract form the journey from virginity to marriage. The painting is chaotic, yet mechanical, as the surface of the painting appears to be that of metal and coldness. There does not seem to be any forms in the painting at all, and perhaps that is the message that losing one's virginity is a mechanical event, one that seems to be in the center of chaos. The chaos may come from the chaos of the mind of a the young girl who is to lose her virginity on her wedding night, yet Duchamp implies that holding onto one's virginity is not that big of a deal, as losing one's virginity is mechanized. Meanwhile, the follow-up piece, called The Bride6 is no less Cubist then its predecessor, but slightly more representative. Whereas the earlier painting, The Passage from Virgin to Bride was a study in chaos and mechanical, The Bride teases out some forms from the painting. For instance, there is a form that appears to resemble a Puritan hat in the middle of the painting, and, in the upper right, is a form that resembles the headdress of an Egyptian Pharaoh. The bride herself, which is presumably at the center of the painting, is a form that has a neck like a violin neck. Other then this, it is difficult to tease out forms, as this painting, like The Passage...is mechanical and largely non-representative. Nonetheless, one cannot deny that marriage is a religious institution and virginity is a behavior that is reinforced by religion. The command to remain a virgin until you marry is one that is grounded in religion, not in evolution or biology. So, when Duchamp creates a painting that implies that a girl is a virgin until she marries, Duchamp is making an homage to religious beliefs. Also, in his painting The Bride, there are forms which resemble patriarchal symbols, such as the Pharaoh headdress and the Puritan hat. This can either be a nod to the patriarchal nature of religion, as The Bride implies a wedding, which implicates religion and, since major religions are patriarchal, this is what the painting could mean; or, alternatively, it could relate to the patriarchy that a woman will experience once she marries, as this was a time when men ruled the house and women were considered property. At the same time, Duchamp is making a commentary about the religious command to stay a virgin until you marry, as the painting is chaotic, cold and mechanical. Perhaps the message is that there is no need to stress about sex before marriage, as it is a mechanical thing, and, by waiting until marriage, one puts too much pressure on oneself, hence the chaos. At any rate, it is clear that Duchamp does not take a traditional view of marriage as a religious institution, as his paintings are abstract and esoteric, rather than representational, therefore open to interpretation. Conclusion It is clear that both Kahlo and Duchamp were iconoclasts, and, as such, religious imagery was not the focus of their paintings. That said, there was a little bit of religious and spiritual subtext to Kahlo's paintings if one cares to interpret them in such a way. Mainly, Kahlo examined the tenuous relationship between life and death, the afterworld and the current world. It was clear that Kahlo thought about death, and, from some of her paintings, she believed that one never really dies, but lives on through the living. At the same time, it is clear that she believed in angels, at least, that is one interpretation of her painting The Two Fridas. And, unlike Duchamp, Kahlo's artwork was representational, so it was easier to glean the spiritual and religious subtext from her work then from Duchamp. Duchamp, on the other hand, was a total iconoclast and was not interested in the past, but, rather in forging his own path in the art world. This kind of sensibility is not conducive to producing overtly religious art, as religious institutions, with their roots going back to the dawn of time, is the ultimate in tradition. Duchamp, being a total non-traditionalist, naturally would not gravitate towards religion at all. That said, he did admit to being influenced by the masters of religious art, if only to say that he, like them, he chose art as a representation of important ideas, not just painting for painting's sake. Unlike Kahlo, Duchamp's art was, by and large, non-representational, so it is difficult to discern the meaning behind these figures. Still, he labeled two of his paintings to suggest religion, in that they refer to brides. While these paintings were non-representational, in that one would never know that they represent virginity and marriage if not for their label, the fact remains that they were labeled with religious subtext. As such, they can be considered to be Duchamp's way of representing traditional religious ceremonies like marriage, and traditional religious edicts, such as staying a virgin until marriage. However, it is clear that Duchamp, even when making religious representations, does so in such a non-traditional way that this can serve as his message that religious institutions are meant to evolve and go into the future, much like his art, and that virginity until marriage is not necessarily something that is desirable or necessary. Therefore, unlike Kahlo, who does have some rather traditional views about religion and spirituality, if one thinks about, Duchamp's views on religion are as non-traditional and iconoclastic as the man himself. Sources Used Daval, J. (1979) Modern Art: The Decisive Years 1884-1914. New York: Rizzoli International Publications, Inc. Faerna, J. (1995) Great Modern Masters: Duchamp. New York: Harry N. Abrams. Helland, J. (1990-1991) Culture, politics, and identity in the paintings of Frida Kahlo. Women's Art Journal, 11: 397-406. Herrara, H. (1983) Frida: A Biography of Frida Kahlo. New York: Harper & Row, Inc. Hernandez, A. (2008) Urban landscape. In: Fuentes, C. (2008) Frida Kahlo 1907-2007. New York: U.S. Distribution D.A.P. Stafford, A. Making sense of Marcel Duchamp. Available at: http://www.understandingduchamp.com/text.html Read More