This 1930s article calling Frida Kahlo the “wife of the master mural painter” is all wrong

Frida Kahlo, one of the most prolific and iconic surrealist painters of the early 20th century, once got married to a mural painter named Diego Rivera. Together they lived and worked in Mexico City, but among their contemporaries, Rivera was by far the more famous artist. Kahlo would not reach the height of her fame until the 1940s.

When Rivera and Kahlo moved to Detroit in 1932, they were right on the cusp of a record-breaking show by Rivera in New York City. He had been commissioned to create massive murals for the city of Detroit, and she, 25 years old, joined him. According to the Detroit News, the press swarmed Kahlo, and a reporter named Florence Davies asked, "Are you a painter, too?"

Kahlo replied, "Yes. The greatest in the world."

When Davies went to the Rivera-Kahlo home to write a profile, she made Kahlo's work the headline — but it's pretty demeaning in retrospect to refer to such a talented artist as only the "wife of the master mural painter."

(Photograph courtesy of the Detroit Institute of Arts/the Detroit News)

This newspaper clipping appears in a current exhibition at the Detroit Institute of Arts, which takes a deep look at how Kahlo's time in Detroit strongly influenced her future as an artist. While there, Kahlo had a miscarriage that would influence much of her work throughout the 1930s and '40s. She grew immensely as an artist who, though untrained, created beautiful, striking works.

Davies wrote in the article, "Señora Rivera's painting is by no means a joke; because, however she may laugh when you ask her about it, the fact remains that she has acquired a very skillful and beautiful style, painting in the small with miniature-like technique, which is as far removed from the heroic figures of Rivera as could well be imagined."

Kahlo seemed to know this, bragging, "[Rivera] does pretty well for a little boy, but it is I who am the big artist."

Will you support Vox’s explanatory journalism?

Most news outlets make their money through advertising or subscriptions. But when it comes to what we’re trying to do at Vox, there are a couple reasons that we can't rely only on ads and subscriptions to keep the lights on.

First, advertising dollars go up and down with the economy. We often only know a few months out what our advertising revenue will be, which makes it hard to plan ahead.

Second, we’re not in the subscriptions business. Vox is here to help everyone understand the complex issues shaping the world — not just the people who can afford to pay for a subscription. We believe that’s an important part of building a more equal society. We can’t do that if we have a paywall.

That’s why we also turn to you, our readers, to help us keep Vox free. If you also believe that everyone deserves access to trusted high-quality information, will you make a gift to Vox today?

One-Time Monthly Annual

$5/month

$10/month

$25/month

$50/month

Other

$

Yes, I'll give $5/month

Yes, I'll give $5/month

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via