I guess this means in regards to someone’s personality or maybe their appearance or even a combination of both.
There is a certain projection of character each of us conveys to the world that could be described as unique making us appear who we are or different to one another.
Children seem to be able to recognise it in adults at first sight. How is this possible? At the same time, it can be very hard to describe uniqueness in a person. This is the stuff of actors and comedians with their nuanced mimicry and ability to flesh out a person’s character or capture a certain turn of phrase or uncanny smile.
However, if you’re not careful you may find yourself in a hall of mirrors. If you stare long enough in the reflection you can get the wrong idea. ‘I look terrible this morning’ or ‘why do I look so different?’ or ‘mirror, mirror on the wall who is..?’ etc. While others may forever feel doubtful or subject to scrutiny simply because they don’t reflect on themselves.
Leave it up to others I say. Am I unique? No, damn it. I’m not.
LikeLoading...
What are your thoughts on the concept of living a very long life?
Living a very long life may have its drawbacks. Quality of life is valuable and living a life of quality is desirable. However, living a long and dull life may be less valuable depending on the sort of person you are. If you are of a dull disposition you may enjoy an extended life of pabulum because you have no need for anything else. You will no doubt enjoy limitless blandness without boredom. The sun will rise each day and set so many hours later as you fail to acknowledge anything of interest because by nature, you are dull. You simply are not interested. But this in itself maybe interesting. How could you be so dull as to fail to notice anything? The uniqueness of dullness. On the other hand, you are probably not interesting. No, you are just dull.
I have never seen a Frida Kahlo painting until I had the opportunity to attend the Frida & Diego: Love & Revolution exhibition at the AGSA. There are roughly 150 works from the Jacques and Natasha Gelman Collection showcasing some of Frida’s most iconic works. The show is especially successful because her work hangs side by side with Diego Rivera’s and affords the chance to be seen in the broader context of the Mexican Modernist movement. I will focus primarily on Frida’s work for the sake of this discussion.
Her style appears to combine traditional representation with a kind of illustration in order to convey her vision. This hyper-representation enables a unique individualized form of Surrealism. But it is achieved in a way that appears both lucid and effortless. She combines autobiographical and cultural symbology in a unique synthesis that could be described as radical. Sometimes described as magical realism or new objectivity, contemporary artists and critics such as Andre Breton and Bertram D. Wolfe describe Kahlo’s work as individualized Surrealism. To me this challenge to compartmentalize her work reflects her individuality and independence from convention. Perhaps her style is best described as combining realism with surrealistic elements, folk art, violence and death.
Today Frida Kahlo is celebrated as an international artist but she is also seen as quintessentially Mexican. What are some of her influences?
Following the revolution, Mexicanidad rejected colonialist elitism with its European bias. Indigenous cultural traditions were Kahlo’s passion and inheritance and became critical subject material for her, along with her artist husband Diego Rivera. But Kahlo’s expression combines a unique individualised expression that is particularly poignant today because it also conveys triumph over adversity. Her tragic road accident at age eighteen meant for life long disability. Today we value diverse cultural groups more and more and historical figures such as Kahlo spearhead the achievement of not only women artists but also that of disability. Through her artistic vision she is able to confront stereotypes and change them in the eyes of future generations.