If you haven’t read the original insightful article in Hyperallergic An Indigenous Perspective on Frida Kahlo You might ask what’s wrong with being a mostly European or Mestizo woman of the upper class dressing up like Frida Kalho, is are only dirt poor Mestizo women is the only true or authentic
I’d say in response
It’s about turning indigenous art textiles and people into a mashed up product-identity, basically bunging in hundreds of ethic groups together and saying their all the same. So what looks like a celebration is actually a harm to those cultures. At the same time this kind of ‘use’ locks out those original communities as official cultural policy insists they standardise and confirm to a ‘national’ homogenising of the indigenous cultures. It a bit like how Japan suppress any notions that fall outside the officially declared homogeous Japanese identity, like the Ainu – Japan officially considered itself homogeneous.
The article touches on how using native textiles the way Frida does is problematic brown-washing. Basically you make yourself look like the community you’ve take advantage of and displaced politically, economically, geographical and mske yourself look like you care and even have some kind sympathic relation. In Mexico this takes place simultaneously with racism in the same instance. A typical insult in Mexico is to say ‘Indio’ as a substitution for stupid or backwards. Like ‘muy indio’.
The communities and cultures used to promote an ‘Mexican’ identity have no voice in actuality communicating the meaning of their own clothes. As the colours and images are sacred and in fact have pictographic coding. Which can be found in sculpture and written codexes.
Frida becomes a problem as she used indigenous cultures in this problematic way and her popularity perpetuates to a global audience these same problems… And attributes to her the meaning and strength of the clothes & textiles while displacing the culture they come from. The author of the piece asks that curation of the museum and government policy correct and give context to how the national heritage is presented and taught. Which would mean going past Frida. The manner Anni Albers show at the Tate was curated be a decent direction to go in. You got a decent sense of the indigenous sophistication and contribution to intellectual development – whereas you wouldn’t at the Frida museum.
Previliage gets upset at not being able to keep its cartoon version of the world. God forbid a few braincells should be worked a little.
It’s a bit like skinning someone alive and wearing them as clothes and then saying you were wearing your own skin wrong.