University of Amsterdam
Master Art History Master thesis
Expanding the Surrealist Canon: Female Artists and the Mexican Art Scene in the 1940s
By
Martine Geeret Wilts Student number: 10830731
2017 - 2018
Table of Contents
Introduction
3
Chapter 1: Feminism and Art History: Towards Inclusion
1.1 Defining and explaining 11
1.2 Female artists and the Surrealist movement
15
1.3 Dangers of categorizing ‘female Surrealism’ 18
Chapter 2: Surrealism in Mexico
2.1 Fantastic art in Mexico: before the arrival of the Surrealists 23
2.2 The duality of the Mexican art scene and the establishment of 28
female émigré artists in Mexico during the 1930s and 1940s
Chapter 3: Case Study: The Representation of Female Surrealists in
the Art Scene of Mexico City
3.1 Mexico City’s tastemakers: the National Museum of Art
40
and the Modern Museum of Art
3.2 The representation of female Surrealist artists in Mexico 45
City’s gallery scene
3.3 Conclusion case study 48
Conclusion
50
Images
53
Bibliography
60
Introduction
In March 2017 the National Museum of Women in the Arts in Washington launched their ‘#5WomenArtists’ campaign in the context of the Women’s History Month.1
With this yearly campaign the museum tries to reach a broader audience to bring female artists to the attention and to celebrate their lives and work. Ask a random museum visitor to name five male artists and they will be able to sum them up fast from the top of their heads, but ask them to name five female artists and the task immediately seems to be very difficult, or even impossible. With this simple example that was put into practice, the National Museum of Women in the Arts touched upon an important and current issue: the gender inequity in the art world.
In February 2017, online art marketplace Artfinder.com published ‘the Gender Equality Report.’ The statistics in this report were based on the inventory data and sales that were made through Artfinder.com and consist of the data of major art museums that were willing to share their information on this matter.2
One of the most remarkable results of this report is that in 2015, only 1% of the works sold at European and American auction was by women. Another outcome is related to the collection of one of the most influential museums in the Unites States, the Museum of Modern Art in New York. In 2015, their permanent collection display consisted solely for 7% of works by female artists.3
The exclusion of women in the art world is a continuous subject of debate at important online art platforms including Artsy.com4
and was recently addressed in the form of a panel discussion at the prestigious art fair Art Basel, Switzerland under the title “Art World Talk. Sexism in the Art World” (June 13, 2018).5
When we look at the representation of the history of avant-garde art of the mid-twentieth century, the discourse and the canon are dominated by male artists. This has 1 http://www.huffingtonpost.com.mx/entry/can-you-name-5-women-artists_us_58b6bf6ae4b0780bac2ec9b1 2 The full Gender Equality Report can be downloaded online: https://www.artfinder.com/blog/post/equality-pledge/?utm_source=equality&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=equality-pledge17#/ 3 In this thesis the term ‘woman artist’ will not be used, primarily because many female artists associated with Surrealism denied the label of ‘woman artist’ and second, by escaping the established term ‘woman artist’ I aim to move away from the separate category of ‘woman art.’ However, since it is necessary to specify the term ‘artist’ to refer to women, the term ‘female artist’ will be used in this research. 4 https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-11-radical-latin-american-women-artists 5 https://www.artbasel.com/events/detail/7089/Art-World-Talk-Sexism-in-the-Art-World
everything to do with the way that art history is presented at universities, museums, galleries, and in literature as well as in popular culture. Gender inequity is in particular problematic when it comes to major museums and collections that reach a broad audience. Leading institutions in the art world are considered to have a social, political and educational function. The collections that are presented in these institutions are the reflections of art history in the society of today. Major art museums are highly influential in the way that they teach the general public about art in their position as ‘global tastemakers.’ When visiting an influential museum, one assumes that what is presented there, is indeed an accurate reflection of the highlights of the history of art, unfortunately this is not the case. What is presented at these institutions is considered as most important and influential, but according to who? Are visitors always aware of the individual voices that are hidden behind the process of decision-making and behind the formation of art history?
Not only major art museums and galleries are problematic institutions in this context, a deeper problem can be found at the universities that teach art history. Looking back at my own Bachelor study in Art History at the University of Groningen (2011-2014), I noticed that male artists and scholars dominated the topics in the classes. A publication like Ernst Gombrich’s The Story of Art, dating from 1950 is still used to introduce art history students in their first year of college to the history of art. The fact that a publication is used where initially not even one female artist was included in ‘the story of art’ is a problematic factor for future students. As the study of art history develops, students learn that it is important to realize that there is no such thing as ‘the’ story of art and that art history is a subjective field. Yet the way art history is taught, and the fact that a publication as The Story of Art is still used as an important handbook is problematic and shows that the problem of the exclusion of women in the art world comes from a deep-rooted and structural problem.
Art Historians Griselda Pollock and Rozsika Parker, both Scholars in the field of Feminism in Art Studies, delved into the topic of this structural problem in a review of their publication Old Mistresses: Women, Art, and Ideology (1982) in 2013. In the prologue they introduced the following question: “It is forty years, almost half a century, since the opening salvo of a feminist initiative to challenge the erasure of women from the
History of Art. Has it changed attitudes? Has it created an inclusive History of Art?”6
Unfortunately, it is anno 2018 not possible to speak of an inclusive history of art. Even though attitudes might have slightly changed and the problem of gender inequity in the art world has been acknowledged by scholars and curators from Europe to the Unites States, there is still a way to go. The necessity of the move towards inclusion was recently underlined by Curator Maura Reilly with the publication of her book Curatorial Activism: Towards an Ethic of Curating (2018).7
In this publication Reilly exposed the need of an inclusive art history since sexism and racism are still common practices in the art world. She states that curators carry an important responsibility in the shift towards inclusion and encourages them to be more considerate in creating exhibitions by including former excluded groups, as women, non-Western artists, artists of color and LGBTIQ8
artists. Progress has been made since the raise of feminism in art studies in the 1970s, however the way female artists are presented today is often limited to anecdotes with sensational reviews of women’s private lives, including gossip regarding their sexual lives instead of proper reviews of the quality of their art.
Pollock and Parker questioned the main assumption that Art Historian Linda Nochlin had made in her article “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists” (1971). Nochlin explained that the reason we don’t know many female artists today was because of the fact that women did not get the same opportunities as men because of institutional sexism and discrimination. After extensive study on the history of modern art in the United States and Europe, Pollock and Parker pointed out that female artists were visible in the art world and that they did participate in exhibitions, yet for some reason art historians did not include them in their writings. The period of modern art was defined by Parker and Pollock as a time of the creation of knowledge: “Art History expanded in the universities and art publishing houses were founded to create and feed a market for knowledge about art.”9
This, as they call it, ‘removal’ of women from art history happened in a century where art history and especially modern art was actively put into a specific narrative that is still considered as ‘the master narrative of modern art’ and presented as such in modern art museums today. This certain way of actively promoting and presenting modern art in the 6 Parker, R. and Pollock, G. (2013) Old Mistresses: Women, Art and Ideology, London: I.B. Tauris, p. xvii 7 http://www.artnews.com/2017/11/07/what-is-curatorial-activism/ 8 The term ‘LGBTIQ’ has recently been coined and refers to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex and Questioning sexualities. 9 Parker, R. and Pollock, G. (2013) Old Mistresses: Women, Art and Ideology, p. xxiii.
twentieth century can be seen as one of the sources where the structural problem of gender inequity seems to come from.
It is a fact that men dominate the discourse and art historical canon of twentieth century avant-garde art. One of the most elaborated movements of this time is Surrealism; a movement that is in particular interesting when it comes to the problem of gender inequity and the ambiguous role of women in this circle. The Surrealist movement10
can be explained as a hierarchic, patriarchal group where women fulfilled a role somewhere between mistress and muse. Yet there was a distinct wing of the Surrealist movement that developed outside of Paris and New York during the end of the 1930s. This distinct wing of Surrealism was established in Mexico; it was there where women were able to work as independent artists in a more liberated environment.11
It is in this regard interesting to look at the history of Surrealist art from this non-Western point of view, outside of Europe and the United States. Uncountable writings have been published on the history of Surrealism in Paris and New York, but there is a third place that was of crucial importance female artists associated with the French Surrealist movement – this place is Mexico City.
Recently there has been shown a renewed interest in the lives and works of female artists who were working in Mexico in the 1940s. It is noteworthy that certain female artists have been honored with an extensive amount of writings and exhibitions. One of them is Leonora Carrington (England, 1917-2011), an artist who is considered Mexican today because of her emigration to the country in 1943.12
Since 2010 an increasing amount of specialized publications and biographies have been published on her live and work. The most recent one appeared in 2017 and was written by Carrington’s cousin and Journalist Joanna Moorhead titled The Surreal Life of Leonora Carrington. In October 2017, a documentary aired in the Netherlands, titled “Leonora Carrington – The Forgotten Surrealist.”13
A title that indicates how problematic the situation regarding these artists is in Europe. Presenting Carrington as “forgotten” already puts her in a dark corner. Hence the recent interest and increasing writings on artists as Remedios Varo (Spain, 1908-1963), 10 “The Surrealist movement” refers to the hierarchic circle of Surrealist artists and writers who were active in Paris during the 1920s and 1930s under the leadership of André Breton. In this thesis ‘the Surrealist movement’ will also be referred to as ‘French’ and ‘Bretonian’ Surrealism to indicate the crucial difference between French Surrealism and the similar artistic and social tendencies in Mexico. 11 Fort, I.S. and Arcq, T. (2012) “Introduction” in In Wonderland: The Surrealist Adventures of Women Artists in Mexico and the United States, Los Angeles: DelMonico Books, p. 20 12 Alberth, S.L. (2010) Surrealism, Alchemy and Art, UK: Lund Humphries, p. 57 13 https://www.npostart.nl/close-up/08-10-2017/AT_2086803
Alice Rahon (France, 1904-1987), Jacqueline Lamba (France, 1910-1993) and Kati Horna (Hungary, 1912-2000), the academic literature and general acknowledgement on these artists in Europe remains scarce. It is safe to say that the only female Mexican artist worldwide known is Frida Kahlo (1907-1954). As a rebel, bi-sexual, and political activist with a physical disability, she has reached a cult status today.14
Kahlo’s way of dress is currently honored with a major exhibition at the Victoria and Albert Museum in London (June – November, 2018) titled Frida Kahlo: Making Her Self Up.15
Her sense of fashion has further been an inspiration to many famous designers, and magazines as Vogue dedicated shopping guides to Kahlo’s sense of style.16
Her life was illustrated in the movie Frida in 2002. This film can be seen as a feminist project, directed by Julie Taymor and co-produced by Mexican actress Salma Hayek, yet it simultaneously focused on Kahlo’s sexuality and her position as a victim of adultery. A tendency that writer Valeria Luiselli explained in 2018 in the context of the distribution of the film by the Harvey Weinstein company: they asked for a sexier Kahlo “more nudity, less unibrow and got away with it.”17
Frida Kahlo’s iconic status illustrates the current idea of the female artist as either being overlooked, or portrayed as a sensation in the social sphere of sexuality – the art historical interest in the work of these women remains secondary.
There is still a lot underexposed in the field of female Surrealist artists in mid-twentieth century Mexico City and academic literature on this topic is scarce. One of the problems with the existing academic publications is their availability, since these books are rare, they are expensive and not easily available through libraries. This indicates the current need of literature on female artists. Most of the writings that have appeared are focused on one single artist, an approach that Art Historian Dina Comisarenco Mirkin described as “the monographic methodological perspective commonly used by art historians […] that diminishes the social and political significance of their coherent artistic 14 The development of Kahlo’s cult status in relation to the commercial appropriation of her life was further defined by Valeria Luiselli in The Guardian (June 2018): https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2018/jun/11/frida-kahlo-fridolatry-artist-myth 15 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/times2/exhibition-review-frida-kahlo-making-her-self-up-at-the-v-a-sw7-trrnwkmxr and http://www.vogue.co.uk/article/frida-kahlo-making-her-self-up-va-museum 16 http://www.vogue.it/en/fashion/trends/2016/07/06/mexican-style-and-frida-kahlo-for- summer-2016/ and https://www.vogue.com/article/frida-kahlo-artist-clothing-shopping-outfit-ideas 17 https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2018/jun/11/frida-kahlo-fridolatry-artist-myth
production as a group.”18 Working partly in response to this blind spot in art historical
research, my thesis will focus on the group of female Surrealists who were active in Mexico City in the mid twentieth century as a whole, including their social and political significance as such. The research question is as follows: How did the network of befriended female Surrealist artists function in relation to the native Mexican art scene in the 1940s? This relation will be explored by looking at the development of European rooted Surrealism in Mexico City. How was Surrealism perceived by the Mexicans? Through this historical approach, the second aim is to find out how female Surrealist artists are represented in the art scene of Mexico City today. Is the problem of gender inequity as well present in the Mexican art scene or are there differences retraceable in relation to Europe? It is important to note that in this research I do not focus on the art historical interpretation and explanation of the individual artworks of female artists associated with Surrealism. The main aim of this research is to expose the power structures in the formation of the canon of Surrealism in the context of female artists and the Mexican art scene of the 1930s and 1940s, and in the art scene of Mexico City today.
One of the few publications dedicated to female Surrealist artists in Mexico as a group is the exhibition catalogue Surreal Friends: Leonora Carrington, Remedios Varo, and Kati Horna (2010) edited by Moorhead, Curator Stefan van Raay and Art Historian and Curator Tere Arcq. This book solely focuses on the three mentioned artists, and therefore lacks information on the group production of these befriended female surrealists working in Mexico City. Surreal Friends additionally overlooks the relation of European women and the indigenous Mexican artists and does not offer an overview of the Mexican art scene of the 1940s. Another important reference work is the exhibition catalogue In Wonderland: The Surrealist Adventures of Women Artists in Mexico and the United States (2012), edited by Art Historian Ilene Susan Fort and Tere Arcq. In this catalogue many ‘new,’ forgotten, female artists are introduced into the story of Surrealism – some of them even unknown to many art historians – and hereby expands the Surrealist canon. In Artists of Modern Mexico: Frida’s Contemporaries (2007) an overview is provided of the female artists (26 in total) who were active during the mid-twentieth century in Mexico City, with short biographies on each artist. This publication also offers an important, 20-page essay, written by writer and friend of Carrington, Elena Poniatowska, titled “Forgotten Women
18 Comisarenco Mirkin, D. (2008) “To Paint the Unspeakable: Mexican Female Artists'
Iconography of the 1930s and Early 1940s ” in Art Journal, Vol. 29, No. 1 (Spring - Summer, 2008), p. 21
Artists Brought To Light by The National Museum of Mexican Art.” Poniatowska elaborates on the social situation in Mexico City during the 1930s and 1940s and the way female artists developed themselves in this environment. A current study on the representation of female artists in the art scene of Mexico City today in relation to Europe is still lacking in the literature on this subject.
Art Historian Rosalind Krauss devoted her book Bachelors (1999) to the lives and works of several female artists in the theoretical context of semiotics. Krauss pointed to the fact that women Surrealists have often been described in comparison to their male contemporaries. These women were sometimes romantically involved with famous male artists, Krauss indicates that this might be among the reasons why women were often seen as if they just repeated male Surrealists.19
Even though Krauss mentioned that women are often compared to male artists, the author introduced Surrealist photographer Dora Maar (France, 1907-1997) in comparison to male contemporaries as Man Ray (United States, 1890-1976) and Hans Bellmer (Poland, 1902-1975). She also created parallels between Maar and Marcel Duchamp in the context of exploring identities. Krauss concluded with an important statement, namely that “art made by women needs no special pleading”, it should be considered ‘normal’ to write about female artists. These are among the writings that have further raised my interest on the topic of female artists associated with Surrealism, specifically in Mexico City.
As Krauss mentioned, art made by women should not need special pleading, but in my opinion this special treatment is inescapable in order to achieve an inclusive art history. Pollock and Parker pointed out that it is not enough to simply add forgotten artists to the existing art historical canon, a statement that has been introduced many times on different levels.20
The problem of the gender imbalance and the exclusion of women in the art world have been acknowledged, however the structural shift is still missing. To me, one of the ways to deal with the problem of gender inequity is the need of art historical attention for the works and lives of female artists that are forgotten today. It is necessary to shine a light on these artists so that in the following decades people will know female equivalents for artists as Man Ray, Max Ernst, and Salvador Dalí, so that people will be able to name five female artists as easily as they can mention male artists. The fact that we do not see women as an essential part of the Surrealist movement as artists is a product of the canonization
19 Krauss, R. (1999) Bachelors, October, The MIT Press, p. 18
20
process of Surrealism. Even though a lot of research has been done and more exhibitions arise, specifically on female photographers in Surrealism,21
female Surrealist artists remain relatively unknown because they have not been recorded in the history of art as essential artists. With this research I attempt to balance the current gender inequity in art historical literature on female artists in relation to the Surrealist movement and to create more visibility on the issue of exclusion in art history in order to establish a broader acknowledgement of this problem.
Chapter 1 is dedicated to the theoretical foundation of this research. Here I discuss the way that art historical scholars have dealt with the problem of excluding female artists in relation to the issues of inclusion, feminism and the canon. I explain the geographical shift of female émigré women from Europe to Mexico during the late 1930s and 1940s to define the relation between these women and the Surrealist movement. This chapter further examines recent literature on female artists and Surrealism in Mexico in the context of the problems of categorizing the works of female artists.
In Chapter 2 I explore the art scene of Mexico City during the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. Defining the decade of the 1920s in the light of women’s artistic activities is necessary to examine the art scene of the 1930s and 1940s when the European Surrealist émigré artists arrived to the country. The duality between these female émigré artists and the native Mexican artists is the focus point of this chapter in order to define the disputable relationship of Mexicans towards French Surrealism.
Chapter 3 examines how the discussed female artists associated with Surrealism are represented in the art scene of Mexico City today. I make a comparison between the two most important art museums and examine their recent exhibition programs. This chapter further discusses the gallery scene in relation to the visibility of female artists associated with Surrealism in the Mexican art scene to retrace the popularity of these artists from the perspective of art dealing. Lastly I explain the art market in relation to the institutional recognition of female artists and canon of Surrealism.
21 Kati Horna’s photographic works were honored with the solo show Kati Horna at Museo Amparo in Puebla, Mexico in 2014. The works of Lee Miller (United States, 1907-1977) were recently exhibited in a solo exhibition at the Imperial War Museum in London (2016) and the influence of Dora Maar on Picasso’s work is currently presented in the exhibition Guernica at the Musée Picasso in Paris (March-June, 2018).
Chapter 1
Feminism and Art History: Towards Inclusion
This first chapter functions as the theoretical background of this thesis. I discuss the problem of the exclusion of female artists by ‘art history’ in relation to the establishment of the art historical canon. I explain the necessity of an inclusive art history in relation to the incorporation of feminism in the history of art by the theories of Griselda Pollock and Rozsika Parker. This chapter explores the question ‘how have scholars dealt with the problem of gender inequity in writing art history?’ by introducing two opposing positions in the art historical field respectively represented by Pollock and Art Historian James Elkins. Following it is important to define the relation between women and the Surrealist movement. Why were so many female artists involved with this particular movement? How can this relation be described from the perspective of these female artists? I pose these questions to define the position of women in the social context of the 1940s and in regard to the geographical shift from Europe to Mexico. This chapter further discusses the dangers of categorizing the works of female artists in relation to the problems that appear in the current literature of Surrealist female artists in Mexico. I place critical notes in relation to this literature and introduce examples of important publications that are elaborated and questioned.
1.1 Defining and explaining
The result of an art history that has excluded women as initiators from any historical movement can be traced back to the formation of the different stories of art that are represented in the canon of art history. The concept of the canon can be defined as a ‘standard’ or a ‘rule’ and has been translated from the Greek term ‘kanon.’22
In art history ‘the canon’ refers specifically to Western art23
and is known as ‘the universal standard of quality.’ It consists of the collection of writings, artists and object that have been selected through this so-called quality standard. These coexisting stories of art have been established through history in different social, geographical and political contexts.24
The 22 Locher, H. (2012) “The Idea of the Canon and Canon Formation in Art History” in Art History and Visual Studies in Europe, Vol. 212/4, p. 30 23 Brzyski, A. (2007) Partisan Canons, London: Duke University Press, p. 1 24 Ibid., p. 7-8
ideological and political motifs in the formation of the canon have been widely discussed in the form of canonical critique since the 1980s. There has been a structural demand for a reformation of the canon by many of these critics in order to be able to establish an inclusive art history. The canon of Western art has systematically excluded ‘minority’ groups from the history of art, an oppressing mechanism that can be traced back to antiquity.25
Even though the problem of the exclusion of women in relation to the canon has been exposed by different scholars;26
the underlying structure of sexism in the social context can be seen as one of the foundations of this still existing problem.
The deep-rooted and structural problem of the exclusion of women can be traced back to the social structure that Pollock explained as “putting men and women asymmetrically in relation to language, to social and economic power, and to meaning.”27
The relation between female artists and the English language is perhaps the most obvious example of this asymmetrical relation. Parker and Pollock pointed out that this phenomenon indicates that politics of gender are already encoded in language.28
The seemingly unbiased term ‘artist’ appears not to be neutral; if the term ‘artist’ is not further specified by the terms ‘female’ or ‘woman,’ it refers only to men. This has resulted in the establishment of the phenomenon of the ‘women artist’ next to the ‘artist,’ a division that seems to indicate that art made by women needs to be categorized as a separate category because a new term was invented to refer to art made by women. This example illustrates that the seemingly neutral term ‘artist’ is partial and shows us that without realizing it, the daily used language has been established by a construction of gender politics. Pollock stated in this regard: “the deep structures of patriarchal or phallocentric systems have reigned so long that they have come to appear as a fact of nature,”29
a thesis that has been proven by the use of the English language. Parker and Pollock defined that the main effect of this language sexism is that it leads to “the disqualification of the woman artist from
25 https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/art-history-basics/tools-understanding-art/a/a-brief-history-of-women-in-art 26 The publications by Pollock and Parker (Old Mistresses: Women, Art and Ideology, 2013) and Pollock (Differencing the Canon: Feminist Desire and the Writing of Art’ s Histories, 1999) have been emblematic in exposing the power structures in relation to the exclusion of women in art history. 27 Pollock, G. (2002) Vision and Difference: Feminism, Femininity and the Histories of Art, London: Routledge, p, 56 28 Parker, R. and Pollock, G. (2013) Old Mistresses: Women, Art and Ideology, p. xix 29 Pollock, G. (1999) Differencing the Canon: Feminist Desire and the Writing of Art’ s Histories, London: Routledge, p. 28
being treated as a real artist.”30 In consolidation with the research that was done by
Theorist Theresa de Lauretis, Parker, Pollock and De Lauretis defined that art history can be seen as a “technology of gender.”31
The fact that art history should not be seen apart from gender politics has been explained by many scholars in the field of gender, feminism, and art history. This leads to the current problematic relation between the conception of feminism and the field of art history. The term ‘feminism’ has been subjected to debate in the last decades and is known to have different definitions. The definition of feminism, as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary is the following: “the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.”32
The concept of ‘the sexes’ can be traced back to the technology of gender. Pollock has defined gender as “a construction of social, economic and cultural power, and relations between the sexes as relations of dominations and oppression.”33 She proposed
that in order to achieve an inclusive art history, it is necessary to go beyond the notions of gender since gender is the result of ideological constructions. This issue has further been deconstructed and exposed by Feminist Scholar Judith Butler in Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (1999). There Butler additionally pointed out that gender is a social constructed category. Although I would like to go beyond the notion of gender in this thesis, I consider it necessary to define gender here by using the terms ‘female’ and ‘male’ in order to specify the reference to the female artists that are the subject of this research. To go deeper into the complicated field of the issues of gender as a social construction would be the subject for a separate research.
Feminism and art history are often perceived as two separate entities where feminist writings in relation to art history are dismissed as ‘interventions’ in the traditional art history. Yet in the move towards an inclusive art history it is problematic to define the structure of gender politics and art history as separate from one another. In relation to the gender politics encoded in language, Pollock has defined the canon of art history in the context of feminism as “a discursive formation which constitutes the objects/text it selects as the products of artistic mastery and, thereby contributes to the legitimation of white masculinity’s exclusive identification with creativity and with Culture.”34 It is important to
30 Parker, R. and Pollock, G. (2013) Old Mistresses: Women, Art and Ideology, p. xix 31 Ibid., p. xix 32 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism 33 Pollock, G. (2012) “Muscular Defenses” in Journal of Visual Culture, p. 127 34 Pollock, G. (1999) Differencing the Canon: Feminist Desire and the Writing of Art’ s Histories, p.9
realize that in order to create an inclusive art history more is needed than simply inserting ‘forgotten’ artists in the already existing traditional notion of the history of art. Professor in Art History Nanette Salomon has additionally defined that a shifting of paradigms is necessary to achieve an inclusive art history. Salomon pointed out that “the uncritical insertion of women artists into the pre-existing structure of art history as a discipline tends to confirm rather than challenge the prejudicial tropes through which women’s creativity is dismissed.”35
This was further affirmed by Pollock who stated that in order to make a structural shift possible, art history needs to go beyond the notions of gender and to engage with difference. 36
In the art historical field two main positions can be located in relation to the ‘proper’ functions of art history that make a shifting of paradigms challenging. The debate on the boundaries of art history has been discussed by Art Historians in the field of canon criticism Derek Conrad Murray and Soraya Murray in the context of the reform of the canon. 37
While Pollock has argued that feminism should be seen as an integral part of art history, Art Historian James Elkins represents the approach of keeping the field as pure as possible.38 These two positions are exemplary for the current state of the art historical
discipline in relation to feminist practices. In his publication Stories of Art (2002) Elkins stated that selectivity in relation to the canon is inescapable since personal value judgment decisions are being made on a daily basis, especially by art historians. According to Elkins the different ‘shapes’ of art history, including feminism, can be seen as a guide to find the shape of art history that “makes most sense to you.”39
It is problematic that Elkins dismissed feminism as one of the many frameworks in art history that help art historians interpret what they see. Feminism “in one of its half-dozen varieties” is thus dismissed as another movement, or as a tool to understand art. In this way Elkins denied the underlying structure of art history as sexist. By dismissing feminism as just another ‘–ism’ in the story of art the acknowledgement of the practice of 35 Salomon, N. (1991) “The Art Historical Canon: Sins of Omission” in The Art of Art History: A Critical Anthology, Oxford University Press, p. 349-350 36 Pollock, G. (2008) “What is it that feminist interventions do? Feminism and difference in retrospect and prospect” in Feminism Reframed: Reflections on Art and Difference, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, p. 251, and Salomon, N. (1991) “The Art Historical Canon: Sins of Omission”, p. 349-351 37 Murray, D. and Murray, S. (2006) "Uneasy Bedfellows: Canonical Art Theory and the Politics of Identity” in Art Journal, Vol. 65, No. 1 (Spring), College Art Association, pp. 22-39. 38 Ibid., p. 24 39 Elkins, J. (2002) Stories of Art, New York: Routledge, p. xiv-xv
gender politics in relation to the formation of the canon is simultaneously denied. The seeming indifference towards the politics of gender from art historians like Elkins has resulted in the fact that the problem of gender inequity in the arts has been widely acknowledged, but that a structural shift is still missing.
While Nochlin initially defined the exclusion of women from the history of art in relation to institutional prejudices and practical obstacles due to sexism in “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?” (1971)40
, art historians in the following years have contradicted this assumption. Art Historian and Curator Paulina Bravo Villarreal stated in 2017 that the indifference of art historians, critics, curators and theorists can be defined as one of the most important sources why we simply don’t know as much about female artists today.41
Reilly affirmed this thesis by introducing the necessity of ‘Curatorial Activism’ in 2018.42 Additionally, Parker and Pollock earlier exposed that female artists did participate
in the avant-garde art scene, but that they were deliberately removed from the writings on art history in the period when modern art was written and promoted mainly by men who maintained the patriarchal ideology with their intellectual authority. 43
The professionals in the fields of art history, feminism, gender studies and the museum world that have been quoted have all pointed to the same concepts to make an inclusive art history happen; namely the concepts of acknowledgement and visibility. By acknowledging that art history is an ideological and political construction that has been established through gender politics, the exclusion of women from the master narrative of art can be understood. Through this acknowledgement and by making these concepts widely visible in the art world, a broader realization can be established which is necessary in the movement towards a structural change of inclusiveness in the field of art history.
1.2 Female artists and the Surrealist movement
In the late 1930s and early 1940s many artist had to flee Europe because of the Spanish Civil War and the Second World War. The majority of these artists chose New York City 40 Hatt, M. & Klonk, C. (2006) Art History: A critical introduction to its methods, UK: Manchester University Press, p. 150 41 Bravo Villarreal, P. (2017) “Artists Who Are Women; Women Who Are Strong”, in México 1900 – 1950: Diego Rivera, Frida Kahlo, José Clemente Orozco, and the Avant-Garde. Mexico: Museo Nacional de Arte, p. 169 42 http://www.maurareilly.com/pdf/essays/CIAFessay.pdf 43 Pollock, G. (2002) Vision and Difference: Feminism, Femininity and the Histories of Art, p. 50
as their new destination, but next to New York, Mexico was the most interesting place for many European émigré Surrealists. The presidency of Lázaro Cárdenas (1934-1940) in Mexico played an important role in this matter. Cárdenas opened the borders to refugees from Europe and especially from Spain, and gave them automatic citizenship and a place in the society of Mexico. People who had been on the Republican side of the Spanish Civil War, which were mostly Socialists and Communists that could not enter the United States due to the strict immigration policy, made Mexico their new home.44
In Mexico there was a certain peace and artistic liberty for women, being away from the war, Paris and the Surrealist circle that was dominated by men.45
A group of female Surrealist artists from Europe settled down in Mexico City in the early 1940s and became close friends. Among them were Leonora Carrington, Remedios Varo, Kati Horna, and Alice Rahon. On the other hand there was the native Mexican art scene that included many female, later labeled as Surrealist, artists such as Frida Kahlo, María Izquierdo (Mexico, 1902-1955) and Nahui Olin (Mexico, 1893-1978). It is remarkable that until now only a few books have been published on the lives and works of these artists, some of them even remain unknown in the international art world of today.
The connection between women and the Surrealist movement has been researched through the years in many different publications yet it is a relation that remains puzzling. While Surrealism has often been defined as one of the first movements that included an extensive number of female artists, this celebration should be questioned. As Art Historian Whitney Chadwick pointed out in Women Artists and the Surrealist Movement (1985), in French Surrealism the role of women wandered between muse and mistress. Women functioned as sources of inspiration and desire instead of being respected as independent artists. Not many female artists have been recorded in the history of art as “essential to the Surrealist movement” because of their role as subjects of the male desire, while simultaneously many of these artists produced works of high artistic quality and originality.46 According to the statements of the female artists associated with the Surrealist
movement themselves, the ambiguous character of them existing to inspire the men of Surrealism in their role between muse and mistress is confirmed. While many of these women who would later work in Mexico have expressed their gratefulness towards these 44 Van Raay, S. (eds.) (2010) Surreal Friends, Leonora Carrington, Remedios Varo and Kati Horna, UK: Lund Humphries, p. 14 45 Fort, I.S. and Arcq, T. (2012) “Introduction”, p. 20 46 Chadwick, W. (1985) Women Artists and the Surrealist Movement, UK: Thames and Hudson, p. 8
men for giving them intellectual input and accepting them in their circle, most of the women have commented on the sexist attitudes and patriarchal structure of the movement.
Remedios Varo expressed her admiration for her male Surrealist contemporaries in 1957. Varo had been in close social contact with the French Surrealists in Paris and later in Mexico: “I attended those meetings where they talked a lot and one learned various things; sometimes I participated with works in their exhibitions; my position was one of a timid and humble listener; I was not old enough nor did I have the aplomb to face up to them. I was with an open mouth within this group of brilliant and gifted people.”47
Jacqueline Lamba had been an integral part of the Surrealist movement since 1934 when she got married to Breton and remained his wife for almost ten years.48
Lamba has commented on her position as an artist in this circle that she described as a difficult position for a woman: “women were still undervalued, over and over I heard the same ‘but you are not really a Surrealist, or, she was a very good painter but of course she wasn’t really a Surrealist.’”49
Lamba further pointed out that she disliked being beautiful and that if she had not been beautiful, she would have probably been more successful as an independent artist.50
Leonora Carrington has further expressed strong opinions on the functioning of the French Surrealist movement. As a dedicated feminist, Carrington pointed out that “the women Surrealists were considered secondary to the male Surrealists. The women were considered... people there to inspire, aside from doing the washing, cooking, cleaning, and feeding... I never thought of myself as a muse.”51
She further mentioned that as soon as women reach the age of 25, the Surrealist men lost their interest in them and moved on to the next femme-enfant.52
The opinions of Frida Kahlo on the French Surrealists came from different grounds. Kahlo, as a “Surrealist discovery” was insulted by Breton’s appropriation of her art and culture. A topic that will be further discussed in Chapter 2. After these European women distanced themselves from Bretonian Surrealism, the careers of many of them developed outside of Europe. For these women, Surrealism was a way to construct new identities that enabled independence, individuality and freedom. While this was difficult to establish in the patriarchal circle of male Surrealists in Paris, women 47 Chadwick, W. (1985) Women Artists and the Surrealist Movement, p. 11 48 Grimberg, S. (2001) “Jacqueline Lamba: From Darkness, with Light” in Woman's Art Journal, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 1+5-13, Published by: Woman's Art Inc., p. 5 49 Chadwick, W. (1985) Women Artists and the Surrealist Movement, p. 11 50 Grimberg, S. (2001) “Jacqueline Lamba: From Darkness, with Light”, p. 5 51 Alberth, S.L. (2010) Surrealism, Alchemy and Art, p. 37 52 Ibid., p. 38
experienced a complete new and different cultural and social context when they arrived in Mexico.
1.3 Dangers of categorizing ‘female Surrealism’
The geographical shift of these women from Europe to Mexico has resulted in different exhibitions and publications on this subject in Mexico as well as in the United States and Europe. What is mainly interesting about the current state of literature on female artists associated with Surrealism in Mexico is the difference in the perception from the European and Mexican perspectives. Where most of these artists remain in obscurity in Europe, these artists seem to be fully integrated in the canon of Mexican art. The literary work of Historian Ida Rodriguez Prampolini El Arte Surrealismo y el Arte Fantástico de México was published in 1969 and has been functioning as a source of inspiration for the majority of the publications on Surrealism in Mexico. In Prampolini’s definition of the story of Surrealism in relation to Mexico, all the female artists that are forgotten in Europe were already included as important artists. Alice Rahon, Jacqueline Lamba and Remedios Varo all have a grand status in the Mexican art scene today. While these artists are celebrated in Mexico’s art scene, the current literature that has been written on them all has a specific categorization in common. I propose that this specific categorization is dangerous for the future development of the writings and the conception of female artists in relation to Surrealism.
The works of these women are repeatedly divided into a few themes, as the occult, alchemy, portraiture and motherhood – the latter two are often appointed to female artists in general. The problematic categorization of the works of female artists already started in Chadwick’s iconic publication Women Artists and the Surrealist Movement in 1985. Initially, Chadwick uses as “Search for a Muse” and “The Muse as Artist,” which did not put these women in the context of independent artists. It is unfortunate that one specific chapter in this book, which is still used as an important reference work, examined so-called ‘feminine topics’ and is titled: “The Female Earth: Nature and the Imagination.”53
In this chapter, which is illustrated with different stylistic depictions of the female nude by male and female artists, Chadwick stated that women “intuitively identify themselves with the forces of nature” and links several works of female artists to already existing works of
male contemporaries.54 The female body functions, according to Chadwick, as one of the
most important subjects for female artists. This indicates that women including Chadwick have been influenced by a male orientated view on the world. Art Historian Karen Rosenberg discussed Chadwick’s so-called ‘over-reading’ of art works in relation to women’s art in 1986. She pointed out that Chadwick identified the women in this publication as “foremothers of the current attempt to build a feminist mythology.”55
The creation of this “feminist mythology” would lead to the loss of the individual identity of female artists and their art works. This tendency can additionally be found in the context of the dangers of categorizing ‘female Surrealism.’
Another subject that Chadwick introduced as ‘a major source of inspiration for female artists’ was the hermetic tradition. This practice can be defined by the use of magic, the occult, alchemy and mysticism. While it has been examined that indeed artists as Leonora Carrington and Remedios Varo were highly interested in topics as such, the dedication of a full chapter in a general publication that focuses on women and the Surrealist movement shows that all the women related to Surrealism were suddenly linked to specific topics as the hermetic tradition. This has further lead to the problematic conception of ‘the hermetic tradition’ as a feminine subject in the general field of art history.
While Chadwick’s publication dates from 1985, more recent publications tend to do the same type of categorizing of the works of female artist to subjects that are supposedly associated with femininity. In the exhibition catalogue Surreal Friends (2010) the lives and works of Carrington, Varo and Horna are the point of focus. Joanna Moorhead pointed out that after the arrival in Mexico, “domestic sanctuaries”56
can be defined as the most important spaces for these women. As the cousin of Leonora Carrington, Moorhead had been in close contact with Carrington in the last years of her life in Mexico City. Moorhead defined ‘the domestic’ as being liberating for these women.57
While this type of categorization might be accurate for these three specific artists, the idea of the domestic space as an important factor to all women associated with Surrealism has further been used 54 Chadwick, W. (1985) Women Artists and the Surrealist Movement, p. 146 55 Rosenberg, K. (1986) “Review: Their Hearts Belonged to Dada, Reviewed Work(s): Women Artists and the Surrealist Movement by Whitney Chadwick”, The Women's Review of Books, Vol. 3, No. 6 (Mar.), p. 4 56 Moorhead, J. (2010) “Surreal Friends in Mexico” in Surreal Friends, Leonora Carrington, Remedios Varo and Kati Horna, UK: Lund Humphries, p. 75 57 Ibid., p. 76
by specialized scholars in this field. The exhibition catalogue In Wonderland: The Surrealist Adventures of Women Artists in Mexico and the United States (2012) is an important reference work in the field of women and Surrealism. The exhibition functioned as a radical rethinking of French Surrealism by including and exposing former ‘unknown’ female artists in relation to Surrealism and was hosted in Los Angeles (Los Angeles County Museum of Art) and Mexico City (Museo de Arte Moderno). While this publication additionally functioned as the starting point for this research, there are certain categorizations made that can be questioned in relation to still life painting and ‘the domestic space.’
Leonora Carrington always questioned the work of art historians in relation to the interpretation of her paintings. She considered this ‘over-analyzing’ completely unnecessary and stated that ‘the eye’ was sufficient to enjoy her work.58 The tendency of
this over-analyzing in relation to the dangers of categorization can be found in the way that Art Historian and Curator Tere Arcq positioned the works of women in the context of still life painting. While Arcq mentioned that the still life paintings of these female artists associated with Surrealism “represent the continuity of a traditional genre of painting in which woman artists have played an important role throughout history,” she further explained that these women used the still life genre to “transform this mode into a strategy for tackling gender issues.”59
Arcq concludes this section of still life painting by stating that women continued to work in the still life genre as a way to “address the spaces of femininity.”60
Even though Arcq did put this category in the context of “tackling gender issues,” the fact that women and still life painting are still linked together is problematic and keeps the idea of still life painting being a feminine subject alive.
Another category that is repeatedly used by several scholars in relation to female artists associated with Surrealism is ‘the domestic space’ and more specifically ‘the kitchen.’ Arcq stated that the domestic space is an important part of the imagery of the women associated with surrealism. While these specific categories have often been linked to the works of Varo and Carrington, it is questionable if the topics of domestic space and the kitchen were important to all the women associated with Surrealism. It has been proven by American scholar and Carrington specialist Susan L. Alberth that Carrington, as well as 58 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBa5Uy9Yl0I 59 Arcq, T. (2012) “In the Land of Convulsive Beauty: Mexico” in In Wonderland: The Surrealist Adventures of Women Artists in Mexico and the United States, Los Angeles: DelMonico Books, p. 78 60 Ibid.
Varo, were deeply involved with topics of the domestic space and the kitchen; “these spaces were transformed from sites of feminine drudgery and oppression into sites of contestation of power.”61
This interest can also clearly be detected in the paintings by Varo and Carrington and can be retraced in their interest in recipes, alchemy and cooking. Yet it has not been proven and it is highly unlikely that artists as Jacqueline Lamba or Alice Rahon have been occupied with the idea of the domestic space as highly important. By stating that these topics have been of great importance for the women associated with Surrealism all the artists are lumped together under the same heading. This has resulted in the fact that the works of female Surrealists as a group are now generally linked to topics as nature, the domestic space and the hermetic tradition. While certain artists were involved with these topics, others were working outside of these categories.
Art Historian Dina Comisarenco Mirkin has defined the art of female Mexican artists during the 1930s and 1940s, using ‘feminine’ categories as “unhappy brides, frustrated motherhood, miscarriage and infant deaths.”62
She linked the topic of the unhappy bride to the works of Olga Costa (Germany, 1913-1993), María Izquierdo, Frida Kahlo, and the social experiences of Jacqueline Lamba. By linking this subject to three individual artworks and to four artists in total, the statement that the art of female Mexican artists during this period can be related to the topic of ‘the unhappy bride’ seems unjustified. Also Pollock has commented on the topic of motherhood, defining the maternal as “the site of creativity.”63
Additionally, Comisarenco Mirkin linked the concept of motherhood to two individual art works by Kahlo and Rosa Rolanda (United States, 1895-1970), therefore stating that also this topic defines the art of female Mexican artists. The tendency of specific categories that can be linked to one of two artists, which are further extended by scholars to link all the women associated with Surrealism to these topics is legitimately inappropriate and undesirable. It will result in the fact that in the next decades these women will be to be mainly known for these specific themes; that just because they were women, they all cared about nature, the domestic space, motherhood, and still life painting. It is dangerous to consistently link the works of women to categorizations as such because it establishes and affirms the idea of ‘feminine’ categories, and the difference between the works of the ‘artists’ and the separate category of ‘women 61 Alberth, S.L. (2010) Surrealism, Alchemy and Art, p. 9 62 Comisarenco Mirkin, D. (2008) “To Paint the Unspeakable: Mexican Female Artists' Iconography of the 1930s and Early 1940s ”, p. 21 63 Pollock, G. (2010) “Moments and Temporalities of the Avant-Garde “in, of, and from the feminine””, New Literary History, Volume 41, Number 4, Autumn, p. 797
artists.’ In order to make an inclusive art history happen, we need to go beyond the notions of gender; yet by this systematic way of categorizing the works of female artists associated with Surrealism, the opposite seems to be established.
Chapter 2
Surrealism in Mexico
This chapter provides a clearer picture of female artists in relation to the artistic scene in Mexico City in the 1940s. Why and how was Surrealism as a Parisian movement, specifically important in Mexico City in relation to female artists? First the Mexican art scene of the 1920s and 1930s is discussed before the arrival of the Surrealists, this is mainly important because of the presence of Mexican coexisting tendencies that were similar to French Surrealism. The conception of Surrealism by the Mexicans is further examined in relation to the duality between the émigré artists and the native Mexican art scene. I explain the existence and development of female émigré artists in relation to the opposing character of the Mexican art scene. How could female artists develop themselves in the masculine Mexican society? An answer on this question is formulated through the exploration of the Mexican art scene of the 1930s and 1940s.
2.1 Fantastic art in Mexico: before the arrival of the Surrealists
The beginning of the story of Surrealism in Mexico is often exemplified by the arrival of André Breton and Jacqueline Lamba in 1938. It was during this visit that Breton labeled Mexico as the surreal country ‘par excellence.’64
Yet it would be deficient to assume that Breton and Lamba introduced the Surrealist idea to the Mexican society with their visit. While the Surrealist movement and its main ideas were already known in Mexico since the 1920s, there were coexisting tendencies where Mexican artists drew inspiration from Mexican myths, rituals, magic, and their rich pre-Hispanic past outside of the idea of Surrealism. French Surrealism was skeptically received by Mexican critics during this time. The movement was known in Mexico since March 1925 when reviews and translations of the French articles and writings by the Surrealists were regularly published in Mexican newspapers.65
The conception of the European movement by Mexican critics was dismissive; “various critics, including some of Mexico’s best-known writers, accused the Surrealist movement of being derivative and unoriginal, a mere escapist fantasy, simply
64 Ortega, G. (2013) La danza de los espectros: Un proyecto de investigación sobre realismo mágico en México, Mexico: Museo de Arte Moderno, p. 51
65 Nicholson, M. (2013) “Surrealism’s ‘found object’: The enigmatic Mexico of Artaud and
another ‘ism’ without consequence.”66 An example of this criticism was that of Mexican
writer and art critic Jaime Torres Bodet in October 1928.67
Torres Bodet published a review on Breton’s story Nadja in the Mexican avant-garde magazine Contemporáneos (1928-1931).68
He stated that the story lacked a clear plot and “failed to organize the liberty that is its primary focus.”69
This review indicates how Mexicans were familiar with the idea of fantastic art and the liberation of the unconscious, also known as ‘automatic thinking,’ a so-called Surrealist invention. The Mexicans had their own perception of the idea of fantastic art and criticized Breton and the Surrealists for not applying this idea correctly. Torres Bodet’s conception is emblematic for the opposing positions in the Mexican art scene that would develop between the European émigré artists and native Mexican artists. Since both groups had their own idea of fantastic art, a hostile relation developed between the two artistic groups.
The belief of the unoriginality of the Surrealist movement from the Mexican stance can be traced back to the existence of the co-existing movements with conceptual characteristics similar to Surrealism. One of these movements that enhanced the idea of a reality incorporating magical elements was known as ‘la escuela fantástica mexicana,’70
which was active in the early 1930s.71
Whereas the Surrealist movement consisted of a hierarchic structure and a close circle of artists, the idea of Mexican fantastic art was widespread and liberating. Mexican culture already included a certain level of fantastic imaginary in itself because of the traditions of magic, witchcraft and the occult.72
This intrinsic quality of Mexican culture would inspire a wide variety of artists in different ways. Curator Gonzalo Ortega labeled this intrinsic tendency as ‘magic realism’ in 2013 and further defined this tendency: “what is understood as ‘magic realism’, at least in Mexico, is defined as the sum total of many individualities, which, once brought together, evince the
66 Nicholson, M. (2013) “Surrealism’s ‘found object’: The enigmatic Mexico of Artaud and Breton”, p. 29 67 Ibid. 68 http://www.elem.mx/institucion/datos/1801 69 Nicholson, M. (2013) “Surrealism’s ‘found object’: The enigmatic Mexico of Artaud and Breton”, p. 29 70 ‘La escuela fantástica Mexicana,’ translated as ‘fantastic Mexican art’ has also been defined as ‘magic realism’ (by Gonzalo Ortega), yet both terms refer to the same tendency. 71 Rodríguez Prampolini, I. (1969) El Surrealismo y el Arte Fantástico de México, Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, p. 43 72 Ortega, G. (2013) La danza de los espectros: Un proyecto de investigación sobre realismo mágico en México, p. 24
vital and intellectual beat of a specific place and time.”73 It is therefore difficult to grasp the
tendency of fantastic art under one stylistic or conceptual characteristic.
Ortega retraced the term of magic realism back to the German historian and art critic Franz Roh who coined the term “Magischer Realismus” in relation to the visual arts in 1925.74
Roh defined magic realism as a ‘third reality of a fantastic nature,’ which could be found between the reality and the dream. Even though the label magic realism is now mainly used to refer to literary movements in Latin America and Europe, it is additionally used for artistic movements in the visual arts similar to French Surrealism. Yet there is a crucial difference between the Mexican and French tendency that should be defined. For many Latin Americans magical realism had nothing to do with French Surrealism. The “magical” is in the context of Surrealism seen as an artificial construction, while in Latin America it was a “natural manifestation.”75 This, as Ortega called it, disputable point of
view was further explained by Mexican scholar and specialist on Surrealism in Latin America Luis-Martín Lozano. He discussed the duality between the Mexican art scene and European Surrealism in 2014: “It is true that Mexico was considered to be a country that was inclined naturally towards Surrealism, as visualized by Breton, but it is just as true that this premise became a cliché on which many ‘wonders’ of 20th century Mexican art hung their hat.”76
Lozano stated that many Mexican artists would later ‘use’ Surrealism to gain more interest in the art world, which indicates the prestigious position that French Surrealism would later develop in Mexico.
The coexisting of the tendency of fantastic art in relation to Surrealism has been further researched by Ortega. He stated that the Mexican movement had initially been inspired by European artistic tendencies; describing them as “delicately interrelated movements,” Ortega pointed out that the diffusion of these movements might be the result of the Contemporáneos (Contemporaries). This group of Mexican artists and writers drew inspiration from European avant-garde artists during the 1920s and 1930s, which they would publish in their magazine Contemporáneos.77
The main idea of the Contemporáneos was to integrate writings and visual arts by bringing Mexican poetry into the Western 73 Ortega, G. (2013) La danza de los espectros: Un proyecto de investigación sobre realismo mágico en México, p. 25 74 Ibid., p. 26 75 Ibid. 76 Lozano, L.M. (eds.) (2014) Laboratorio de Sueños: la diáspora del Surrealismo en México, Mexico: Pablo Goebel Fine Arts, p. 15-16 77 Ortega, G. (2013) La danza de los espectros: Un proyecto de investigación sobre realismo mágico en México, p. 52
tradition.78Among the European influences were Salvador Dalí, Joan Miró, the
metaphysical paintings by Giorgio de Chirico and German magic realism paintings.79
This leads to the conclusion that according to Ortega, the Mexican artistic movements might not have been inspired by the Surrealists after their arrival in the late 1930s, but that since the 1920s Mexican art already had been inspired by European avant-garde art.
It is important to realize that in the decade before the arrival of many female émigré artists, the 1920s were an essential decade for the development of women in the Mexican art scene. During this time many important female artists were experimenting with tendencies that were similar to the later established French Surrealism. These women would pave the way for the development of female artists in the 1930s and 1940s. Among the most emblematic women who were active in this decade were Lola Cueto (Mexico, 1897-1978), Tina Modotti (Italy, 1896-1942), Frida Kahlo and Nahui Olin.80 The decade of
the 1920s has been labeled as “pre-feminist” by Academic Jean Franco in her book Plotting Women: Gender and Representation in Mexico (1989). Because of the activity of these female artists, she explained the “pre-” due to the fact that women were not yet active participants in the social “sphere of debate.”81
While the cultural and political movements in the 1920s remained strongly sexist and dominated by men, the Italian photographer who was actively drawn to politics Tina Modotti and Mexican artist Lola Cueto both succeeded to join Estridentismo (Stridentism, 1922-1927): a Mexican multidisciplinary avant-garde movement that included literature, art and strong political dedication. Modotti had also joined the Mexican Communist Party in 1927 and was close friends with fellow communists and artists Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera (Mexico, 1886-1957).82
Modotti often photographed the murals of Rivera that she used for her photo collages. Cueto would become one of the most important visual artists of the movement, she is best known for her embroidery, tapestry and puppet making. The Mexican artist Nahui Olin was one of the most remarkable women of 1920s Mexico. Born as María del Carmen Mondragón Valseca in 1893 she later changed her 78 Nicholson, M. (2013) “Surrealism’s ‘found object’: The enigmatic Mexico of Artaud and Breton”, p. 28 79 Ortega, G. (2013) La danza de los espectros: Un proyecto de investigación sobre realismo mágico en México, p. 52 and Nicholson, M. (2013) “Surrealism’s ‘found object’: The enigmatic Mexico of Artaud and Breton”, p. 28 80 Flores, T. (2008) “Strategic Modernists: Women Artists in Post-Revolutionary Mexico” in Woman's Art Journal, Vol. 29, No. 2 (Fall - Winter), p. 12 81 Ibid., p. 14 82 https://news.artnet.com/art-world/reasons-to-love-tina-modotti-606902
