Family Portrait II – Florine Stettheimer
My Grandparents, My Parents, and I (Family Tree) – Frida Kahlo
During my visit to the Modern Museum of Art, I found myself drawn to two particular paintings. One is Florine Stettheimer’s Family Portrait II, painted in 1933. The other is My Grandparents, My Parents, And I (Family Tree) by Frida Kahlo, completed just three years after Stettheimer’s. The two paintings are works that standing alone, are incredibly unique and indicative of the artist’s style and talent. However, by comparing and contrasting the two, the various components of the pieces can be better appreciated.
Both paintings deal with the same subject matter of representing the artists’ respective families. According to information provided by MOMA, Florine Stettheimer led a Manhattan salon with her sisters where she shared her work with a community of artists. In the painting, she includes her sisters and her mother along with elements of her New York City background, like Radio City Music Hall and the Statue of Liberty. Frida Kahlo, on the other hand, used the specific medium of Mexican retablos, small paintings on metal created to give thanks to God and other saints for miracles and the curing of illness.
The two artists do not represent their family in the same manner. For me, the most striking visual difference between the two are the color palettes used. Family Portrait II consists of primary colors, slightly muted for a softer look but still strikingly bright. The grandeur use of color creates a dreamy aura to the scene. Frida Kahlo also does not shy from the use of color, but My Grandparents, My Parents, And I (Family Tree) uses rich, darker colors that blend together for a seamless look. Florine Stettheimer’s family members are splayed across an elaborate carpet, with the women being broken apart by huge flowers. All of the women’s gazes New York City landmarks are scattered in an open background. Kahlo, instead, has more organization in her painting, depicting a genealogical chart she embellishes on. She makes clear divisions between her mother and father’s side of the family and the land they come from. Time is also used differently in both paintings. Family Portrait II is one scene frozen in time, with everyone in the painting being mid-action. Kahlo shows a greater expanse of time by depicting her family line and herself at different ages. The intwined family tree suggests an ongoing circle of life that transcends time.
Both paintings use surreal imagery to hint at family relationships. Stettheimer’s painting incorporates many surreal elements: several flowers larger than the family is the centerpiece of the scene, the family sits on a bright carpet that borders an endless sea, and various New York City landmarks drawn in a ghostly white color float in the background. The elegance of the ladies is reminiscent of the family’s experience running a salon, and the infamous monuments shows how Stettheimer valued her New York City background. Kahlo’s painting is essentially a family tree, but includes many fantastical elements. A fetus connects to Kahlo’s mother and the child next to it is representative of Kahlo. Other imagery suggests her heritage. On the left is her Mexican mother and her parents, surrounded by desert land and a faint map of Mexico. On the right is her Jewish German-born father and his parents in traditionally European attire with the distant sea in the background. The red ribbon connecting everyone in the painting almost looks like blood, which also shows the blood-connection between the family members. By making these visual distinctions and connections, Kahlo affirms her mixed heritage and makes a very powerful statement that is on the brink of being a social commentary.
The observation of both paintings draw the attention to both their similarities and unique differences. This assignment brought on the realization that artists are influenced by their different backgrounds and make conscious choices in their paintings to depict a story and message.
