And I Hope Never to Return: The Commercial legacy of Frida Kahlo and the Commodification of Hispanic-Indigenous cultures in the United States.

The bulk of this script was performed on May 16th, 2023 at the Clear Brook High School TEDx performance program. Through faulty memorization and on-the-spot improvisation, the final oration differed significantly from this script. The full talk can be seen here (1:06:40).

I love museums. Always have, but my favorite part… is the gift shop. I get to take home a little piece of the art that I saw. As I got older, one thing I started to notice was that one of my favorite artists, despite her popularity, was never sold alongside her works. Rather, she was sold as a caricature of herself. Flower crown… embroidered dress… unibrow. Did I give it away? Frida Kahlo, icon of Mexican surrealism and lifelong communist. Now don’t get me wrong, the commercialization of an artist’s likeness has happened just as much to other big artists Vincent Van Gogh and Leonardo Da Vinci, but they are often associated to their actual artworks. These men, which for centuries dominated the art world, are receiving more benefits in their commercial image even after death than a female artist from Latin America is. When I said earlier that Frida is sold as a caricature I meant that figuratively and literally, you’re more likely to see t-shirts with a little Frida cartoon on them than you are to see one of her many works, which were often infused with the politically and socially concerned themes she carried in life. What makes the sale of Frida merchandise so important is it stems from more than just copyright agreements, it speaks to the social and economic relationship between the US and Mexico, and has roots in undignified precedents of appropriation. The conversion of Frida Kahlo from an autonomous cultural symbol into a commercial product is known as commodification, and it’s happening to more aspects of Mexican culture every single day.

We are living a groundbreaking era of globalization and communication. You can be exposed to every aspect of a different culture, from food to clothing, with as little as a stroll outside. As Columbia Business School professor Adam Galinsky states, being around new cultures “increases awareness of underlying connections and associations” with other cultures. Citizens of the western world are privy to the amalgamation of hundreds of cultures that interact with each other, oftentimes merging. Morally, this requires a distinguishable level of appreciation and conservation for the cultural practices and imagery. However, Latino and Indigenous cultures in the United States have been markedly unappreciated, as the commodification of Mexican traditions removes the true meaning of these practices from their community. Commodification, which here means the assigning of prices to intangible things and ideas, can be done by corporations, entire communities, or even a single individual. Commodification of cultural aspects tends to arise simultaneously with appropriation, in which a dominant group uses for profit the representations of a minority group. Both being formed in an environment of social and economic inequality between groups. Overall, this leads to the depreciation of a culture and the decline of authentic multiculturalism in minority communities.

So what exactly is the necessity for respecting culture? Surely it’s an easier said than done situation, one may say that nowadays it’s very difficult to not tread onto something unique and cultural. But this is a flawed perspective, and there’s even more important ground which needs to be explained first: what exactly is the modern interpretation of culture? As Kate Roscher from the University of Paget Sound puts it, culture is presently valued for its ability to improve social, political, and economic problems. This is a move away from a more traditional view of culture where its value was rooted in art, symbolic value, and skill. This shift towards the idea of culture as a resource is exemplified in the fact that culture is, “no longer experienced, valued, or understood as transcendent.” And as O. A. Ajani puts it “elements which were previously integrated into the fabric of society before the rise of capitalism now become subject increasingly to the laws of the marketplace” - commodification, in a sense, reduces the ability of artists because it subjects them to the rules of a wider market; Thus the financial situation arises in which that art is taken from the culture, and exploited by a producer more capable of marketing it.

A prime example, and the genesis for this talk is Frida Kahlo. oftentimes placed as one of the most famous artists of the world, seen up there with Van Gogh, Da Vinci, Warhol, and others, yet these artists are also promoted along with their work, while Frida is only used for her face (or rather, for her brow). In an interview with NPR, Beatriz Alvarado, spokeswoman for the Panama-based Frida Kahlo Corporation which owns the rights to the Frida Kahlo brand says that “it’s an honor to have a piece of Frida Kahlo that will inspire you day to day.” However, when that piece of the artist is far removed from the social and political importance of the figure, then there is no real benefit to use the likeness of that person, other than simply for profit. Take for example the Mattel “Shero” Barbie of Frida Kahlo which lightened her eyes, thinned her hips and removed her unibrow – which was an intentional rejection of traditional beauty standards by the artist during her life. How can an inaccurate of representation Frida Kahlo serve as a genuine and truthful inspiration? Does a distorted representation of someone whose dress and appearance were meaningful displays of politics really serve to reflect their message? Ultimately this is because consumers do not want to receive art that is genuine, charged, or painful because those are harder to digest. Producers equally do not want to promote the art that is painful. This is why, while artists like Warhol and Da Vinci which are seen as embodying color, enthusiasm, intelligence, science and positively-stimulating mindsets are promoted as their likeness along with their art, Frida, who could instead be associated with pain, struggle or honest expression is not. Could she not be seen instead as an image of perseverance? This is the nature of commodification, it is too hard to market work when keeping it aligned with its original meaning, so it is easier to just remove it from that meaning. Make it cute and flashy. A doll with a unibrow and a flower crown, not a woman with a back brace and an amputated leg.

The value of art is its personal connection to the viewer. The sense of community it can create, and the ability for anyone and everyone to each have a piece of the artist which means something to them. Not to be an item sold for profit. The idea that Frida Kahlo can inspire people when the product has nothing to do with the inspiring things she actually stood for, then what is actually being inspired? Likely it is consumption, and the overarching theme of every Frida product, is corporate greed. As of 2019, the Frida Kahlo Corporation, which owns the rights to Frida is in the middle of a legal battle with small business owner and artist Nina Shope. Shope, who was selling Frida Kahlo dolls on Etsy was hit with a cease and desist letter from the corporation due to infringing on their copyright intellectual property. Shope took this issue to court, citing that the corporation’s control of the image expired in 2004, and they now only have trademark rights over the name. While the suit is still being settled, there are many discussions arising about the ability of a company to own a historical figure. And most importantly, their intentions with doing it to a female hispanic artist. For this reason, promotions of Frida are contradictory. They have the potential to bring the artist meaningful recognition and spread the important political messages of the art, but instead it excludes the original community, making profit off their culture. Yet the phenomena of appropriation is not just monetary, it’s also social.

Día de los Muertos, or the Day of the Dead, was never a mainstream holiday, until the work of Chicano activists in the 1960s got them the right to openly celebrate their culture. Since then, the holiday has been a popular celebration in Hispanic communities in the US that look to honor their heritage on a united front. It can be said that the holiday, which is based around the idea of honoring the dead, is now rooted in fighting for freedom, and the battle for recognition that minorities have had to undergo in the United States. However, the holiday’s popularity has led to an increase in harmful impacts to the community. This popularity never explains the meaning of the holiday, and depictions of it do not interact with the source material properly. The 2017 Disney film Coco made 807.8 million dollars and is responsible to many Americans for divulging them in the intricacies of the Latino holiday. Of the millions of dollars made by the film, none of them were paid directly back into the Mexican economy – which is where the traditions and the culture that the film displayed originated from. The film clearly gave no benefits to the community it was based on, and as The State Times reported, it dumbed down the concepts of DdlM for an international audience not necessarily familiar with Latino traditions.

In San Francisco, the celebrations of the Día de los Muertos have grown so large that many Hispanic residents have stopped attending because they themselves see it as “too gringo.” Professor Regina Marchi states that the popularity of the inaccurately celebrated tradition, all in all heavily occupied by the commercialization of this celebration has led to the alienation of the original community. Latinos have a history of being treated as second-class citizens in the US, so to see a sudden acceptance of their traditions that very quickly turned into the tradition being shifted away from what they originally represent is disheartening and depressing. Día de los Muertos is a somber and respectful celebration of the lives of lost loved ones, and had never before been celebrated by a parade as it is today. The non-traditional celebratory items shown in the 2015 James Bond film Spectre have also been incorporated into recent celebrations of Día de Los Muertos, and shifted the celebration from a private familial ceremony to a public spectacle. Axios reports that these costumes and practices are not customary to the celebration which has existed for nearly 3,000 years, yet they are being absorbed to appeal to tourism. That’s why Dia de los Muertos has slowly become a commercial holiday. Characters such as La Catrina becoming Halloween costumes, and the unique aspects of the celebration become stretched past its original meaning to fit the appeals of a distinctly non-original group.

But how exactly does a millennia old cultural tradition shift to an inaccurate representation of itself? Well the answer is what anthropologist Renato Rosaldo calls “imperialist nostalgia,” where the communities of a country in the Global North want to interact with the cultures of former colonized people to experience the authentic culture. This pressures countries, communities, or industries to perform a certain way to promote the influx of tourist trade. The interaction between tourists from the global north and natives of the global south can oftentimes be done through purchasing “artisan” folk art and accoutrements, and attending genuine cultural celebrations. This goes hand in hand with the commercialization of these cultures. The more profit that can be made the less focus which is put on protecting the handcrafted artisan tradition, or the less protection put on the livelihoods of its makers. The “imperialist nostalgia” mindset is an offshoot of the “this culture is worth less than mine” mindset, or the same fetishization of ethnic poverty which has given way to the rise of slum tourism. A more developed, more financial stable country looks down upon the global periphery, and sees its citizens as someone that can be taken advantage of and their cultures as something that can be taken away from them. They look at art through the lens of dollar signs. The industry of performative culture has grown as part of the tourism industry. When visiting foreign places, or even local places with ethnic citizenry, many people expect to experience the “authentic” and “traditional” aspect of that culture. The strength of imperialist nostalgia has maligned foreign and immigrant cultures into losing their authenticity. Because the perspective which visitors carry on the culture is most often not one of appreciation and respect, then the economic interactions are not conducted with respect, so the imagery of the culture is exploited for profit, as cheap and mass-produced items are sold under the label of being unique and traditional even though sometimes neither they or their business owners come from said culture. The perspective of the United States towards Mexico has been historically condescending for the past century. And despite a Latino population of 62 million, the environment of disrespect in the US continues to ensure the prolonging of ethnic appropriation.

Perhaps the culture needs to change, and perhaps there lies a responsibility on every single person to change the mindset across the country. In order to properly approach a possible solution there is a fine line which needs to be outlined. Celebrating a culture is not the same is participating in it. Appreciating is only one step towards conserving. Honest participation in a different cultures requires research of the subject, and an understanding of its meaning, otherwise it’s not only an invasion of a cultural space, but also contributes to the hybridization of the culture with non-traditional aspects of celebration, which loses the true nature and meaning of the celebration at that point. Instead, attendance of the celebration, with respect to the personal space of members of the group encourages the community to continue sharing their culture with others, and increases acceptance and multi-culturalism in the United States while these cultures still manage to maintain the originality and independence of their culture. The continued tendrilled reach of the capitalist machine that is branding and marketing is actively degrading the extent of culture, which are rooted in struggle for acceptance and representation in the United States. For this reason future purchases of artisan items should be from genuine sources that use ethical labor practices to raise up small creators as well as their cultures; and eventually, this economic practice inspires more legal rights for these artisan craftsman, and like the Frida Kahlo lawsuit, reduces monopolization of cultural figures. Otherwise we risk continued damage to the non-homogenous cultures of the world. Researcher David A. Napier has been warning of this since 1997, he writes that “the loss of cultural wealth is frequently accompanied both by social disintegration and by a rhetorical paralysis” The last thing Frida Kahlo wrote in her diary before her death was “I hope the exit is joyful, and I hope never to return.” But now, most can reckon that Frida’s life has found its own immortality, in keychains, and wallets, and purses and pencils and tshirts, and in those little solar-powered bobbleheads that you can set on your dash. if only Frida could see that she in fact has been reincarnated. As nothing more than branding to sell cushions and bags. Frida is an ancestor, and culture is ancestry. Culture is descendance, yet that is being lost more everyday when corporations are allowed reign over our communities. So rather than take inspiration from images. Find inspiration from what is genuine. And next time you’re in that gift shop, don’t buy the artist, buy their art. You’ll find there’s a lot more to it than just colors, clothes, and unibrows – it’s community.