Drawings

Introduction

Frida Kahlo’s work on paper was not simply a staging ground for her paintings. She used drawing to reconstruct an event, test arrangements, make portraits, collaborate with another artist, embellish letters and work across the pages of a diary. Surviving museum, archive and sale records reveal those different purposes, while also showing why no reliable count of all her drawings can be offered from the public material alone. ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}

The distinction matters to anyone encountering a sheet labelled “sketch.” A preparatory drawing has an evidenced relationship to a later composition; an independent drawing can be a complete work on its own terms. A page in a letter or diary remains part of that larger object, while an original lithograph is a print made from Kahlo’s design rather than a commercial copy of a painting. ^{[1] [5] [6] [7]}

At a Glance

Contents

1. Introduction
2. What a Drawing Can Be
3. Early Training and Graphic Choices
4. Accident as a Narrative Drawing
5. Portraits, Dedications and Photographic Sequence
6. Studies That Change a Painting
7. Drawing With Lucienne Bloch
8. Flowers Drawn Into Letters
9. One Diary With Many Kinds of Marks

What a Drawing Can Be

One drawing can narrate an experience without preparing an oil painting; another can preserve a first design whose figures later change. Kahlo’s Accident and Sketch for Pancho Villa and Adelita demonstrate these contrasting functions especially well. Their media do not decide the question by themselves: it is the documented object history and relation to another work that makes the latter preparatory. ^{[1] [12] [13]}

Some works resist a single category. Two pencil exquisite corpses were made jointly with Lucienne Bloch, while flower drawings appeared inside correspondence with Ignacio Aguirre. The first are collaborative works; the second belong to letters with named recipients, written text and a material history that would disappear if the flowers were presented as isolated botanical studies. ^{[14] [15]}

The diary is a further kind of drawing environment: one bound object in which words, colour and marks accumulate across pages. A drawing in it is not automatically an independent sheet or a plan for a finished painting. Conversely, the 1932 lithograph demonstrates the boundary between a work conceived for printing and a modern reproduction sold after the fact. ^{[2] [6] [7] [16]}

The word sketch often implies casualness or incompletion, but it is not a reliable judgement of finish. A planned composition can be elaborate, while a concise independent drawing can be fully purposeful. Object records, rather than the apparent amount of white paper or a viewer’s expectation of polish, must establish how a particular sheet functioned. ^{[1] [13]}

Watch: Frida Kahlo

Five perspectives to view here alongside the article.

Frida Kahlo’s The Two Fridas: Great Art Explained

Great Art Explained

A focused visual introduction to the painting and its context.

▶01 · The Two FridasLooking at The Two FridasGreat Art Explained▶02 · Global iconThe making of an iconThe Museum of Fine Arts, Houston▶03 · Fashion and colourKahlo’s colourful wardrobeFashionUnited TV▶04 · Clothes and contextAppearances Can Be DeceivingFine Arts Museums of San Francisco▶05 · U.S. yearsFrida in AmericaUC Berkeley CLACS

Early Training and Graphic Choices

Kahlo studied drawing at the National Preparatory School and briefly learned commercial engraving, according to James Oles’s institutional account of her early work. Surviving pencil and watercolour sheets from roughly 1925 to 1927 demonstrate graphic practice before her mature self-portrait idiom. They do not establish the older story of sustained Renaissance-style portrait training or a formal programme of anatomical study. ^[17]

Oles points to two early versions of Frida in Coyoacán, including a pencil drawing on the reverse of a Department of Libraries notepad and a watercolour on watermarked paper. The reused notepad is an exact material detail: the support itself carries a trace of the sheet’s earlier purpose. His comparisons with Abraham Ángel, Manuel Rodríguez Lozano and photographic-studio conventions are art-historical proposals, not identified templates copied by Kahlo. ^[17]

He also argues that Kahlo later sometimes suppressed academic polish in favour of a deliberately untrained-looking language related to children’s art, ex-votos and popular painting. That interpretation helps distinguish artistic selection from lack of ability, though it cannot prove that every irregular line or simplified form was planned. Calling her either a Renaissance-style draughtswoman or a naïve artist would flatten the evidence in opposite directions. ^[17]

The bus accident of 1925 changed Kahlo’s health and working conditions, and Museo Frida Kahlo recounts the mirror placed above her bed while she began to paint. Neither that account nor the object records establishes that she spent months in hospital filling several sketchbooks or that relatives were unable to visit. A drawings history can acknowledge the accident without building its opening on an unverified hospital-sketchbook narrative. ^[18]

Accident as a Narrative Drawing

Museo Frida Kahlo’s contributed record dates El accidente to 17 September 1926, a year after the collision. A Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco (FAMSF) label records graphite on paper and names the collection of Juan Rafael Coronel Rivera; Tate’s 2026 loan list gives the sheet as 18.5 × 25.8 cm and identifies the same lender. An older PBS note uses “pencil” and a shorter owner name, as well as different dimensions; these records describe a drawing, not an eyewitness photograph of the event. ^{[1] [12] [19] [33]}

Museo Dolores Olmedo describes it as one of Kahlo’s few visual reconstructions of the accident. PBS compares its combination of image and explanatory writing with an ex-voto, the painted thanksgiving format that joins a scene with text. These are helpful curatorial readings of the drawing’s narrative strategy, but neither source demonstrates that making it was clinically cathartic or that every represented detail is a literal record of the crash. ^{[19] [20]}

The sheet therefore shows drawing operating as retrospective narration rather than as a discarded preliminary for an oil. Tate’s list describes a chain from Kahlo to Diego Rivera, Ruth Rivera de Coronel, Rafael Coronel and Juan Rafael Coronel Rivera; that is a lender-facing institutional record, not an independently examined set of transfer documents. The drawing's precise text, line and condition have not been independently examined; the cited custodians remain the basis for any further visual detail. ^{[1] [19] [20] [33]}

Portraits, Dedications and Photographic Sequence

The Harry Ransom Center holds a different work called Diego y Yo from Kahlo’s much later painting Diego and I. Its drawing is dated 1930, catalogued as charcoal on paper, measures 29.5 × 21.5 cm and carries accession 66.8; a custodian-contributed object record also lists ink and transcribes a San Francisco inscription. The June 1949 oil belongs to its own object history and should never inherit the drawing’s medium, collection or dedication. ^{[21] [22]}

The same object record transcribes a dedication to Nickolas Muray, whom its historical account says Kahlo met in 1931. It follows that the dedication was probably added after the 1930 drawing, but the exact date of that later act is not documented. The university purchased the Muray Mexican-art collection in 1965; that collection-level fact does not reconstruct every earlier transfer of this particular sheet. ^{[21] [22]}

FAMSF identifies Triple Self-Portrait as an unfinished 1931 graphite drawing based on photographs of Kahlo at approximately four, twelve and twenty-two years old. That source-led account makes the sheet a study in successive versions of the self rather than a single mirror likeness. It does not establish the exact photographs used or prove a mechanical tracing procedure. ^[1]

These two works broaden the meaning of self-portrait drawing. One can carry an inscription and a later social history; another can bring several ages into one represented identity. Their documented differences are more informative than assuming every drawing of Kahlo’s face served the same preparatory or autobiographical purpose. ^{[1] [21]}

Studies That Change a Painting

Christie’s catalogues Sketch for Pancho Villa and Adelita as pencil on paper, about 1927, measuring 20 × 23.2 cm, with a dedication to “Chong Lee” on the reverse. Its essay says the sketch contains a larger group than the unfinished painting eventually retained. Here the documentary relationship really does justify calling the sheet preparatory: it preserves a compositional possibility rather than merely resembling a later picture. ^[13]

Later recollections attributed to Alejandro Gómez Arias identify figures with the Los Cachuchas student circle, but these memories postdate the drawing and are not contemporary annotations by Kahlo. Christie’s also proposes a Giorgio de Chirico comparison, which remains a critic’s analogy rather than a demonstrated source. The sheet predates Kahlo’s 1929 marriage to Rivera, but not their first meeting, despite an overbroad formulation in the sale essay. ^[13]

The same catalogue gives a comparatively detailed provenance, beginning with Miguel N. Lira as a gift from Kahlo and later passing through Rubén García Vadillo and private collections. Those records demonstrate why a study can have its own independent history even when it relates to a painting. They do not identify the present owner after its most recent sale. ^[13]

FAMSF describes a 1949 graphite drawing for The Love Embrace of the Universe, the Earth (Mexico), Me, Diego and Mr. Xólotl as one of three known related sketches held by Museo Frida Kahlo. Its label offers yin-yang and Madonna-and-child parallels for the eventual arrangement, but these are curatorial interpretations of the imagery. The drawing’s known connection to the painting is stronger than any claim about which symbolic tradition Kahlo consciously adopted. ^[1]

FAMSF also lists a 1954 graphite study for Self-Portrait with Stalin and a 1944 Sketch of Ceiling of My Home. Together, they show drawing used to plan a late political portrait and to think through a domestic ceiling, not merely to repeat a fixed self-portrait formula. No checked technical record specifies how either drawing was transferred to a final surface or whether the ceiling design was executed. ^[1]

Drawing With Lucienne Bloch

The Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Surrealism Beyond Borders object list identifies two separate circa-1932 pencil sheets: Exquisite corpse (Frida) and Exquisite corpse (Diego). It credits both Kahlo and Lucienne Bloch. An exquisite corpse is a collaborative game in which contributors extend a figure or text without seeing the whole preceding contribution, so the works record shared experimentation rather than sole authorship. ^[14]

The pair is significant evidence that Kahlo took part in a Surrealist-associated procedure before André Breton’s 1938 visit. It does not prove she was a formal member of a movement, that the sheets prepared paintings or that her customary oil-painting method was automatic. The museum list records them as returned loans; it should not be read as a current display notice. ^[14]

Joint authorship also complicates numerical catalogues. A pair credited to both artists may appear under either artist’s name in separate search systems, or be counted twice when records are merged. Any summary should preserve the two distinct titles and both makers rather than silently turning collaboration into a Kahlo-only total. ^[14]

Flowers Drawn Into Letters

Sotheby’s describes five autograph letters Kahlo sent to Ignacio Aguirre around 1935, with accompanying notes, envelopes and a telegram. One letter contains two drawings of flowers, and several items bear lipstick marks. The flowers were therefore part of correspondence addressed to another person, not two freestanding botanical pictures whose context can be discarded. ^[15]

The catalogue traces the letters through Esther Velázquez, Aguirre’s widow, and discusses their later publication. Its account of Kahlo's feelings is an auction-house interpretation rather than a diagnosis recoverable from handwriting or flowers. ^[15]

Correspondence makes the category of drawing physically precise. A mark shares its leaf with words, an addressee and perhaps a date; removing it from that structure changes what evidence it can offer. Other letter drawings may survive, but this checked group is enough to establish the practice without inventing a comprehensive epistolary corpus. ^[15]

One Diary With Many Kinds of Marks

Museo Frida Kahlo’s chronology says Kahlo began writing, painting and drawing a diary in 1944 and that it covers her last ten years. Abrams advertises a complete facsimile with 170 journal pages and seventy watercolours in a 296-page publication. These are different units: the original diary pages and watercolours are not equivalent to the total pages of the edited book, and the evidence does not support the older claim that several diaries were recovered. ^{[2] [23]}

Lucía Lizarbe Casado’s Spanish study calls the object a “diary-codex” because image, writing and colour form a layered system rather than separate illustration and text. She describes coloured letters, overwritten images, crossed-out writing, displaced margins, stains and ink transferred between facing leaves. These are observations and analyses of a bound object; they do not supply a simple date-by-date narrative or a private dictionary for every mark. ^[24]

Gaëlle Hourdin and Modesta Suárez’s French article likewise treats poetry, lists, drawing and colour as an inventive whole. They say only a few finished paintings can be securely recognised in germ in the diary, a direct warning against calling it a universal sketchbook for Kahlo’s oils. Marine Noël and Andrea Oberhuber add a material account of ink transfer and overwritten language, though the consulted author-hosted manuscript has not yet been tied to a confirmed final publication venue or date. ^{[25] [26]}

Selected pages of Tamira Fernandes Pimenta’s Portuguese dissertation discuss invented beings and the interweaving of word and image. They offer a literary route into the diary, not evidence that an odd figure records a medical condition or an automatic confession. Joanna Piechura’s cross-medium study similarly follows a motif among drawings, diary pages and paintings without reducing every recurrence to an incident in Kahlo’s life. ^{[27] [28]}

Illegibility may be part of the object’s material history rather than a puzzle an editor must solve. Ink pressed onto a facing page, a crossed-out word and a colour field laid under later writing can reveal changes of sequence and handling while leaving intention partly unrecoverable. The complete commercial facsimile and its editorial apparatus remain unconsulted; the account here rests on the cited institutional and scholarly studies, not an inspection of every leaf. ^{[23] [24] [25]}

An Original Lithograph Is Not a Poster

FAMSF calls Frida and the Miscarriage or El aborto Kahlo’s first and only lithograph. The design dates to 1932, but distinct proofs have separate material histories. FAMSF records its own impression as a gift to Juan O’Gorman with a 1936 signature; Sotheby’s describes proof 7/19 with coloured-pencil and ink inscriptions; Christie’s records proof 13 on laid paper. ^{[6] [7] [11]}

Those differences must remain attached to their particular impressions. A later dedication on one proof does not change the design’s 1932 origin, and it cannot be transferred to all other proofs. Likewise, the slight published size differences may concern individual sheets or measurements rather than separate designs. ^{[6] [7] [11]}

The lithograph belongs beside a drawings discussion because Kahlo’s graphic decision produced an original work on paper, not because lithography and pencil drawing are identical techniques. A modern poster copied from a painting or print is a reproduction even if it is printed on fine paper and sold as an “art print.” The separate prints guide explains editions and the distinction between original impressions and later reproductions. ^{[6] [7]}

Materials Beyond Pencil

Exact object records prevent the convenient but untested claim that Kahlo chiefly drew in pencil. Christie’s describes the signed 1932 El Salón de Belleza as watercolour, pen and black ink, and pencil on paper. Sotheby’s records Xibalba-Alado-Xólotl, about 1950, in pastel and crayon on paper; Colección Andrés Blaisten lists Puebla de los Ángeles as a coloured-pencil drawing from 1952. ^{[8] [9] [29]}

The Blaisten companion record dates Puebla de los Ángeles to 13 October 1952 and describes a dedication to a nurse named Judy. That inscription is useful identity evidence, while the collection’s more intimate reading of the drawing remains an interpretation. Sotheby’s supplies a relatively detailed family and dealer history for Xibalba-Alado-Xólotl, but the title alone does not authorise a fixed pre-Hispanic symbolic decoding. ^{[9] [29]}

FAMSF lists a circa-1937 self-portrait on tracing paper in pencil and coloured pencil. Tracing paper could support transfer or repetition, but no checked source identifies the process used for that particular sheet. The early notepad, loose sheets, letters and bound diary similarly show that the support can be historically informative without revealing every step of making. ^{[1] [17]}

The label set also records 1932 graphite works called The Dream, Sleeping Self-Portrait and Self-Portrait July 9 1932. Such titles establish a range of subjects and dates, not access to the artist’s unspoken emotional state. For these sheets, material, format and subject are recorded from the cited textual catalogues rather than independent visual examination. ^[1]

A Drawing With Conflicting Published Dates

Appearances Can Be Deceiving is an important reminder that even a familiar drawing may not have a settled catalogue identity. Museo Frida Kahlo’s contributed record dates the charcoal-and-coloured-pencil sheet to 1934 and gives 297 × 298 mm; the FAMSF exhibition label and Berit Potter’s review place it around 1946. Tate’s 2026 administrative loan list instead labels it 1953, adding a third incompatible date rather than resolving the disagreement. ^{[1] [3] [30] [33]}

FAMSF describes a transparent Tehuana dress over imagery of the body and orthopaedic supports, while Potter reads the drawing as a challenge to the making of Kahlo’s public appearance. These are source-led description and attributed interpretation respectively, not independent inspection of the drawing. The date should remain contested until object files, the 2020 exhibition catalogue or other primary evidence settles it. ^{[1] [3] [30]}

Kahlo’s clothing, impairment and self-presentation are relevant to that work, but they do not allow a reader to choose whichever date better suits a biographical story. The Tate list is a useful loan and object-identification record, yet it gives no explanatory argument for 1953 and uses some broad administrative classifications elsewhere; the date dispute requires a focused owner-file check. The fashion study treats its dress and bodily presentation in wider context. ^{[1] [3] [33]}

Why Counts and Attributions Remain Provisional

Artika’s publisher materials estimate about 130 known drawings and refer to roughly another hundred lost, unlocated, privately held or otherwise inaccessible works. The numbers should be read as a claim by a publisher promoting a specialist set, not as an audited total of authenticated, surviving, individually accessible sheets. The underlying books have not been consulted, so their treatment of diary leaves, letter sketches, collaborative works and prints remains uncertain. ^[10]

The National Museum of Women in the Arts finding aid supplies a concrete warning against easy enumeration. Its Kahlo papers contain a six-item drawings series, yet the archivists say four of those items are not authoritatively attributed to Kahlo; two childlike sheets are assigned to Antonio Kahlo and “Manuel.” Several titles are descriptive folder labels rather than artist-given names, so a catalogue cannot safely turn every archive heading into an authenticated Kahlo work. ^[4]

A work may be known from an exhibition, photograph, sale or letter while its location remains unknown; a private sheet may have metadata but no accessible technical record. One bound diary contains many marks, and a single letter may hold multiple sketches. Counting pages, designs, physical sheets, impressions and catalogue entries as if they were the same unit would manufacture precision. ^{[2] [4] [10]}

The Harry Ransom Center drawing has a secure accession but an incomplete pre-1965 chain; El Salón de Belleza has sale metadata without a public provenance; the Pancho Villa sketch has a fuller history. Such differences are normal for works on paper and should be stated where relevant. Neither apparent style nor an attractive online reproduction can replace institutional attribution and object records. ^{[4] [13] [21] [8]}

Where to Study the Drawings

The public FAMSF labels remain a useful, dated guide to works brought together in Frida Kahlo: Appearances Can Be Deceiving. Potter traces the exhibition’s development from Museo Frida Kahlo through the Victoria and Albert Museum, Brooklyn Museum and de Young, where some drawings became newly visible to visitors. Those are historical displays, not an assurance that a particular privately owned sheet is on view today. ^{[1] [3]}

As checked on 3 October 2026, Tate Modern’s Frida: The Making of an Icon loan list names the original El accidente, alongside a separately catalogued exhibition copy of Representation of the Accident. The latter is explicitly a print copy, not a second authenticated original drawing; Tate also lists a 1931 graphite Portrait of Luther Burbank and a 1932 graphite The Dream from the Coronel Rivera collection. The exhibition is scheduled through 3 January 2027, but an administrative loan listing does not guarantee that every item is on view throughout the run. ^[33]

Museo Frida Kahlo identifies drawings in the Casa Azul collections, but its public archive notice said the archive was closed for restructuring when the notice was consulted. Museo Casa Kahlo, opened in September 2025, offers another possible route to family papers and previously unpublished sketches, yet its public descriptions are not an object-level catalogue. The Met’s collaborative sheets have been returned to their lender. ^{[14] [18] [31]}

For deeper study, the most important unread book is Artika’s The Dreams of Frida Kahlo, whose object list and attribution criteria would test the provisional count. The complete FAMSF/Hirmer Appearances Can Be Deceiving catalogue, Abrams’s facsimile of the diary and TASCHEN’s The Complete Paintings would be useful for further study; publisher descriptions and selected public excerpts cannot stand in for their complete texts. Archive object files at Casa Azul, the Harry Ransom Center and NMWA would clarify particular materials, inscriptions and uncertain attributions without turning this overview into a false definitive catalogue. ^{[10] [23] [32]}

Kahlo’s drawings deserve attention because they show several ways of making images on paper, not because they can all be made to confirm one biography or lead to one painting. An accident drawing, a changed study, a jointly made game, flowers in a letter and a page marked by the closing of a diary are different kinds of evidence. Their differences are the best starting point for looking more carefully. ^{[1] [13] [14] [15] [24]}

Related Reading

The prints guide separates original lithographs from modern reproductions. How to Read Frida Kahlo explains how object records and later interpretation answer different questions; Fashion and Tehuana Dress considers the clothing and self-presentation visible in several sheets.

References

1. Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, Frida Kahlo: Appearances Can Be Deceiving exhibition labels, entries for El accidente, Triple Self-Portrait, the Love Embrace and Stalin studies, Appearances Can Be Deceiving, and the 1932 lithograph. View source text.
2. Museo Frida Kahlo, chronology, 1944 diary entry. View source text.
3. Berit Potter, review of Frida Kahlo: Appearances Can Be Deceiving, Panorama 7, no. 1 (2021), sections on the exhibition's development and the disputed date of Appearances Can Be Deceiving. View source text.
4. National Museum of Women in the Arts, Frida Kahlo Papers finding aid, pp. 7–8, 22–23. View source text.
5. Christie’s, Sketch for Pancho Villa and Adelita, lot record and essay. View source text.
6. FAMSF, Frida and the Miscarriage label, accession 1996.38. View source text.
7. Sotheby’s, The Miscarriage (Frida and the Miscarriage), proof 7/19. View source text.
8. Christie’s, El Salón de Belleza, 1932 lot record. View source text.
9. Sotheby’s, Xibalba-Alado-Xólotl, lot record. View source text.
10. Artika Books, Los sueños de Frida Kahlo press kit, PDF pp. 1–3 for the publisher's approximate corpus estimate; the underlying specialist books have not been consulted. View source text.
11. Christie’s, El aborto (Frida and the Miscarriage), proof 13. View source text.
12. Museo Frida Kahlo, El accidente, owner-contributed record. View source text.
13. Christie’s, Sketch for Pancho Villa and Adelita, essay and provenance. View source text.
14. Metropolitan Museum of Art, Surrealism Beyond Borders exhibition objects, two Bloch–Kahlo exquisite corpses. View source text.
15. Sotheby’s, Kahlo letters to Ignacio Aguirre, catalogue description and provenance. View source text.
16. Museo Dolores Olmedo, A Peek at Frida Kahlo’s Diary, museum-contributed curatorial story. View source text.
17. James Oles, The Early Work of Frida Kahlo, Instituto Tlaxcalteca de la Cultura contribution, sections on early drawing, commercial engraving and the Frida in Coyoacán sheets. View source text.
18. Museo Frida Kahlo, museum and collections, early painting and collection account. View source text.
19. PBS/WETA, Accident, 2005 object note. View source text.
20. Museo Dolores Olmedo, El accidente, museum-contributed story. View source text.
21. Harry Ransom Center, Nickolas Muray collection of Mexican art finding aid, accession 66.8 and PDF p. 13. View source text.
22. Harry Ransom Center, Diego y Yo object record, inscriptions and collection contribution. View source text.
23. Abrams, The Diary of Frida Kahlo, publisher description; complete book unread. View source text.
24. Lucía Lizarbe Casado, “Ilegibilidad y prácticas de escritura multimodal en el diario-códice de Frida Kahlo”, Ondina/Ondine 10 (2025), pp. 56–70, especially the diary's layered writing, crossings-out and ink-transfer analysis. View source text.
25. Gaëlle Hourdin and Modesta Suárez, “Le Journal de Frida Kahlo: des pleins et des liés”, printed PDF pp. 183–193 on poetry, lists, drawing and colour; other bibliographies paginate the article 172–182. View source text.
26. Marine Noël and Andrea Oberhuber, “Le Journal de Frida Kahlo”, author-hosted manuscript, final publication details unconfirmed. View source text.
27. Tamira Fernandes Pimenta, Entre as palavras, o corpo e as imagens, selected printed pp. 53–61, 96–102 and 143–145; the complete dissertation has not been read. View source text.
28. Joanna Piechura, “The Symbolism of Feet in the Work of Frida Kahlo”, RIHA Journal 0258 (2021), paragraphs 27–39 and conclusion on motifs across drawings, diary and paintings. View source text.
29. Colección Andrés Blaisten, Puebla de los Ángeles, object record; collection-contributed date and dedication. View source text 1; View source text 2.
30. Museo Frida Kahlo, Appearances Can Be Deceiving, owner-contributed object record. View source text.
31. Museo Casa Kahlo, institutional collection overview; Mexico City government visitor guide. View source text 1; View source text 2.
32. TASCHEN, Frida Kahlo: The Complete Paintings, publisher description; complete book unread. View source text.
33. Tate, Frida: The Making of an Icon immunity-from-seizure loan list, exhibition header and entries X102236, X101997, X101999, X101998 and X102232; checked 3 October 2026. The list is administrative evidence and does not itself document an independent gallery visit or resolve contested dating. View source text.

Frida Kahlo

Explore Kahlo’s paintings

Continue with twelve key works, from early portraits to paintings of identity, illness and the natural world.

1. 01The Two FridasRead the painting →
2. 02The Broken ColumnRead the painting →
3. 03Self-Portrait with Thorn Necklace and HummingbirdRead the painting →
4. 04Self-Portrait with Cropped HairRead the painting →
5. 05Henry Ford HospitalRead the painting →
6. 06What the Water Gave MeRead the painting →
7. 07Self-Portrait in a Velvet DressRead the painting →
8. 08Fulang-Chang and IRead the painting →
9. 09Self-Portrait as a TehuanaRead the painting →
10. 10Roots (Raíces)Read the painting →
11. 11The Wounded DeerRead the painting →
12. 12Viva la VidaRead the painting →

Browse Frida Kahlo’s paintings →