by
Tom Gurney BSc (Hons) is an art history expert with over 20 years experience
Page created on March 2, 2018 / Page updated on October 6, 2026
Email: tomgurney1@gmail.com / Phone: +44 7429 011000

Introduction

Two open roses rise from a rounded blue vase, while a third lies apart on the dark tabletop. The composition was published as Still Life (with Roses) in a 2021 account of Frida Kahlo's paintings. [1] Its arrangement is easy to describe; its authorship, precise date and ownership history demand more care.

Art historian Nancy Deffebach discussed the rose picture in a study of Kahlo's still lifes, but also cautioned that more information on its provenance and attribution was needed. [2] Salomón Grimberg reproduced and interpreted it in his 2008 book on Kahlo's still lifes, an illustrated Spanish catalogue published it in 2016, and later catalogue editor Luis-Martín Lozano treated it as an early work in an interview with Holly Williams. [1] [6] [7] This article follows that published attribution while keeping Deffebach's reservation visible rather than converting reproductions into proof of an authenticated painting.

At a Glance

  • Published title: Still Life (with Roses) in Williams's 2021 feature; Naturaleza Muerta - Rosas in a 2016 illustrated catalogue. [1] [6]
  • Date in the literature: 1924 in Deffebach; 1925 in Grimberg, the later illustrated catalogue and Williams's account of Lozano's research. [1] [2] [6] [7]
  • Visible arrangement: Two open roses in a blue vase, smaller buds above and a third rose on a dark tabletop. [1]
  • Documentary status: The 2021 image is credited to a private collection via Sotheby's New York; Deffebach earlier requested more provenance and attribution information. [1] [2]
  • Catalogue descriptions: Both Grimberg and the 2016 entry report oil on canvas mounted on a rigid support, but differ on its reported width (30.5 versus 30 cm). Neither figure has been checked against a physical-object record. [6] [7]

Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. Three Roses, Unequal Positions
  3. Two Dates in Print
  4. A Love Story, or a Still Life?
  5. An Early Flower Picture in a Larger Practice
  6. What Can Be Said of Its History
  7. Related Reading

Still Life with Roses (published attribution) in Kahlo’s career

Timeline source: Museo Frida Kahlo chronology [8].

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.

Three Roses, Unequal Positions

The two flowers in the vase are not identical. One opens toward the left and tips downward; the other turns to the right, while the buds and bent stems above them occupy a much thinner space. [1] The third bloom rests at the vase's lower right, separated from the stems but still close enough for the eye to connect all three.

The round vessel is nearly as prominent as the flowers. Its blue surface catches light at the left and narrows toward the table, setting a cool mass below the warm petals. [1] Behind it, the pale blue field and dark horizontal surface give the composition a plain setting rather than a detailed room.

That economy makes the loose rose conspicuous. Its position could suggest a flower that has been cut or fallen, but the image alone cannot tell us whether it represents a named person, a particular event or a fixed emotional state. Looking first at the differing heights and directions preserves the picture's visual complexity without requiring a concealed key.

Two Dates in Print

Deffebach calls the rose work a juvenile still life of 1924, while Grimberg's earlier book, Margarucci's illustrated catalogue and Williams's interview with Lozano present it as a 1925 painting. [1] [2] [6] [7] The difference matters because a year can change how the picture is placed in Kahlo's development, especially when an account tries to connect it to her September 1925 accident. None of these sources exposes a dated signature or original object sheet that settles the execution year in the material available for this article.

A Spanish scholarly note by Luis Roberto Vera also gives 1925 and describes the painting as oil on canvas, made for Kahlo's older sister Adriana before the accident. [4] Grimberg says it was made for Adriana and names her stepson Carlos Veraza Uthoff as someone who explained perspective to Kahlo; Margarucci likewise reports an Adriana gift. [6] [7] These accounts are relevant evidence of how the work has been described, but the passages consulted do not supply an original gift document or continuous owner record.

Even the published size is not quite stable. Grimberg's plate caption gives 41.2 × 30.5 centimetres for oil on canvas mounted on board, while Margarucci gives 41.2 × 30 centimetres for canvas mounted on wood. [6] [7] The difference may be a rounding or catalogue error, but without an examined object record it would be misleading to choose one measurement as fact.

Williams's feature says in its body that the work had not been exhibited since 1953, while the original BBC image caption gives 1954. [1] A Spanish republication gives 1952 in its text and 1954 in its caption. [5] Without the exhibition checklist, there is no sound basis for choosing a precise last showing merely because it appears in a caption; the cautious conclusion is that the painting was rarely seen in the later accounts.

A Love Story, or a Still Life?

In his original book discussion, Grimberg links the three flowers to Kahlo's youthful relationship with Alejandro Gómez Arias and Jesús Ríos y Valles: the separated bloom becomes a figure left outside the pair. [7] He invokes later reminiscences and correspondence to frame that story, but these provide biographical context, not an object-specific statement by Kahlo explaining the painting. Deffebach reports and challenges the psychobiographical approach. [2]

The distinction is between proposing an interpretation and reporting Kahlo's intention. A reader may see separation, pairing or loss in the three positions; none of those responses proves that Kahlo assigned the flowers to three named people. Deffebach's challenge is especially useful because it asks us to consider still life as painting, rather than treating each object as a direct transcript of the artist's biography. [2]

Kahlo's work does invite questions about intimacy, and this picture's spare arrangement is open to them. Yet a specific story requires a specific source: a contemporary statement, a letter tied to the painting, or a securely documented history of its making. A reported gift to Adriana appears in several later publications, including Grimberg's, but it cannot by itself make the three blossoms into portraits of named individuals. [4] [6] [7]

An Early Flower Picture in a Larger Practice

Lozano, speaking to Williams about the 2021 complete-paintings project, compares this early still life with the amateur flower paintings of Kahlo's father, Guillermo. [1] This is a useful stylistic comparison, not proof that a particular paternal canvas was copied. The rounded vase, restrained setting and close attention to petals make the work look different from the self-portraits that dominate Kahlo's public image.

Williams also reports Lozano's account of later letters discussing the symbolic meanings of flowers and fruit. [1] Those letters may illuminate Kahlo's sustained interest in plants, but the feature does not identify a passage assigning those meanings to this early rose picture. A general lifelong interest cannot be used to decode the detached bloom retroactively.

Deffebach places Kahlo's still lifes in a wider Mexican art history and resists reducing them to personal diaries. [2] The rose arrangement belongs in that conversation even while its documentary record remains thin: it draws attention through colour, the relationship of vase to flowers and the conspicuous displacement of one bloom. That formal argument is stronger when the unresolved authorship and dating questions stay beside it, rather than being concealed by a fluent narrative.

What Can Be Said of Its History

The BBC image caption identifies a private collection and credits Sotheby's New York for the photograph; Grimberg's plate and Margarucci's 2016 entry also designate a private collection without naming its owner. [1] [6] [7] Those statements tell us how the composition was presented in publications, not who acquired it from Kahlo, where it was housed over intervening decades or what examination supports its attribution. Deffebach's earlier call for provenance and attribution information still matters after the later publications. [2]

Nor should this vertical vase picture be confused with Tray with Roses, a 1924 painted tray that Grimberg says was made for Kahlo's aunt Anita and that Christie's names separately in its account of The Flower Basket. [3] [7] Similar flower titles can travel between languages and captions. The three-blossom arrangement and its published image, rather than the English title alone, identify the composition discussed here.

Still Life with Roses is most rewarding when the viewer can hold two facts together. Its few objects create a lively contrast between upright and fallen forms, and serious writers have published it within Kahlo's early work; at the same time, the available sources disagree on its year and do not close its attribution or custody history. [1] [2] The flowers remain visible even where the documentary certainty does not.

Discussion

Use the cited evidence and your own close looking to explain your view. The prompts below are starting points, not fixed interpretations.

Reader Insights

Close Looking

What can the three roses' positions establish before a biographical reading is proposed?

Context

How do Grimberg's interpretation and Deffebach's objection differ?

Open Question

Which published details identify the composition, and which questions about the physical object remain open?

Join the Conversation

Which reading best fits the evidence, and where does uncertainty remain?

References

  1. Holly Williams, “The unseen masterpieces of Frida Kahlo,” BBC Culture, 20 July 2021, illustrated Still Life (with Roses) image and caption immediately after the TASCHEN introduction; paragraphs beginning “This means looking again” and “The missing links.” The caption credits a private collection and Sotheby's New York; the interview conveys Luis-Martín Lozano's interpretation. The article body and caption differ on the last-exhibition year. View source text.
  2. Nancy Deffebach, María Izquierdo and Frida Kahlo: Challenging Visions in Modern Mexican Art (University of Texas Press, 2015), chapter 7, printed p. 136 and p. 201 n. 4. The chapter passage and note were consulted in an indexed text rendering; the linked publisher page establishes the edition, not open access to the full book. View source text.
  3. Christie's, The Flower Basket lot essay, paragraph naming the separately titled 1924 Charola de rosas; this does not identify or date the three-rose vase picture. View source text.
  4. Luis Roberto Vera, “Kahlo y Goncharova: dos mujeres,” Katharsis 15 (2013), printed p. 15 n. 9, for the 1925 date, oil-on-canvas description and reported Adriana gift. The note does not cite the specific object document behind those details. View source text.
  5. El Universal, “Las obras maestras nunca vistas de Frida Kahlo,” Spanish republication of Williams's feature, paragraph beginning “Piezas como” and rose-image caption; its exhibition years conflict. This is a translation/republication, not independent confirmation. View source text.
  6. Ivanna Margarucci, Frida Kahlo: una vida a través del arte (2016), PDF/printed p. 72, entry and illustrated plate 4, Naturaleza Muerta - Rosas; p. 86, illustration-index item 20. The entry supplies its 1925 date, material, dimensions and reported Adriana gift but no named owner or source document for the gift. View source text.
  7. Salomón Grimberg, Frida Kahlo: The Still Lifes (London and New York: Merrell, 2008), printed pp. 18 and 20–21, directly read and p. 20 plate directly inspected in a time-limited Internet Archive loan; index p. 174. These pages distinguish the 1924 tray from the 1925 rose canvas and present the author's own biographical interpretation. The full book and the original documents behind its notes were not read here. View source text.
  8. The Museo Frida Kahlo chronology supplies the comparison-work dates. The rose composition is published as 1924 by Deffebach (reference 2) and 1925 by Grimberg, Margarucci and the BBC/Lozano account (references 7, 6 and 1); these publications do not settle the original object's attribution or exact execution date. View source text.