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

In Xochitl, flor de la vida, a red-pink, flower-like form rises from a small green crescent on a narrow metal panel. Nickolas Muray photographed the painting in progress without its broad stepped surround and photographed it again within that surround in 1938. [1] [2] [3] The two images make this an unusually well-documented small Kahlo painting, even though its precise physical construction, early ownership and present location remain uncertain.

Xochitl is a Nahuatl word for flower and a name Kahlo used for herself in letters to Muray the following year. [4] [5] [6] Those links give the title personal as well as linguistic resonance; they do not prove which came first, the painting or the name, or reduce the red form to a coded portrait. The work deserves attention as an object with an observable frame history, a documented title and a range of attributed interpretations—not as a solved symbol.

At a Glance

  • Artist and title: Frida Kahlo, Xochitl, flor de la vida, presented here as Xochitl (Flower of Life). The catalogue spelling has no accent; Xóchitl is a common Spanish variant, not a reason to alter a quoted title. [1] [4] [7]
  • Date, medium and size: 1938, oil on metal, 18 × 9.5 cm in Margarucci’s 2016 Museo Roca catalogue. These are painting, not Muray-print, dimensions. [1] [2] [3]
  • Historical collection credit: Dr Rodolfo Gómez, Mexico City, as catalogued in 2016. Present owner, custody and display have not been independently verified. [1] [8]
  • Distinct later work: Kahlo's La flor de la vida / Flower of Life is a larger 1943/1944 painting on Masonite in the Museo Dolores Olmedo collection, with a different composition. [9]
  • Photographic evidence: Nickolas Muray photographed the narrow painting in progress and later within a broad stepped surround in 1938. The photographs do not establish its present owner or display. [2] [3]

Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. The Narrow Panel and Its Stepped Surround
  3. Looking from Stem to Flower
  4. What Xochitl Means—and What Kahlo Wrote
  5. Flower, Body and Later Interpretation
  6. A Historical Xochitl Is Not Necessarily This Painting
  7. Photographs, Collection Credit and Present Access
  8. Sources and Open Questions
  9. Related Reading

The Narrow Panel and Its Stepped Surround

The painted area is nearly twice as high as it is wide. Its warm orange-tan field carries one centred, rising form rather than a table of separate objects or a landscape. [10] A short dark band crosses the bottom; above it, a narrow green stem enters a shallow green crescent whose tips turn upward. The red-pink structure opens above that support.

Muray's in-progress photograph shows the tall panel alone, with exposed straight edges. [2] [11] The red central form, green supporting shape and lower band are already recognisable. A separate 1938 photograph groups the painting with The Frame and Girl with Death Mask and shows Xochitl at lower right inside a much broader surround. [3] [12] The securely observed change is the surround's presence, not a reconstructable sequence of paint revisions between photographs.

In the finished colour record, the surround is predominantly dark brown or bronze-toned and advances and retreats in rectangular steps. [10] Long side pieces, horizontal rails and short projecting blocks form an outer silhouette wider and more architectonic than the painted panel. Small red, blue, pale and gold-coloured accents punctuate its dark zones. Those are uncalibrated screen observations, not identifications of metal, pigment, inlay or a regional craft tradition.

The surround's large visual weight makes the inner painting appear inset. It is tempting to call the whole object a shrine, reliquary or piece of Oaxacan tinwork, but no inspected source identifies its maker, material, function or attachment method. [10] [13] Muray's photographs establish that the frame-like structure was there by a photographed moment in 1938. They do not show who designed or assembled it, nor whether its present condition matches the historic images.

The catalogue's 18 × 9.5 cm line may refer to the painted panel rather than the whole framed object; the narrow proportions make that plausible. [1] [10] No registrar's measurement definition confirms it. Eastman's larger measurements describe Muray's gelatin-silver prints, not Kahlo's metal support. [2] [3] Keeping painting, frame and photograph separate is essential to understanding the object.

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.

Looking from Stem to Flower

The lower band provides a shallow visual base without clearly becoming soil, a tabletop or a label. [10] A pale mark near it appears in a small colour file but cannot be read reliably. No signature or inscription should be supplied by enlarging a soft digital trace; the documented 1938 date comes from the catalogue and photographic records, not a transcribed mark on the front. [1] [13]

The green stem and crescent organise the form's upward movement. The crescent can resemble a calyx or pair of leaves, yet its safest visual description is a curved green support whose two tips rise toward the red structure. [10] Against the warm ground, green and red occupy compact, strongly contrasting zones. There is no securely identifiable plant species.

Above the green, a narrower red body broadens into paired lobes that turn outward and back. Fine fringe-like lines articulate several outer edges; near the top, rounded flanks frame a darker cleft and a paler upright passage. [10] The form is approximately bilateral but not mechanically mirrored. Its mixture of petals, fibres, opening and upright core explains why readers have seen both floral and bodily configurations.

The title encourages a flower reading, and the stem supports it, but this is not a straightforward botanical diagram. [4] [10] Equally, describing a central cleft is not the same as identifying a literal organ. Close looking can establish the arrangement that later interpreters address without requiring the article to settle their competing analogies in its observation voice.

The in-progress photograph is unusually valuable here because it shows the central composition before the broad surround dominated the object's silhouette. [2] [11] It cannot disclose the unseen ground preparation, underdrawing, metal species, varnish, repair or exact order of individual strokes. [13] Differences of contrast between a black-and-white working photograph and a small later colour record could reflect photographic processes as readily as paint changes.

What Xochitl Means—and What Kahlo Wrote

The UNAM Gran Diccionario Náhuatl records xochitl as a word for flower or flowers in historical Nahuatl dictionaries. [4] The University of Oregon's dictionary adds its use as a personal name, a combining form and a day sign. [7] “Flower of Life” is the painting's established expanded title, not a literal translation of the single word xochitl. Retaining the Nahuatl name keeps that distinction clear in English.

Xochitl is also the twentieth sign in the repeating sequence of twenty day signs within the 260-day tonalpohualli. [14] That does not make it simply the “last day of the month,” as one later catalogue suggests, because the calendar is not structured as a modern month. [14] [17] Nor does a lexical or calendrical meaning establish that Kahlo placed a calendrical sign in this painting. The language is part of its documented title; an object-specific calendrical programme has not been shown.

The personal use of the name is not just a later scholar's guess. On the final page of a 16 February 1939 letter from Paris to photographer Nickolas Muray, Kahlo visibly signed “Xochitl.” [5] In another Paris letter of 27 February she referred to “Nick and Xochitl.” [6] These digitised manuscripts establish that she used the name for herself in intimate correspondence soon after the 1938 painting.

Margarucci calls it a secret name used in Muray letters, while Jaime Moreno Villarreal connects the correspondence with Kahlo's floral self-presentation. [1] [15] “Intimate name” is the narrower documented description: the two letters do not define how widely she used it or who first chose it. They do not say that Muray owned the painting, that the work was a gift to him or that the name describes a painted likeness of Kahlo.

The name was not confined to the two Muray letters. Moreno Villarreal's published caption to a photograph of Jacqueline Lamba, given to Kahlo as she left France in March 1939, records a lipstick kiss and “Xóchitl” on its reverse. [15] The original item belongs to the Museo Frida Kahlo, but its reverse was not independently examined. This attributed, object-specific report broadens the documented social setting of Kahlo's name without proving that the painted Xochitl was connected to Lamba.

The direction of influence is unresolved. Kahlo may have already used the name before painting Xochitl, or the painted form may have gained personal force during the relationship; the checked documents do not choose between them. [5] [6] [15] An indexed lead to Nancy Deffebach's discussion makes this a priority question for exact-page acquisition, but those commercial-book pages remain unread. [20] The letter evidence makes personal association relevant without licensing an origin story.

Xochitl (Flower of Life) in Kahlo’s career

Timeline source: Museo Frida Kahlo chronology [25].

Flower, Body and Later Interpretation

Margarucci describes the 1938 still life as carrying sexual connotations. [1] The central cleft, pale upright passage, paired red lobes and fringed edges make that kind of reading intelligible after close looking. [10] Her concise catalogue note does not identify a single organ or transmit a statement of Kahlo's intention. It is one interpretation alongside the title's flower reference.

Lorena Garrido Donoso's 2024 Spanish-language article approaches the name Xochitl as an alter ego in Kahlo's correspondence and relates the painting to disability, bodily difference, desire and sexual agency. [16] This reading does more than label an anatomical resemblance; it asks how a chosen name and a bodily image might participate in self-representation. The primary letters support Kahlo's self-use of the name, but the step from name to painted alter ego belongs to Garrido Donoso's argument.

Melinda Anna Vodermayer Sohl's doctoral study places Xochitl alongside the later Flower of Life and Magnolias in a discussion of corporeal and reproductive imagery. [18] That grouping can illuminate recurring possibilities in flower forms, but it does not merge the three works. Each has its own date, material, composition and documented owner. A comparison is useful only while the narrow Xochitl metal panel remains distinct from the larger Flower of Life on Masonite. [9]

An indexed passage from Enrique Revilla Cerrillo discusses a combination of female and male sexual anatomy and points onward to a 2007 national exhibition catalogue. [19] The complete chapter and cited catalogue page have not been obtained, so this remains a limited account of later reception, not an independently tested anatomical verdict. Likewise, the Grimberg article and Deffebach pages remain unconsulted and are not used as evidence for this painting. [20]

These interpretations differ in emphasis and evidential footing. A viewer can see a flower-like stem and cup, a red bilateral form and a dark central opening; scholars can make named arguments about sexuality, reproduction or self-reference from those features. [10] [16] [18] None of those arguments proves that Kahlo meant the form to depict a particular organ, a fertility event or Muray himself. The painting's ambiguity is materially present in its shapes, not a shortage to be repaired with a definitive symbol key.

A Historical Xochitl Is Not Necessarily This Painting

A reconstruction of the 1939 Paris Mexique exhibition lists a Kahlo work under the title Xochitl. [21] The entry does not supply a date, support, dimensions, owner or picture, so the title alone cannot connect it securely with the 1938 metal panel. The 1938 Julien Levy Gallery invitation likewise establishes an exhibition event, not an item-level Xochitl (Flower of Life) checklist. [22]

A serious competing identification appears in the 2017 ZAMEK exhibition catalogue. Helga Prignitz-Poda proposes, tentatively, that a 1933 Self-Portrait with Necklace was shown as Xochitl in the 1938 New York and 1939 Paris exhibitions. [17] This may ultimately be confirmed or revised by primary checklists or images, but it is enough to prevent a flat assertion that the 1938 metal painting was on those walls. The historical title and the modern object identity are different questions.

The painting's identity does not depend on that disputed exhibition attribution. Margarucci's exact object line and Muray's titled photographs independently identify the narrow painting in 1938. [1] [2] [3] The unresolved show history needs primary checklists and is treated more fully in the exhibition-history article. It should not be filled in from a shared word.

Photographs, Collection Credit and Present Access

The 1938 Eastman photographs establish a small but unusually concrete early sequence: Muray recorded the unframed panel in progress and also recorded the painting in its stepped surround beside two other Kahlo works. [2] [3] A Harry Ransom Center record identifies a further photograph of the framed Xochitl, with the original dated approximately 1940 and a later print made around 2005. [23] The print dates and dimensions describe photographs, not a repainting or sale of the metal object. None of the three archival records says Muray owned it.

The Museo Roca catalogue published the painting in 2016 as part of the collection of Dr Rodolfo Gómez, Mexico City. [1] This is a precise historical credit, but it is not a current owner or public-display statement. The accessible records do not give a first purchase, transfer from Kahlo, gallery invoice, later loan, auction, inheritance or present location. [8] No known transaction should be inferred from the fact that Muray photographed the painting or that Kahlo used its name in letters to him.

The Eastman and Ransom institutions preserve photographs of the work, not the painting itself. [2] [3] [23] Their online records can help readers inspect historical evidence independently, but they do not establish where the metal panel is stored or whether its frame survives unchanged today. A public photograph of an artwork is not the same thing as a current installation record or permission to reproduce that artwork here.

The available colour view is low resolution and not colour-calibrated. [10] It cannot support a present condition statement about corrosion, cracks, retouching or the frame's structure. No owner technical dossier, reverse image, edge view, conservation report or clear transcription of the lower marking was located. [13] These missing records matter particularly because frame, support and painting have so often been treated as one object in brief summaries.

Sources and Open Questions

The exact Xochitl entry in Lozano, Kettenmann and Vázquez Ramos's Frida Kahlo: The Complete Paintings is indexed as LKR 2021:65, but its pages and notes have not been read. [24] Nancy Deffebach's chapter Picantes pero sabrosas, especially pages 143–145 and figure 75, is a priority for the picture's title, Muray context and Gómez credit. [24] Grimberg's 2004–05 still-life article, the 2007 national exhibition catalogue page 250 and the complete Revilla chapter are further specific acquisitions, not arguments represented here as read.

A primary checklist or installation photograph with dimensions, support, owner or an image is needed to decide which Xochitl appeared in the 1938 and 1939 exhibitions. [17] [21] [22] A current owner or registrar file would be needed to establish present custody, exact panel and framed dimensions, the metal species, frame maker and materials, inscription, condition and loan history. [13] [24] The letters of February 1939 have been inspected, but a broader correspondence record might still change the story of how the title and intimate name arose. [5] [6]

Those limits do not erase the work's supported history. Its 1938 identity, oil-on-metal catalogue line, narrow red-and-green composition, photographed frame sequence and Kahlo's subsequent Xochitl signatures are independently substantial. [1] [2] [3] [5] [6] These records support a clear account of the painting while leaving its current owner and the image's origin or intention unresolved.

Flower of Life examines the distinct later painting whose similar title can confuse the two objects. Roots offers another separately documented treatment of botanical forms and their changing meanings.

Frequently Asked Questions

No. Xochitl, flor de la vida is the 1938 oil-on-metal panel catalogued at 18 × 9.5 cm and photographed by Muray. [1] [2] The later La flor de la vida is a separate, larger work on Masonite, usually dated 1943 with a 1944 variant. [9]

The Nahuatl word primarily means flower or flowers and can also function as a personal name and a day sign. [4] [7] “Flower of Life” expands the title rather than translating xochitl word for word; none of the word's possible meanings alone establishes Kahlo's intended symbolism.

Yes. She signed a February 1939 letter to Muray “Xochitl” and used the name for herself in another letter later that month. [5] [6] Moreno Villarreal also publishes a caption reporting “Xóchitl” on the reverse of a photograph associated with Jacqueline Lamba. [15] None of these records says whether the name preceded the painting or arose from it.

A historical exhibition record uses the title Xochitl, but it lacks fields that would identify this metal panel. [21] A later institutional catalogue tentatively associates that show title with a different 1933 self-portrait, so this panel's participation remains unverified. [17]

The latest directly read collection credit is Dr Rodolfo Gómez, Mexico City, in a 2016 Museo Roca catalogue. [1] No checked current owner, custody or display record confirms where the painting is today. [8]

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 do Muray's two photographs establish about the surround?

Context

What does the word *Xochitl* support, and what remains interpretive?

Open Question

Why is this not the later *Flower of Life*?

Join the Conversation

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

References

  1. Ivanna Margarucci, Frida Kahlo: Una vida a través del arte (Museo Roca, 2016), printed p.79 / PDF p.79, entry 113. The exact entry supplies title, 1938, oil on metal, 18 × 9.5 cm and the 2016 Dr Rodolfo Gómez collection credit; Margarucci's sexual reading is attributed. View source text.
  2. George Eastman Museum, Nickolas Muray photograph of Xochitl in progress, 1938, accession 1977.0188.3125; photograph dimensions are not artwork dimensions. View source text.
  3. George Eastman Museum, Muray photograph of three Kahlo paintings, including framed Xochitl, 1938, accession 1977.0188.3127; Xochitl is the distinct lower-right work. View source text.
  4. UNAM, Gran Diccionario Náhuatl, xochitl, historical Molina and Carochi entries for flower or flowers; dictionary meaning is not artist intention. View source text.
  5. Frida Kahlo, letter to Nickolas Muray, Paris, 16 February 1939, Smithsonian Archives of American Art, Digital ID 491, final manuscript page signed “Xochitl”. View source text.
  6. Frida Kahlo, letter to Nickolas Muray, Paris, 27 February 1939, Smithsonian Archives of American Art, Digital ID 761, image 6 and its “Nick and Xochitl” wording. View source text.
  7. University of Oregon, Online Nahuatl Dictionary, xochitl, flower, personal-name and calendrical uses. The catalogue spelling, dictionary forms and Kahlo's two 1939 letter signatures are compared in references 1 and 4–6; the Nahuatl lexical meaning is not proof of what Kahlo intended in 1938. View source text.
  8. Margarucci's 2016 Museo Roca entry, p.79, credits Dr Rodolfo Gómez in Mexico City. No cited later transaction or registrar record establishes current ownership or display. View source text.
  9. Margarucci's Museo Roca catalogue, printed pp.79–80, entries 113 and 134, distinguishes the 1938 oil-on-metal Xochitl from the later, larger La flor de la vida on fibreboard; compare the Muray photographs (references 2–3). View source text.
  10. Editorial close-looking note based on the Eastman Museum photographs (references 2–3) and the Museo Roca catalogue plate (reference 1); no physical examination, calibrated colour or reproduction right is implied. View source text.
  11. Eastman Museum photograph 1977.0188.3125 (reference 2), visually inspected for the narrow panel before its broad surround; the image does not date each painted revision. View source text.
  12. Eastman Museum photograph 1977.0188.3127 (reference 3), visually inspected for the stepped surround around the lower-right work; black-and-white tones do not establish its materials or colours. View source text.
  13. The Museo Roca catalogue and archive records in references 2–3 supply no support-alloy analysis, frame-construction file, conservation report or reliable inscription transcription; these remain open object questions. View source text.
  14. Heréndira Téllez, “Huellas de iconografía indígena en los manuscritos litúrgicos mesoamericanos del siglo XVI”, Boletín del Museo Chileno de Arte Precolombino 25.2 (2020), passage on the 260-day tonalpohualli and xochitl as the twentieth sign; this is not the last day of a modern month. View source text.
  15. Jaime Moreno Villarreal, Frida en París, 1939 (Turner Noema, 2021), public PDF front caption for the Lamba photograph and reverse “Xóchitl,” with bounded nickname and correspondence passages. The primary reverse item was not independently examined; this is a bounded reading of Moreno Villarreal's book, not a claim to have read a complete Kahlo monograph. View source text.
  16. Lorena Garrido Donoso, “Discapacidad y autosomatografía en las cartas de Frida Kahlo”, Nueva Revista del Pacífico 80 (2024), pp. 173–199, discussion of this painting at pp.193–194 and conclusions pp. 195–197; disability, desire and alter-ego account attributed to the author. View source text.
  17. Helga Prignitz-Poda, Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera: Polish Context (ZAMEK Culture Centre, 2017), physical pp. 68–69, Self-Portrait with Necklace entry. The identification of historic Xochitl with that 1933 painting is tentative. View source text.
  18. Melinda Anna Vodermayer Sohl, Claves de representación corporal en las poéticas de las pintoras surrealistas (Universitat Politècnica de València doctoral thesis, 2012), PDF p. 340/printed p. 325 and PDF pp. 342–343/printed pp. 327–328. View source text.
  19. Enrique Revilla Cerrillo, “Identidad fisurada y deseo en la obra de Frida Kahlo”, in La estética y el arte más allá de la academia (BUAP, 2012), indexed discussion of this painting at p.246, citing Courtney Gilbert 2007 p. 250. Complete chapter and cited Courtney Gilbert page unread; the indexed extract is only a reception lead. View source text.
  20. Further exact-source checks: Nancy Deffebach, María Izquierdo and Frida Kahlo (2015), pp.143–145; Salomón Grimberg's still-life article, pp.25–30; and Courtney Gilbert's 2007 catalogue discussion, p.250. These pages have not been directly consulted. View source text 1; View source text 2.
  21. Michele Greet, Mexique 1939 exhibition reconstruction, George Mason University project. The listed Xochitl lacks object fields needed to identify it with this painting. View source text.
  22. Frida Kahlo exhibition invitation, Julien Levy Gallery, New York, 1938, four-page digitised ephemera in the Museo Dolores Olmedo collection. It documents the event but provides no item checklist identifying this painting. View source text.
  23. Harry Ransom Center, Muray photograph record for framed Xochitl, original circa 1940, later print circa 2005. The archive's later print date and dimensions belong to the photograph, not Kahlo's painting. View source text.
  24. Additional unconsulted sources include TASCHEN's Frida Kahlo: The Complete Paintings (2021), proposed entry 65, the Deffebach and Grimberg pages in reference 20, the 2007 national catalogue p.250, primary exhibition checklists, and present owner or technical records. The locators are not evidence of their contents. View source text.
  25. Museo Frida Kahlo, Frida interactive chronology, selected work dates used for the comparison timeline. The current work's date follows its cited object record. View source text.