Even from Michigan Avenue, it’s easy to tell that this exhibit is the Art Institute of Chicago’s “big thing.” A crowd clogs the hallway from around the corner to the door. Only specially-ticketed visitors are allowed in. Once the glass doors open, however, only a few brightly-colored self portraits, typical of Frida Kahlo, are visible. What features the most prominently are sketches on the walls and books on tables.
The Art Institute’s exhibition “Frida Kahlo’s Month in Paris”, open through July 13 to Institute members for free or to visitors for an extra $5 ticket, effectively tells its desired story, though not the one presented in its advertising.
The exhibition uses a well-known name to shed light on less popular artists, combating a trend of fame-based art consumption. Where another exhibition may have tried to load its rooms with as many recognizable Kahlo pieces as possible, the Art Institute chose to focus on Ms. Kahlo’s influence on artists she interacted with during her time in Paris, who may not have their pieces already available in museums worldwide the way hers are. Particularly, the exhibit shows the work of Mary Reynolds — artist, bookbinder and friend of Ms. Kahlo — as well as that of Ms. Reynolds’ partner Marcel Duchamp.
As long as a viewer goes into the exhibit informed about its varied display, they are sure to be compelled by its unique, story-like structure, telling of Ms. Kahlo’s and Ms. Reynolds’ influences on each other during their time together in Paris, and how their trip morphed from a simple career opportunity into an artistic adventure. It adds context to its pieces such as Ms. Kahlo’s health struggles and Mr. Duchamp’s ties with Parisian museums looking for exhibitions.
This is an important decision from the Institute, who are likely aware of how many near-empty halls of work are housed in the museum made by lesser-known artists, while lines form ahead of famous works such as “A Sunday on La Grande Jatte” and “American Gothic” just a room over.
Though this kind of marketing is necessary when many museum-goers will only interact with pieces and names they already know, the museum could have done a better job portraying the dominant role that other artists would play in the installation before viewers step into the gallery. For example, the museum’s promotional video only mentions a piece by Mary Reynolds once.
A wall outside of its entrance of the exhibit states that it is the first to show Ms. Kahlo’s and Ms. Reynolds’ work together, an intriguing angle that the advertising could have emphasized to achieve a more true picture of what to expect.
The comparative nature of the exhibition between Ms. Kahlo and Ms. Reynolds makes for an interesting perspective on a well-known artist, expanding on her life through her interactions with other artists who also deserve recognition.
