Not long ago, a new debate surrounding Frida Kahlo’s and Diego Rivera’s estates erupted in Mexico when Hilda Trujillo, who led Mexico City’s Museo Frida Kahlo (Casa Azul) and the Museo Diego Rivera-Anahuacalli for eighteen years, publicly alleged mismanagement. Among other issues, Trujillo contends in a lengthy blog post that at least ten works and six pages from Kahlo’s diary have gone missing, with some reportedly now in private collections. The Fideicomiso de los Museos Diego Rivera y Frida Kahlo—a trust established by Rivera in the 1950s and administered by the Bank of Mexico (Banxico) to manage the museums and safeguard the collections, which belong to the Mexican people—refuted the claims as “unfounded and lacking legal or evidence-based support.”
The ongoing issue reveals the political, economic and cultural issues surrounding Kahlo’s and Rivera’s estates, which have acquired higher stakes as the former’s influence has grown. It also raises questions about cataloging practices and transparency in Mexican heritage.
A complex legacy with increasing notoriety
Kahlo’s stature as a global icon is undeniable, marked as it is by nonstop exhibitions, books, documentaries and merch drops. A new Kahlo museum, Casa Kahlo, also known as Casa Roja, is set to open in September in Mexico City. However, this was not always the case. During his lifetime, Rivera was one of the most influential artists in Mexico. This allowed him in 1955 to create the trust that ensured the opening and maintenance of two museums: the Anahuacalli, a massive cultural center primarily displaying his Pre-Hispanic art collection that he worked on from 1942 until his death in 1957, and Casa Azul, Kahlo’s former family home, which he inherited from Frida. A key part of Rivera’s gift to the Mexican people was a detailed inventory and archive including thousands of artworks, objects, photographs and documents. Kahlo’s reach, which was limited upon her death in 1954, has been growing since the late 1970s. Rivera, meanwhile, remains a significant figure nationally and is recognized globally in the context of Kahlo.
The artists’ intertwined estates have been persistently clouded by controversy involving disputes among Kahlo’s and Rivera’s descendants, questionable attributions and trademark issues. Other factors further complicate Kahlo’s legacy. For instance, as Helga Prignitz-Poda, a leading expert in Kahlo and coauthor of her 1988 catalogue raisonné, states in Hidden Frida Kahlo: lost, destroyed or little-known works (2017), the number of Kahlo’s existing works is rather small and “many of the works are either lost, destroyed, in collections that are inaccessible or with collectors who refuse to lend them.”
Coyoacán’s Casa Azul, where Kahlo was born and spent her last days, has also evolved over time, transforming from a once dusty and underkept house to a sought-after pilgrimage destination for those interested in exploring Kahlo’s life, mainly through meaningful objects and part of her work. In 2003, its significance increased even more when, under Trujillo’s tenure, thousands of documents, photographs and a few artworks were found hidden in a bathroom and other areas of the home that had remained locked for over 50 years.
The Kahlo works allegedly missing from Casa Azul
Trujillo’s allegations, based on four years of research, paint a complex picture. Why go public now, years after her contested exit from the museums in 2020? “It wasn’t until mid-2022 that I started to obtain key materials to document the claims, such as the three pages of Rivera’s original inventory,” she told Observer. While her allegations are varied, those regarding missing artworks carry serious repercussions. For one, Rivera stated the works should always remain in the museum holdings. Additionally, they are National Artistic Monuments and have dramatically increased in market value.
In 2009, Trujillo discovered six two-sided pages were missing from Kahlo’s diary. At the time, the diary—an important part of Kahlo’s work produced during the last decade of her life and until then stored in a safe—was compared to the 1990s facsimile edition, exhibited at the venue. She states she obtained the video recordings of such findings through 2023. More pages were reportedly ripped out before the 1990s, including one allegedly burned by Martin Mobarak, a Mexican-American tech entrepreneur, in 2022 as part of an NFT stunt. Another, Trujillo noted, is in a private collection.
SEE ALSO: A Guide to Washington, D.C.’s Unknown Art Collections
Concerns about missing artworks extend beyond Kahlo’s diary. Reportedly, at least two early 1950s oil paintings, Frida in Flames and Congress of People for Peace, both in the three pages of Rivera’s donation inventory that Trujillo had access to, are held in private collections she documents on her blog with inventory and sales records. Trujillo alleges eight of Kahlo’s drawings are also missing from Casa Azul’s collection. “The pieces ended up in five or six traceable collections, some in the U.S. and others in Mexico. Some of the pieces have been exhibited, while others have been sold online,” Trujillo said.
Trujillo repeatedly voiced her concerns to Banxico’s trust representatives and INBAL and continues to do so. However, she is adamant that only the authorities are entitled to look into the issue. “I am speaking up to warn that there is a risk concerning the donations made by Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo… and that authorities and public opinion must intervene to ensure the wishes of these individuals, who donated their works to the nation, are respected,” she explained.
Trujillo is not the only one who alleges that items are missing from Casa Azul. “For years, perhaps ten, I have known many things have disappeared from Casa Azul, because I am familiar with the inventory of Diego Rivera’s donation,” Prignitz-Poda told Observer via email. “It is up to the Mexican authorities to determine when and who committed these thefts… Casa Azul’s management should have drawn attention to these objects earlier. I don’t engage in speculation. My work is art history, and it deals with works whose loss I deeply regret.”
Banxico and INBAL’s official positions
In a statement titled “Kahlo and Rivera’s legacy is not to be manipulated, distorted or diminished,” which followed Trujillo’s claims but doesn’t call her out specifically, Banxico’s trust asserted the allegations are “unfounded, erroneous and lacking verifiable evidence. They present no facts or documents that can withstand serious legal or museological analysis… It is unacceptable to impose an unfounded narrative to discredit the work of an institution that has operated rigorously and responsibly for 70 years.” The statement also noted that “the person” who made the claims did not formally report the situation during their tenure.
Given the designation of both artists’ works as National Artistic Monuments, Mexico’s Ministry of Culture and National Institute of Fine Arts and Literature (INBAL), which, according to a 1972 Mexican heritage law, is mandated to oversee their conservation and issue export and reproduction permits, are also involved in this matter. “INBAL requested the relevant information from the authorities of this institution, who hold the inventories and records of said collection,” INBAL noted in a statement. “Regarding the sale of works by Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo abroad, INBAL clarifies that it has not granted any permits for the definitive export of works by these artists,” the communication added. National media have pressed the two institutions for more concrete action.
Complex implications and related controversies
As of now, no legal proceedings have been made public, although internal reviews may still be underway. These issues are not unique to Mexico, as controversies surrounding the estates of influential artists crop up globally. The Lucian Freud authentication debates and issues surrounding the authenticity of Jean-Michel Basquiat works come to mind, as does Ana Mendieta’s estate opposing the use of her image. However, in Mexico, historically unsystematic cataloging practices and the lack of transparency in heritage management can fuel controversy, as can the complexities of a private trust overseeing national holdings that have acquired unprecedented traction globally.
A separate issue surrounding another museum tasked with preserving the artists’ legacies, funded by art patron Dolores Olmedo in 1994 through a trust, further complicates the landscape. The Museo Dolores Olmedo, housed in a former 16th-century Xochimilco hacienda, managed by Olmedo’s son Carlos Phillips Olmedo after she died in 2002 and home to her important collection of Rivera’s and Kahlo’s works, abruptly closed in 2020. Reports allege that the collection of Olmedo, who was also an influential figure in Banxico’s trust technical committee for almost 50 years, will be relocated to Chapultepec’s Aztlán recreation park, with no official timeline and uncertainty as to why the museum’s closing was even allowed.
In national media, these issues will likely continue to escalate, but the real impact on the handling of the artists’ estates, which is connected to three important museums in Mexico City showcasing initially Rivera’s and afterwards Kahlo’s reach in the country and beyond, remains to be seen. At least regarding the works allegedly missing from Casa Azul, for now, the ball remains in Banxico’s court.
Ed. note: Banxico, INBAL and Mexico’s Ministry of Culture were contacted for this story but opted not to provide comments.
