April 2025

What Happened To The Works Of Frida Kahlo And Diego Rivera?

LOSSES AND APOCRYPHA IN THE COLLECTION OF THE DIEGO RIVERA ANAHUACALLI AND FRIDA KAHLO CASA AZUL MUSEUMS

Hilda Trujillo Soto

I am deeply grateful to each and every one of my friends who helped me, although for personal reasons they preferred to remain anonymous.

This testimony is made public for the sole purpose of informing and raising awareness about the importance of protecting our artistic heritage. The situations and behaviors described are based on observed and documented facts, with no intention of harming any person or entity. I fully recognize and respect the presumption of innocence and do not seek to judge anyone; my goal is simply to make public true, relevant and demonstrable facts in order to foster constructive dialogue and promote actions that safeguard our cultural heritage for future generations, as its protagonists wished.

This publication comes after almost 5 years of gathering evidence, documentation and testimonies.

Presento y documento hechos que presencié y viví durante los más de 18 años que trabajé en los Museos Diego Rivera  Anahuacalli y Frida Kahlo Casa Azul —ambos dependientes de un Fideicomiso del Banco de México—, primero como directora adjunta —entre octubre de 2002 y octubre de 2009—, luego como  directora —hasta octubre de 2020—  bajo las órdenes de Carlos García Ponce, presidente del Comité Técnico del Fideicomiso relativo a los Museos; de Carlos Phillips Olmedo, director general de los museos; del  delegado fiduciario del Banco de México, José Luis Pérez Arredondo y, a partir de 2018, bajo la coordinación de la directora de Educación Financiera y Fomento Cultural del Banco de México, Jessica Serrano Bandala¹.

The events I am referring to are allegedly related to: 1. The missing works that had originally been catalogued within the collections of Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo in the Frida Kahlo Casa Azul and Diego Rivera Anahuacalli museums; 2. The inexplicable location, to date, of several of these pieces —catalogued and classified by Diego Rivera and collaborators— in private collections; 3. The alleged loss of pages from Frida Kahlo’s Diary and, 4. The attribution to artists of apocryphal pieces, which could constitute a way of legitimizing the falsification of works of art.

I am motivated by a commitment to the care of artistic heritage and to the transparency of the administration of the Museums. The Comptroller's Office and the directors of the Bank of Mexico are aware of the facts which are the reason for my public complaint, but to date they have not taken any action to clarify the complaints I have filed. I still ask myself why, if the directors of the Bank are aware of these complaints, they have not acted to find out and, if so, proceed and investigate. ²

¹ In 2018, the administrative structure of the Bank of Mexico was modified to create the General Directorate of Financial Education and Cultural Promotion (DEFFC by its initials in spanish), on which the museum trusts and the Financial Education area of the Bank of Mexico depend, in accordance with Article 15 Bis, Internal Regulations of the Bank of Mexico. This modification was made by the then governor of the Bank of Mexico, Alejandro Díaz de León, who appointed Jessica Serrano Bandala to the position.

² I am convinced of the role that the different actors in society must play in preserving and caring for the artistic and cultural heritage, which is one of the greatest treasures that humanity has: art and culture, the result of its social process. It is precisely there where Mexico occupies a place as a world power. The custodians of this heritage are the cultural promoters and museum directors, but also the whole of society.

On The Works Of Art Missing From The Collections Of The Frida Kahlo Casa Azul And Diego Rivera Anahuacalli Museums

Between 1953 and 1957, Diego Rivera compiled lists of the works that were in the Casa Azul and the Anahuacalli Museum, which was under construction at the time and would not be inaugurated until 1964, 61 years ago in 2025. This meticulous endeavor of listing the artworks and materials was carried out by Rivera, with the support of Frida Kahlo herself, and of Teresa Proenza, the painter's personal secretary, and his friend Elena Vázquez Gómez. After Frida Kahlo's death on July 13, 1954, the patron Dolores Olmedo and the businesswoman Emma Hurtado, who became Diego Rivera's wife in 1955, joined the task. 

Fig. ia. Author unknown. Photo of Diego Rivera with his prehispanic art collection and an unknown artwork by Frida Kahlo, June 13, 1954.

Fig. ib. Ivan Dimitri. Fotografía de Diego Rivera y Anita Antunes, ca. 1945.

Following this cataloging process, Rivera’s donation to the “People of Mexico” would be established, materialized through the creation, before a notary public, of a Trust under the guardianship of the Bank of Mexico. The Trust agreement is irrevocable. It was established by Diego Rivera with the Bank of Mexico and is dated August 19, 1955, in Deed No. 19066, granted by Notary Public number 6, of the Federal District. Later, Diego Rivera himself made modifications through complementary deed No. 54637, dated September 10, 1957, before Notaries 71 and 10 of the Federal District³. 

It was Diego Rivera’s own decision that the Anahuacalli Museum building, its surrounding land (over 40,000 square meters), and the Blue House—where his wife, Frida Kahlo, was born, lived, and died—along with their collections of artworks (by Kahlo, Rivera, and other artists), pre-Hispanic artifacts, books, furniture, jewelry, clothing, photographs, documents, correspondence, and other personal objects, would collectively form part of their legacy to the Mexican people.These items, housed within the two buildings, were designated as a national heritage.

It should be noted that the discovery of the immense treasure of this valuable collection took place in the Casa Azul, Frida Kahlo Museum in 2003 and the work carried out for its rescue over four years: cleaning, classification, digitalization, restoration, was widely disseminated in 2007 by the national and international press in the framework of the Centennial Anniversary of Frida Kahlo. From what was found multiple investigations and publications were carried out in Mexico as well as in various countries. 

Additionally, and even more importantly, the copyrights of Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo were included as part of this legacy, by decision of the painter himself. It is necessary to emphasize that Rivera was the sole and universal heir of his late wife Frida Kahlo.

All these assets constituted the donation that was placed under the custody of the Diego Rivera Frida Kahlo Museums Trust under the custody of the Bank of Mexico.⁴To oversee and direct the operation a Technical Committee was established and the original members were selected⁵; the duty of the Committee was and has been to oversee and direct this Trust. In addition, Rivera stipulated that the income generated by the royalties and the operation of the museums should be used solely and exclusively to keep these facilities open to the public.

The artist formalized the constitution of the donation “To the People of Mexico” through the Trust and before a public notary in 1955, modified in 1957 also before a notary public; in the final contract of the trust, Diego Rivera appears as donor and trustor; the people of Mexico, as beneficiary; and the Bank of Mexico, as trustee. 

The notarial document includes a series of lists detailing the donated assets; first, the land that comprises the property in Pedregal de San Ángel, Pueblo de San Pablo Tepetlapa, Coyoacán, where the Anahuacalli Museum is located; second, the collection of archaeological pieces that will appear in the deed as an appendix with the letter “I,” which covers 404 pages, and third, in the appendix with the letter “J,” various pictorial and drawing works, some furniture, works of art and various objects; this appendix is a 208-page document. 

At the time, according to the notarial document, the Fiduciary Delegate of the Bank of Mexico took possession of these inventories; all inventories were signed by Diego Rivera, Dolores Olmedo and Alfonso Quiroz Cuarón, who was the fiduciary delegate. 

The notarial document, on the other hand, established that under no circumstances or pretext could the objects belonging to the heritage be removed from the premises. This means that they could not even be borrowed for exhibitions or taken under any other circumstances.

It is serious, and is one of the objectives of this document, that assets that would have been catalogued by Diego Rivera as belonging to the Casa Azul have not only been removed from the premises - from where, I emphasize, "under no reason or pretext" should they have been extracted - but some of these are in private collections or have appeared at auctions. 

Some of the assets catalogued by Rivera from the Frida Kahlo Casa Azul Museum in the 1957 inventory appear in the lists of assets, Figs. iii, iv and v, which are displayed below.

Following the death in 2002 of Dolores Olmedo, “director for life” of the Diego Rivera Anahuacalli and Frida Kahlo Casa Azul Museums, Carlos García Ponce, president of the Technical Committee of Trust⁶ —who appointed me as deputy director and later as director of the museums—asked me to open a bathroom at the Casa Azul that had remained closed for nearly 50 years; although Rivera himself had given instructions that it should remain closed for 15 years after his death, it remained closed for almost half a century. 

Fig. vi. Graciela Iturbide, photo of Frida Kahlo's bathroom in Casa Azul, 2006. These pictures were taken when the collections were being taken out from bathrooms and trunks..

Fig. vii. Patti Smith, photos taken in the Museo Frida Kahlo Casa Azul, 2012. Around this time, artworks and archives were being restored.

When I started the work, I noticed that other spaces were also closed: trunks, storage rooms, wardrobes, desks, drawers, as well as the bathroom in Frida's bedroom; even the terraces that sheltered other material goods such as furniture were covered.

The one who decided to leave these spaces “closed”⁷ was Dolores Olmedo herself. Although her argument was that she would always respect the decision of the Maestro Diego Rivera, the truth is that she never liked Frida, perhaps out of envy and jealousy from long ago: Dolores was in love, in her youth, with Alejandro Gómez Arias and, later, with Diego Rivera, however, both preferred Frida. By chance, for these two women, Gómez Arias was their great love of youth, while Diego Rivera, their great love of adulthood.

Fig. viii. Diego Rivera, Nude with Long Hair (Dolores Olmedo), lithograph, 1930.

Fig. xix. Diego Rivera, Nude with Beads (Frida Kahlo), lithograph, 1930.

Fig. x. Diego Rivera, Self-portait with hat, oil-paint on canvas, 1907.

Fig. xi. Frida Kahlo, Portrait of Alejandro Gómez Arias, oil painting on wood, 1928.

Without money to carry out the arduous work of cleaning, classification, registration, digitization and then restoration, in 2004 we were able to count on the specialized and professional support of ADABI —Support for the Development of Archives and Libraries of Mexico, AC—, an institution that with a team of professionals participated in the rescue of the archives that consist of more than 22 thousand documents, more than a hundred drawings and works of art, around 6,500 photographs, 2,800 books and nearly 300 textiles. 

The complex endeavour took just over four years in its first stage. At the same time, the museum team and I recorded, among other objects, jewelry, votive offerings, toys, newspapers, magazines and personal items belonging to Kahlo and Rivera. Years later, between 2011 and 2012, Carlos Phillips asked his collaborators—names are omitted by request—to carry out a cross-check examination of the works by Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera included in the original lists of Diego Rivera's donation and compare them with the collections at the Casa Azul. Two collaborators who worked directly in my area supported them in their work. 

Since Carlos Phillips held the first results of the investigation, still in manuscript version —Fig. xii, xiii and xiv—, it became evident that works of art by Frida Kahlo, when compared with the original list catalogued by Diego Rivera, did not appear in the current collections.

Fig. xii, xiii and xiv. Copies of the manuscript of the cross-checked inventory of Frida Kahlo Museum made by researchers from Dolores Olmedo museum during 2011-2012.

Fig. xii bis, xiii bis and xiv bis.

I became partially aware of the results of the study at the beginning of 2013; the documents I was able to read from this report showed that pieces originally catalogued in 1957 now belonged to private collections. How and when did these artworks leave the Casa Azul? 

When I asked Carlos Phillips what he would do with this information, he only replied that he ‘didn't know what Lolón had done’, as he called his mother, Dolores Olmedo. I asked him to urgently inform the federal cultural authorities, specifically CONACULTA (National Council for Culture and the Arts, now the Secretariat of Culture) and INBAL (National Institute of Fine Arts and Literature) about these results, he told me that he would send a copy to the lawyers of the Trust, at that time Lic. José Luis Pérez Arredondo, who was the general fiduciary delegate for the museums of the Banco de México for almost 15 years, to the Procuraduría General de la República (Attorney General's Office) and to the National Institute of Fine Arts and Literature.

Enfatizo: a mí no me compartieron los resultados de ese estudio. Carlos Phillips conservó el documento original y, pocos días después, despidió a los colaboradores que participaron en el estudio y les confiscó los listados. Pude rescatar algunas hojas de la investigación que son las imágenes arriba presentadas (Fig. xii, xiii, xiv y bis). El cotejo de estas imágenes con las anteriores (Fig. iii, iv y v) –son tan sólo tres páginas dentro de las cientos que poseen los apéndices del testamento-, permiten mostrar que algunas piezas clasificadas en 1957 por Rivera, hoy, strangely, appear as part of private collections..

Below I present, with their images and information, some of the works listed as Diego Rivera's donations, which should be in the Frida Kahlo Museum and which, in the inventory created from 2011, no longer appear as part of the Museum's collection, but are located in other collections.

This is the central issue. Pieces from the original collection are in private funds and I consider that, as a Mexican society, we are owed an explanation in this regard. To clearly detail the cases, I will refer to specific pieces that were in what I call the inventory carried out by Diego Rivera or inventory and classification of 1957; I compare it with the inventory that the museum commissioned from 2011, which shows that some of these works already have another owner. This is still a partial content.

³ It should be noted that after the 1955 deed, Diego Rivera moved part of the collection, which included documents, drawings, books, among other belongings, to his home-studio in San Angel and they remained in the custody of his daughter Ruth Rivera. The lists I refer to in this document correspond to the final donation of 1957.

⁴ The official name of the Trust does not have an “and” between the two names of the museums.

⁵ El Comité Técnico, de acuerdo con el acta constitutiva debe estar formado por 11 miembros, y es el órgano supremo de gobierno del Fideicomiso. Sus miembros, como quedó establecido en el Acta Constitutiva del Fideicomiso de los Museos Diego Rivera Anahuacalli y Frida Kahlo del Banco de México en 1957, fueron: Dolores Olmedo Patiño, Eulalia Guzmán, Emma Hurtado, Juan O´Gorman, Carlos Pellicer, Heriberto Pagelson, Teresa Proenza y Elena Vázquez Gómez, y como consejeras Ruth Rivera y Guadalupe Rivera; la presidencia del Comité quedó a cargo de Dolores Olmedo y la dirección técnica a cargo de Diego Rivera. A principios de 2020 se renovó el Comité Técnico, pues la mayoría de sus integrantes habían fallecido y se integró entonces por Carlos García Ponce, como presidente (ya fallecido); Guadalupe Rivera Marín, como secretaria (ya fallecida); Carlos Phillips Olmedo, Irene Phillips Olmedo, Diego López Rivera, Juan Pablo Gómez Morín, Silvia Pandolfi, Walter Boesterly, José María Pérez Gay,  a su muerte lo sustituyó Roberto Gavaldón (fallecido en el 2023), Graciela Cantú, a su muerte fue nombrada Guadalupe Phillips Margain, Carlos Ruiz Sacristán, y Luis Mancera Arrigunaga. Es reciente la incorporación al Comité de la fotógrafa Cristina Kahlo. Tras la muerte de Carlos García Ponce –en mayo de 2024-, su lugar no ha sido ocupado. 

It should be noted that with the conflicts between Bank of Mexico and the Phillips Margain family, added to the passing of the members mentioned, the decisions of the Technical Committee, in the last four years, have been taken by a minority that does not comply with the rules established in the constitution of the Trust.

⁶ Every decision regarding museums must be authorized by the Technical Committee, although it should be noted that this was not and is not the case. Dolores Olmedo completely dominated this body and the decisions were made by her; after her death, her son, Carlos Phillips, dominated and controlled the Technical Committee until internal conflicts arose in 2021. Currently, in the new stage of the Technical Committee, control of the decisions is in the hands of Jessica Serrano, director of Financial Education and Cultural Promotion, and has the support of the members of the Rivera family and two other members of the Committee. However, to date the Technical Committee functions irregularly, there is no majority because the number of members established in the constitutive act has not yet been completed and three of them, members of the Phillips Olmedo family, do not attend the sessions and only send their legal representative who, invariably, votes against any proposal.

⁷ In the closed rooms and bathrooms there were more than twenty empty frames as if someone had removed the works of art from them. On the outside of the furniture and drawers there were old, rusty, broken seals; inside them, objects, writings, photographs looked jumbled and scattered, it seemed as if that they had been searched.

Fig. xvi. Frida Kahlo, Frida in Flames , oil painting on canvas/masonite, 1954.

In the inventory compiled by Diego Rivera, under the number A.F. 17,^8a is the artwork Frida in Flames.Some authors refer to this work with the title Frida in a Landscape with the Sun on the Soil and Loose Hair, or Self-Portrait of a Sunflowerbut in Rivera’s 1957 cataloging, two artworks appear under different names: Frida in a Landscape… and Frida in Flames., with the numbers AF 16 and AF 17, respectively. The 2011 analysis refers to the two works separately; it says that Self-Portrait with Head Inside a Sunflower was destroyed; with respect to Frida in a Landscape with the Sun on the Soil and Loose Hair,it says that it belongs to a private collection in the United States. In contemporary catalogs, the work Self-Portrait of a Sunflower is presented as private property. In Peter von Becker's book, “Frida Kahlo Retrospect” (2010), it is stated that it belongs to a private collection in the USA. It is inexplicable that, if it was originally from the Frida Kahlo Museum, from the legacy donated to the people of Mexico, it is now in a private collection.

^8a AF means Frida's Archive.

Fig. xvii. Frida Kahlo, People's Congress for Peace, oil painting on masonite, 1952.

People's Congress for Peace, (Fig. xvii) is an oil on masonite painting from 1952 that appears in Rivera’s catalogue under the number AF 18. In the 2011 list, it is said to belong to the collection of the gallery owner Mary-Anne Martin; in 1988, Helga Prignitz Poda, in the “Catalogue Raisonné”, attributed the ownership to Ramis Barquet, from New York. In 2020, this piece was again put up for sale at an auction house (see table “A”). It is unknown how and why it left the Frida Kahlo Museum.

Fig. xviii.  Frida Kahlo, American Freedom, sanguine on paper, undated. 

In the catalogue made by Rivera, he refers to the existence of the pieces, Sketches for an ironic monument to Yankee freedom, from 1944, with catalog number AF 34, and Sketch for American Freedom painting, without date and with catalog number AF 39. We found that in the 2011 study, the artwork American freedomis cited, although dated in 1933, which refers to the inventory number AF 34 in the list made by Rivera. It literally states: “courtesy Mary-Anne Martin”. Peter von Becker in his book, Frida Kahlo Retrospektive, also states that it is the property of Mary-Anne Martin. Once again, why is it not in the collections of the Casa Azul?

Fig. xix. Frida Kahlo, The Sun Peeked Through the Window, graphite on paper, 1932..

The Sun Peeked Through the Window, from 1932, is a pencil drawing on paper, signed by the painter. In the 1957 list it has the number AF 12 40. There it is detailed that on the back it has a sketch with Diego's face in a bad mood. It appears in the study commissioned by the general management of the Museum in 2011 and is attributed to the Gelman collection. Peter von Becker attributes it to the collection of the Vergel Foundation. Who authorized the sale of this work to a private collection?

Fig. xx. Frida Kahlo, Portrait of Irene Bohus, graphite on paper, undated.

The examples continue. If we analyze the list prepared by Rivera, we must ask why certain works are not in the Casa Azul; one such case is Portrait of Irene Bohus,with catalog number C. 3101, from 1957, which appears as property of the Mary Eaton collection of the USA, according to Peter von Becker, and which was auctioned on November 15, 2019, where it was sold for 156,250 dollars (see table “A”), are not in the Blue House, among others.

Fig. xxi. Frida Kahlo, Drawing for a brewery^8b, graphite on paper, undated.

Or, why is Drawing for a brewery, with inventory number C. 3103, not in the archives of the Frida Kahlo Casa Azul Museum?

^8b In Diego Rivera's 1957 list, this work appears with the title Dibujo para una cervecería (Drawing for a Brewery); however, in different publications it appears as Casa pacífica (Peaceful House) or Casa de Campo (Country House).

Fig. xxii. Frida Kahlo, Fantasy of a Stove, graphite on paper, undated.

Why was Fantasy of a Stove (The House on Fire), which Rivera and friends catalogued with the number C. 3107, in a private collection and then put up for auction? (See table “A”)

Fig. xxiii. Frida Kahlo, "Drolatic" drawing (Object in parts), graphite on paper, undated.

¿How could it be explained that "Drolatic" drawing (Object in parts) with number C 3108, appears later, according to Peter von Becker's catalogue, as part of a private collection, and that it was auctioned on December 14, 2020 for 126 thousand dollars? (See table “A”).

Several of the works mentioned above, such as "Drolatic" drawing (Object in parts) and Fantasy of a stove have appeared on the Internet, where they are offered for auction (see table “A”).

Fig. xxiv. Frida Kahlo, Mi chata ya no me quiere (My little girl doesn't love me anymore), graphite and ink on paper, 1935.^8c

I am also aware that on the Frida Kahlo Museum archive the drawing on paper Mi chata ya no me quiere (My little girl doesn't love me anymore), from 1935, as well as the study drawing  My Grandparents, My Parents and I. are nowhere to be found. How did they leave the Frida Kahlo Museum? 

^8c Helga Prignitz-Poda, Hidden Frida Kahlo (Munich: Press Verlag, 2017), 72.

Fig. xxv. Frida Kahlo, Study drawing for My grandparents, my parents and me, graphite on paper, 1936.^8d

In addition, lithographs of The Abortion and 8 trials (of this same artwork, as stated in the list made by Rivera) some of them numbered by Frida herself. One of them has the inscription "19th" and "last trial". I can confirm that these artworks are not in the archives and there are no pictures of them.

^8d Ibidem, 178.

Table A Images of missing works detected by researchers at the Museo Dolores Olmedo in the Frida Kahlo Museum's collections that have been auctioned and that appear on the internet; this table contains the images and the texts with which they were presented for auction.

Name of the artwork: Portrait of Irene Bohus, drawing “Druolic”* Year: 1947
Technique: Graphite on paper Size: 36 x 21.6 cm Owner: Mary Eaton Collection: Private, USA Name of the book: Peter von Becker, Frida Kahlo Retrospektive, Prestel Verlag 2010, Berlin. Number 124. Page 199.
*Name that Frida gave to this drawing
This work was auctioned on Sotheby's official website on November 15th 2019, where it states that it was sold for $156,250.

 
[THE FOLLOWING TEXT WAS EXTRACTED FROM SOTHEBY'S WEBSITE]

Description: Frida Kahlo Portrait of Irene Bohus graphite on paper 13 1/4 by 8 1/2 in. 33.6 by 21.6 cm. Made in 1947.
Provenance: Estate of Mary Eaton, Private Collection, California, Acquired from the former by current owner
Exhibited: Berlin, Martin Gropius Bau; Vienna, Bank Austria Kunstforum, Frida Kahlo Retrospective, April–December 2010, cat. no. 124, p. 199, illustrated in color 
Literature: Dr. Solomon Grimberg & Hayden Herrera, Frida Kahlo. A Song for Herself, New York 2008, p. 88, illustrated.

Condition:This work is in good condition overall. The media layer is stable. There are very faint horizontal creases in the sheet in the upper half of the work. There are some spot foxing stains at the extreme edges of the sheet. A very fine 1/8 inch diagonal ink mark is present in the upper left quadrant, above the figure's arm. There is a very faint gray handling mark in the lower right corner. The sheet is attached to the mat by the top edge. This creation of characters, who exist so that Kahlo the woman can grapple with the psychological reality of Frida the painter, offers us an opportunity for speculation and an introduction to the private realm that the artist represents. In it, tragedy and mockery of the same, lament and satire, weeping and laughter, are strategies that dominate equally. Portrait of Irene Bohus (1947) is a parodic and seemingly vengeful portrait. This refers to Irene Bohus, a painter active in Mexico with whom Diego Rivera had a love affair upon his return from New York and his divorce from Frida in 1939. Nickolas Muray, the photographer with whom Kahlo was in love between 1937 and 1939, was probably the one who introduced them to this other Hungarian and also to Paulette Goddard, Charlie Chaplin's ex-wife with whom Rivera also had an affair.

In 1940, Diego declared that Frida’s best works were sublimations of her anxieties; indeed, Kahlo seems to use representation as a means of venting the problems she encounters both within herself and with her subconscious. In this parody of Bohus, she ridicules her false braid and Oaxacan headdress before ceremoniously engendering a character with phallic extensions in place of upper limbs, covered in protruding tongues and hairs and whose vagina, crowned by an imp or succubus, drips urine, which collects in a bucket the inscription: “I beg you/I ask you.”
The other effigy, Partial Object, bears a clear iconographic resemblance to the poetic-surrealist technique of the exquisite corpse that Kahlo had been playfully developing with Lucienne Bloch since 1933. In this case, however, the line is drawn and finished with just one hand with a specific intention: the figure emulates a deity, apparently built as an altar and reminiscent of a pre-Columbian sculpture, or perhaps a maternal goddess of a sacrificial nature whose body is fragmented (evoking Coatlicue).
The caricature has an exorcist effect and is offered as a tabernacle or altarpiece for this purpose. In a gestalt effect, infinite breasts, cocks, tongues, mouths, vaginas and other indistinguishable orifices form first a face and then the kneeling character herself. Both drawings are inspired by the popular Mexican tradition of a device rooted in Catholicism and the colonial era: the votive offering. These small votive offerings recount a specific anecdote or traumatic event in the life of the creative artist. They serve to reconcile the protagonist with the horror experienced. By painting them, the person can thank God or a saint for their intervention and help. 

The Oaxacan poet Andrés Henestrosa used to say that José Clemente Orozco, Dr. Atl, and Frida Kahlo were the “bright lights of mutilation” in the history of Mexican art. These two sketches clearly show how, by tearing apart the hard-to-digest actors of her emotional life and dissecting the drama of her own existence into episodes, Frida Kahlo performed, by her own hand, the psychoanalysis she so desperately needed.

Carlos A. Molina, PhD.

«Probably some people expect from me a very personal, “feminine”, anecdotal portrait… maybe they expect to hear me complain about “how much one suffers”, living with a man like Diego. But I don’t believe that the banks of a river suffer from letting the water run, or that the earth suffers because it rains, or that the atom suffers by discharging its energy…»

—Frida Kahlo, 1949

Name of the artwork: «Object of Parts», “Druolic”* drawing Year: 1952
Technique: Graphite on paper Size: 33.6 x 21.9 cm Owner: Mary Eaton
Name of the book: Peter von Becker, Frida Kahlo Retrospektive, Prestel Verlag 2010, Berlin. Number 147. Page 199.
Collection: Blaisten, New York

*Name that Frida gave to these drawings

It was auctioned on Sotheby's official website on December 14, 2020, selling for $126,000.

[THE FOLLOWING TEXT WAS EXTRACTED FROM SOTHEBY'S WEBSITE]

Description: Frida Kahlo 1907 – 1954 “Object of Parts” Graphite on paper
13 1/4 by 8 5/8 inches (33.6 by 21.9 cm) Framed: 23 1/2 by 18 1/4 inches (59.7 by 46.4 cm) Executed circa 1947.

Condition Report: This work is in overall good condition. The sheet is attached to the mat by the reverse side of the top edge. The media layer is stable. There are very faint horizontal creases throughout the work. In the lower left quadrant there are two faint two inch diagonal creases. Some spot foxing is present along the edges of the sheet outside the central composition. Three spot dark brown discolorations are present on the lower right edge of the sheet.

The lot is sold in the condition it was in at the time of sale. The condition report is provided to help you assess the condition of the lot and is for guidance only. Any reference to condition in the lot's condition report does not amount to a complete description of the condition. Images of the lot are part of the lot's condition report. Some images of the lot provided online may not accurately reflect the actual condition of the lot. In particular, the online images may depict colours and shades that are different from the actual colours and shades of the lot. The lot's condition report may refer to particular imperfections of the lot, but you should be aware that the lot may have other flaws that are not expressly mentioned in the lot's condition report or that are not shown in the online images of the lot. The condition report may not refer to all flaws, restoration, alteration or adaptation. The condition report is only a statement of opinion. For that reason, the condition report is not an alternative to taking your own professional advice as to the condition of the lot. NOTWITHSTANDING THIS ONLINE CONDITION REPORT OR ANY DISCUSSION REGARDING A LOT, ALL LOTS ARE OFFERED AND SOLD "AS IS" IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS OF SALE/DEALING APPLICABLE TO THE RESPECTIVE SALE.

Provenance: Mary's Estate Private Collection California, Acquired from the former by current owner Eaton, California

Literature: Dr. Salomón Grimberg & Hayden Herrera, Frida Kahlo. Song to Herself, New York, 2008, illustrated p. 112

Name of the artwork: «House on Fire», “Druolic”* drawing Year: 1947
Technique: Graphite on paper Size: 34.3 x 21.9 cm Owner: Unknown
Name of the book: Peter von Becker, Frida Kahlo Retrospektive, Prestel Verlag 2010, Berlin. Number 122. Page 199.
Collection: Private, USA

*Name that Frida gave to these drawings

It is currently listed for auction on Sotheby's official website, bidding is closed, however, it does not indicate whether the work has already been sold. 

[THE FOLLOWING TEXT WAS EXTRACTED FROM SOTHEBY'S WEBSITE]

Description: Frida Kahlo House on Fire
Graphite on paper 13 1/2 by 8 5/8 in.
34.3 by 21.9 cm. Made circa 1947.

Condition: The work is in overall good condition. The paper is hinged to a matte finish along the top edge. There is some light yellowing to the extreme edges of the paper. The medium is stable. A circular mark, approximately a quarter inch in diameter, potentially not inherent to the work, is present in the left center quadrant (to the left of the moon figure). In response to your inquiry, we are pleased to provide you with a general condition report of the property described above. Since we are not professional conservators or restorers, we recommend that you consult with a restorer or conservator of your choice who will be better able to provide a professional and detailed report. Prospective buyers should inspect each lot to satisfy themselves as to condition and should understand that any statements made by Sotheby's are merely subjective and qualified opinions.

NOTWITHSTANDING THIS REPORT OR ANY DISCUSSION OF THE CONDITION OF A LOT, ALL LOTS ARE OFFERED AND SOLD "AS IS" IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS OF SALE PRINTED IN THE CATALOG.

Name of the artwork: «Casa pacifica», “Druólico”* drawing Year:1947
Technique: Graphite on paper Size: 34.3 x 21.9 cm Owner: Mary Eaton
Name of the book: Peter von Becker, Frida Kahlo Retrospektive, Prestel Verlag 2010, Berlin. Number 125. Page 199.
Collection: Private, USA

*Name that Frida gave to these drawings

It is currently published for auction on the official Sotheby's website, the bidding is closed, however, it does not indicate whether the work has already been sold.

[THE FOLLOWING TEXT WAS EXTRACTED FROM SOTHEBY'S WEBSITE]

Description: Frida Kahlo, House in Harmony. Graphite on paper. 13 1/4 by 8 1/2 in.
33.7 by 21.5 cm. Made circa 1947. Provenance: Private collection of the estate of Mary Eaton, California

Literature: Dr. Salomón Grimberg & Hayden Herrera, Frida Kahlo. Song to Herself, New York, 2008, illustrated p. 84 Condition: This work is in overall good condition. The paper is hinged to the mat along the top edges. There is visible yellowing/discoloration at the extreme edges of the paper. The medium is overall stable.
In response to your inquiry, we are pleased to provide you with a general condition report of the property described above. Since we are not professional conservators or restorers, we recommend that you consult with a restorer or conservator of your choice who will be better able to provide a professional and detailed report. Prospective buyers should inspect each lot to satisfy themselves as to condition and should understand that any statements made by Sotheby's are merely subjective and qualified opinions.

NOTWITHSTANDING THIS REPORT OR ANY DISCUSSION OF THE CONDITION OF A LOT, ALL LOTS ARE OFFERED AND SOLD "AS IS" IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS OF SALE PRINTED IN THE CATALOG.

Name of the artwork: «People’s Congress for Peace», 1952, “Druolic” drawing* Technique: Oil and tempera on canvas mounted on Masonite Size: 20.3 x 25.4 cm
Owner: Ramis Barquet, New York Books: Helga Prignitz Poda, et Frida Kahlo, Das Gesamtwerk, Frankfurt, 1988, no. 131, illustrated p. 170
Collection: Mery-Anne Martin, New York, USA

*Name that Frida gave to these drawings.

On Sotheby's website we find that the bidding for this work ended on “June 29” without indicating the year, sold for $2,660,000.

[THE FOLLOWING TEXT WAS EXTRACTED FROM SOTHEBY'S WEBSITE]

Description: The Avant-garde Spirit: Modern and Surrealist Masterpieces from a Significant Estate. FRIDA KAHLO 1907–1954. PEOPLES CONGRESS FOR PEACE. Signed Frida Kahlo (bottom center); dated Oct 52 (bottom right). Oil and tempera on canvas mounted on Masonite. 8 by 10 in. 20.3 by 25.4 cm. Painted in October 1952. Provenance: Ramis Barquet, New York. Acquired from the former Literature: Raquel Tibol, Frida Kahlo: Chronicle, Testimonies and Approximations, Mexico City, 1977, illustrated pl. 17; Martha Zamora, The Brush of Angustía: Frida, Mexico City, 1987, illustrated in color p. 364; Helga Prignitz Poda and others, Frida Kahlo, Das Gesamtwerk, Frankfurt, 1988, no. 131, illustrated p. 170; Luis-Martín Lozano and others, Frida Kahlo, Mexico City and Milan, 2000, p. 231 with color illustrations; Salomon Grimberg, Frida Kahlo: The Still Lifes, New York, 2008, illustrated in color p. 124 

◥ Click above to see more

Based on this information, it is necessary to answer the following questions: Why did some works classified and catalogued by Diego Rivera as museum heritage end up in private collections? Who sold them and when? Why have the cultural authorities —CONACULTA, now the Ministry of Culture, and INBAL—, the Bank of Mexico Trust and the PGR —now the Attorney General's Office of the Republic— not acted if the 2011 study already showed shortages? Did Carlos Phillips Olmedo deliver the study to the cultural authorities, to the Bank of Mexico and to the PGR? What actions has the Bank of Mexico Trust taken to recover the lost heritage of the Diego Rivera Anahuacalli and Frida Kahlo Casa Azul museums? What actions is the National Institute of Fine Arts and Literature taking to protect these assets that have been declared Artistic Monuments of the Nation?

Over time, I have been able to ascertain that although most of the missing works on these lists were sold during the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, works have recently been sold at a famous New York gallery specializing in Latin American artists, the Mary-Anne Martin. Others are in private collections in the United States and Mexico, as can be seen in the books published on Frida Kahlo's art and in the international and national exhibitions. I have also found that many of the works are sold at different auction houses; these sales can be consulted on the Internet.

On the other hand, the current owners and those who have sold these works of art must explain how they were acquired, since they are property of the Mexican Nation, as stipulated in the will and the lists of donations of Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo, through the Bank of Mexico Trust. These works must be part of the collections of the Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera Anahuacalli Museums, but in addition, the Federal Law on Archaeological, Artistic and Historical Monuments and Zones of 1972 prohibits their exit from the country - except in cases authorized for exhibitions - given their declaration as an Artistic Monument.⁹

I reiterate that through emails and physically delivered letters, I repeatedly asked Carlos Phillips Olmedo and José Luis Pérez Arredondo to take the necessary actions and report these events to the federal authorities. 

I addressed these issues again when Jessica Serrano Bandala took over the position of Director of Financial Education and Cultural Promotion at the Bank of Mexico, as well as with the administrator of the Trusts, Dolores Moreno, with the lawyers of the Trust and of course with the collaborators of the museums, Perla Labarthe, Teresa Moya, Laura Zavala and Karla Niño de Rivera. They all acted as if they did not understand me or did not listen; they ignored and let such events go by. They never took my complaints into account and, to this day, there is no action taken for what appear to be crimes against the property of the Nation.

The only time I was summoned at the time of my departure, in November 2020, in the gardens of the Dolores Olmedo Museum in Xochimilco, I reminded Carlos Phillips and one of the trustees, Luis Alberto Salgado, of these issues, and they just kept quiet. I never heard from them or anyone else from the Bank or the Trust. To date there has been no contact, although I have repeatedly sought it through emails, letters and have sent the printed and physical delivery of this information.

⁹ Diego Rivera's work was declared a National Artistic Monument by presidential decree of December 15, 1959; Frida Kahlo's work was declared a National Artistic Monument by presidential decree of July 18, 1984.

2.- About the stolen pages of Frida Kahlo's Diary and the auction, sale and destruction of some of these

 I will now refer, in detail, to facts that I was able to witness and that lead me to conclude that 12 pages of Frida Kahlo's Diary were stolen, without, as far as we know, any investigation having been carried out. I speak of 12 pages in principle, because I witnessed the missing pages directly; however, I have reason to suspect that other pages have been stolen.

Until mid-2003, the original El Diary by Frida Kahlo, was displayed in a yellow wooden display case covered with glass, in a corner of the so-called second room of the Casa Azul, Frida Kahlo Museum. It is a hardcover, leather, maroon notebook, measuring 24.5 cm x 16 cm, with handwritten initials in gold on the cover: JK, while on the rib, also in gold, the letter K and the word Poems appear. 

It is a book that, as documented by Sara Lowe in her essay in the 1997 edition of the publishing house La Vaca Independiente, was written by the artist during the last decade of her life. In these pages, Frida Kahlo referred to the physical deterioration she was experiencing, while reiterating her infinite desire to live.

It should be noted that at the end of 1994, the publishing house La Vaca Independiente published a first facsimile edition in two volumes, facsimile and transcription, of Frida Kahlo's Diary; it consisted of 3,000 copies and was printed in Madrid; the editor clarified that all the characteristics of the original Diaryhad been respected, with the exception of the pages that the author left blank. Even then, the publishing house specified that after the artist's death, several pages had been torn out. Raquel Tibol points out that the pages torn out after Frida Kahlo's death were the first pages of Diary which is basically an area that contains text, but it was unknown who did it and what happened to those pages.  

Later, in 1995, the same publishing house, La Vaca Independiente, published a comercial edition of Frida Kahlo's Diary,which contains the facsimile edition, as well as the transcription of the texts, comments and an essay by Sarah Lowe, and an introductory text by Carlos Fuentes, which has been re-edited on several occasions.

The facts I describe below indicate the loss of 12 pages that were photographed and published by the independent publishing house La Vaca Independiente. In other words, they were stolen after the publication in the nineties.

At noon on a Monday in June 2003, Carlos Phillips arrived at the Frida Kahlo Casa Azul Museum to inform Ignacio Custodio, then the museum's administrator—a position he had held for years—and me, who had recently arrived as deputy director of the Frida Kahlo Casa Azul and Diego Rivera Anahuacalli museums, of his decision to remove the original Diary from display and place a facsimile in its place.

Then, Carlos Phillips Olmedo, General Director of these museums, argued that the original would be removed from exhibition in room 2 of the Frida Kahlo Museum and would be kept in an old safe that was located in what had been Diego Rivera's bathroom, a place used by the painter as a space to store documents, books and newspapers. That day in 2003, next to some of Frida's jewelry, Phillips placed the Diary in the large safe and locked it with a security code.

Years went by and in September 2009, when a special cabinet had to be installed to safeguard the collections - which was acquired thanks to a donation from the German Embassy - the cumbersome safe had to be moved. To do so, I called Carlos Phillips on the phone to ask him to open and place the Diary in a new safe. 

Upon arriving at the scene, Carlos Phillips did not remember the security code to open the safe. Given this circumstance, it was necessary to request the services of a specialized locksmith [Fig. xxvi]. The events occurred on September 18, 2009; my collaborators, Carlos Phillips, and I were present; in total there were eight people at that time to remove the Diaryfrom the safe, as well as a set of jewelry.

After opening the box, in the presence of everyone, a collaborator placed these objects on the dining room table at the Casa Azul; the events were recorded by security cameras, to register the goods, take photographs and, very importantly, compare the original Diary with the published copy, both with the facsimile and with the commercial edition sold in bookstores, both published by La Vaca Independiente.¹⁰

However, when comparing the original Diary with the published editions, we were shocked to find that six sheets of the Diary were missing, and since Frida Kahlo wrote and drew on both sides of the pages, a total of 12 pages of her drawings and writings were missing. ¹¹

I immediately asked for a detailed record to be drawn up and signed by the people present; I must clarify that it was signed by seven people; by then Carlos Phillips had left. I proceeded to notify the trustee of the Bank of Mexico, José Luis Pérez Arredondo, of what had happened by telephone. One day later I informed Phillips and Pérez that I would send them a copy of the minute that served as a detailed record of the events, which I did by means of a letter delivered to their offices. Carlos Phillips asked me not to include his name. See Fig. xxvii, which is the copy of the minutes.

On September 25, 2009, I sent Carlos Phillips the administrative minutes or record of the Museum that was drawn up on September 18, 2009, in which the events that had occurred were described. Additionally, in this letter [Fig. xxviii], I expressed to Carlos Phillips and to the trustee delegate José Luis Pérez Arredondo the need to inform the Technical Committee of the museums, the cultural authorities of the country, the president of Conaculta and the director of the INBAL of the events that we witnessed. I added there that it was important to draw up a record before the Public Ministry denouncing the absence of those pages of Frida Kahlo's El Diary, given that they constitute part of the artistic heritage of the country.

I recently confirmed who was present at the Frida Kahlo Casa Azul Museum when the photographs were taken, in the spring of 1994, of the original Diary for the first edition of La Vaca Independiente. Bob Schalkwijk, a prominent photographer, took the photos in a session of about six hours; once he took the photographs, he left the place. However, I found that it was José Juárez, who was then Dolores Olmedo's partner, who manipulated the piece so that Schalkwijk could take the photographs. At all times, José Juárez was watching over the Diary, without leaving him for a single moment; he handed it over, guarded it, and picked it up for safekeeping. 

Who took the pages from the Diary? At what point or points were said pages taken? Why, in other words, have neither the Bank of Mexico nor the National Institute of Fine Arts and Literature taken action in this regard, even though they are responsible for monitoring the painter's copyright and preserving her work, which has been declared a National Artistic Monument?

I suspect that the answers to these questions were held by Dolores Olmedo, the person in charge of the museum at the time, Ignacio Custodio, Olmedo's secretary, Laura Pérez, who was in charge of the Frida Kahlo Museum for a time, and José Juárez, Dolores Olmedo's partner.

El Diary,, based on the analysis written by Sarah Lowe in the edition of La Vaca Independiente, consists of 171 intervened pages, plus 18 blank pages, without intervention.¹² I maintain that the comparison carried out in September 2009 revealed the absence of six continuous sheets (Fig xxix). 

It is not possible to indicate the numbering of these pages here because Frida Kahlo did not intend to do so, but there is a continuity of dates. All these missing pages are from March 1953 and, in addition, a group of pages containing mainly drawings was deliberately removed. Based on the classification made by Sara Lowe for the edition of La Vaca Independiente, I cite below the names of the missing pages —based on what Frida Kahlo herself wrote—, in the order in which they appeared, and with the numbering that Lowe attributed to each page. The following table includes the missing pages from the original Diary that were published in the facsimile and in later editions made by the publishing house La Vaca Independiente:

LIST OF MISSING PAGES IN FRIDA KAHLO'S Diary, :

After the events of September 2009, in the following days, months and years, I asked, and even pressured, Carlos Phillips and the trustee of Banco de México, José Luis Pérez Arredondo, to notify the federal authorities about the missing pages. I never found out if they did so, they did not inform me and they did not respond to my protests and requests to inform the federal authorities about the disappearance of the pages of the Diary. 

What is even more complex is that these claims were added to those of the missing works in Diego Rivera's donation, which I mentioned in the previous section. During all those years and up to this date, I have not received any response.

General of Banco de México; he was succeeded by other trustees. The trustees and the current museum managers, as well as Carlos Phillips and the members of the Technical Committee, are well aware of these facts about the loss of the pages of the Diary.

The first pages of the Diary are basically texts and wordplays; later Frida Kahlo made small drawings and, as the pages go by, these become larger. Towards the middle of the Diary, the drawings fill each page, the strokes become predominant and the phrases, words or narrations become complementary. It was part of that dialogue between word and image, characteristic of Frida Kahlo's work.

It is surprising that in various book publications and catalogues on Frida Kahlo's work, pages from the Diary appear in the possession of private collections. At what point were they separated from the rest? 

I would like to refer to the two pages of the Diary, both front and back, which, according to the Gelman collection catalogue from 2004, were part of its collection (Fig. xxx). The two pages were made in watercolor, crayon, pencil, pen and ink on paper. These pages do not appear in the publication of the Diary (1994) edited by La Vaca Independiente; however, there are reasons to believe that they were removed from the Diary before the facsimile was made. The rough cut in the page that destroyed part of the work is evident—and regrettable. It is questionable that an art collection would have such a piece. How did it get into its funds? Who was it bought from? Is it not obvious, perhaps, that this is an alleged theft and destruction of a total work of art, heritage of the Mexican nation?  

The strangest thing is that this sheet from the Diary is the same one that in July 2022 was supposedly “burned” by a collector in the United States to generate a series of NFTs (Fig. xxxii). According to the statements of this collector, named Martin Mobarak, the sheet was acquired in the same New York gallery referred to in the first section of this text, Mary-Anne Martin, indicated as the gallery that has sold most of the works that appear in Diego Rivera's donation lists. It is worth asking: How did it go from the Gelman collection to the Mary-Anne Martin gallery?

This matter, like others related to art, the destruction of heritage, the alleged theft of copyrights and apocryphal pieces, has not been investigated or reported on in a timely manner by the National Institute of Fine Arts and Literature. It is another of the unfinished issues, with no institutional response.

I reiterate once again, upon my departure in October 2020, neither the officials of Banco de México nor Carlos Phillips wanted to carry out the delivery-receipt protocol that involves the review of inventories; also, as I have said, I requested an audit of my administration and the museum collections, to the governor of Banco de México, Alejandro Díaz de León, to the deputy governors, to Jessica Serrano Bandala, to the trustees at that time, to Pérez Arredondo himself as general auditor of Banco de México, but I never received a response.

All of this is the result of what I always witnessed during my time as director in charge of the museums: a policy of “You let me, I let you” to which I always opposed; so many things were always tolerated by each other. Such behavior, without a doubt, has affected and continues to affect the heritage of the nation, of the Diego Rivera Anahuacalli, Frida Kahlo and Dolores Olmedo museums.

¹⁰ I retain a copy of the video recording and it is available to anyone who requests it.

¹¹ Attached are the drawings of the missing pages of Frida Kahlo's original Diary compared to the copy of the diary printed and edited by the publishing house La Vaca Independiente, first edition dated November 29, 1994.

¹² This fact was also confirmed by M. Cristina Secci in the book With the Image in the Mirror, the Literary Self-Portrait of Frida Kahlo, UNAM, Mexico 2009, p. 15.

3.- DIEGO RIVERA AND A WARNING LETTER FROM DETROIT

Linda Downs, executive director of College Art in Detroit, in mid-2014, requested to review the digital archives of Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo located at the Frida Kahlo Museum, with the purpose of conducting research on Diego Rivera's stay in Detroit, said research resulted in a book Diego Rivera: The Detroit Industry Murals. 

A couple of months after her visit to the archives, the researcher sent me a letter in which she informed me that Graham Beal, director of the Detroit Institute of Arts, was very surprised when she told him that some notebooks that Rivera made with drawings of the murals of that city were not in the collections of the Frida Kahlo Museum. I reported the fact again and sent a copy of the letter to Carlos Phillips and José Luis Pérez Arredondo, later I communicated this to the officials who succeeded them at the Bank of Mexico. I did not receive any response or indication. As before, there was only silence. The letter is attached (Fig. xxxiii).

4.- NON-COMPLIANCE WITH AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS

In 2013, an external audit was carried out on the Frida Kahlo Casa Azul and Diego Rivera Anahuacalli Museums by the firm PWC and requested by the lawyers of the Bank of Mexico Trust itself. The results indicated that the museums' collections should be registered before a notary public and that these records should be in the hands of the members of the Technical Committee, the highest authority of the Trust.    

I requested this action from Carlos Phillips and the trust attorneys, as shown in the copy of the email attached (Fig. xxxv), but they never made any effort to respond to the recommendation. I retain the results of the audit, which urges that the matter be addressed. Additionally, this PWC audit calls for an inventory and insurance of the museums' works and for complete documentation of the museums' collections.

I consider it necessary to dwell on this point because the failure to comply with the recommendations of the PWC audit is one of the causes of this lack of transparency that I point out here. The cost involved in hiring PWC was very high; the recommendations were pertinent and yet they were ignored, which shows an irresponsible waste of resources.

This audit determined the need to carry out a study on the possible deterioration of the pieces, that is, an annual study to ensure the condition of the pieces of art. On the other hand, at the time the audit was carried out, in 2013, the need to complete the physical inventory of the pieces was established—with detailed information on the works, their characteristics, location, photograph of the piece and the calculation of the value of each artwork. A period of three years was even established to carry out this inventory in the Frida Kahlo Casa Azul Museum and a period of 10 years in the case of the Diego Rivera Anahuacalli Museum. This recommendation was not fulfilled as the auditors had demanded, because it was ignored, despite my insistence, by the trustees of Banco de México, by the Technical Committee of the Trust and by Carlos Phillips Olmedo, General Director of both Museums.

5.- Sale of artworks of the Diego Rivera Anahuacalli Museum

One day, someone, apparently of North American origin, arrived at the Anahuacalli Museum. He asked for “Don Enrique,” who was Diego Rivera’s construction master, and who was in charge, for more than 50 years, of opening and closing the doors of the Museum and its warehouses. Only Mr. Enrique García, a resident of San Pablo Tepetlapa and Diego Rivera’s construction master, and no one else, had a copy of the keys to those spaces; with the exception, of course, of Lola Olmedo, who also controlled a set of keys. According to the American citizen, “Don Enrique” had sold him some pre-Hispanic pieces. In response to this, he was informed that “Don Enrique” was not in at the time. 

That day I reported the incident to Phillips and the lawyers of Banco de México; once again, they said nothing and just kept quiet. So, I decided on my own to take the keys away from “Don Enrique” and to not let him or his children, who also frequented the place, enter the premises again. Their belongings were placed on the street and they did not come back in. I documented everything and informed my superiors, that is, Carlos Philips Olmedo, the Technical Committee and the Trustee Delegate of Banco de México, José Luis Pérez Arredondo.

6.-ABOUT AN APOCRYPHAL PIECE BY DIEGO RIVERA

When Alejandro Díaz de León was governor of the Bank of Mexico, on the occasion of a visit to a Diego Rivera exhibition at the National Museum of Art, MUNAL, he invited the collaborators of the Financial Education and Cultural Promotion area, members of the Fund for the Development of Human Resources, the then director of MUNAL and me to lunch at his offices. 

That day, Díaz de León mentioned that the Bank had among its collections a work by Diego Rivera, Flower Stand, from 1936. I was going to speak up to clarify that there were doubts about the authorship of that painting, however, an official's nudge stopped me from intervening. Here, once again, the policy of hiding the sun with a finger. Neither then nor later have they reviewed and analyzed the fact that Dolores Olmedo sold to that institution, in the seventies, a work attributed to Rivera although it is vox populi that it was not an original work. You do not have to be an expert to realize this. 

Lola Olmedo seduced and convinced her interlocutors; if she did not succeed, she applied political pressure; if she still did not achieve her aims, then she threatened. These were threats which, it is said, she usually carried out. Her convincing power counted on the naivety, ambition and ignorance of his interlocutors. If she did not achieve her goals, she often resorted to the use of power and the leverage of money, an area in which she was extremely adept.

7.- OTHER APOCRYPHA

Fig. xxxviii. Works falsely attributed to Frida Kahlo.

In the so-called Casa del Risco, Museo Isidro Fabela, also dependent on the Bank of Mexico Museum Trust, in March 2020, Iliana Ramírez, director of the facility, with no experience for the position, was about to exhibit two works falsely attributed to Frida Kahlo in the temporary exhibition Women in 20th Century Art¹³ (Fig. xxxviii). Only when I warned Banxico's lawyers that they were fake paintings did the director have to withdraw them. Although they were not exhibited, both pieces do appear in a printed catalogue made for the exhibition. There were hundreds of printed copies that now rest in a warehouse. Despite the lack of action by Banxico's directors on the issue, the media has picked up this information (see Fig. xxxix).

On the other hand, according to Casa del Risco staff, during Iliana Ramírez's administration as director, a valuable coin on display in one of the museum's rooms disappeared in 2016. It was part of the collection donated by Isidro Fabela to the Nation through a trust fund of the Bank of Mexico. The coin no longer appears on the lists of the Casa del Risco, Museo Isidro Fabela collections. Namely, the trust fund of this institution never followed up on the whereabouts of that coin. The facts published in newspapers such as El Excélsior have not been denied by the Bank of Mexico and can be verified in the original lists of the collection.

When Ramírez decided to retire from the post, a new director, Gabriela López, was appointed, but she was not officially handed over the inventory of the collection, which should be a requirement under the Presidential Agreement, cited above, which establishes the minimum bases for safeguarding the integrity and preservation of cultural assets housed in museums owned by the federal government or financed with federal resources dated February 19, 1986, issued under the presidency of the Republic of Miguel de la Madrid. It should be noted that this Trust received federal funds for its maintenance until a couple of years ago.

I have reconstructed this case because it is further evidence of the irregularities and omissions in the management of assets by Banxico directors in the various museum trusts.

¹³ More information about this exhibition can be found at: https://www.museocasadelrisco.org.mx/temporales/171

Conclusions

Since the founding of the Diego Rivera Frida Kahlo Trust of the Bank of Mexico, the various officials of that institution who passed through there did not put nor have put much interest in the museums; the high authorities of that institution cared about pleasing “doña Lola Olmedo”, feared, respected and loved at the same time; they did not interfere with her, they let her act as she pleased and did not prevent abuses. It was after the death of Dolores Olmedo that a certain administrative and legal order began to be established in the museums by the then trustee delegate, José Luis Pérez Arredondo and Carlos Philips Olmedo, clearly this had its limits marked by fields of interest.

It must be acknowledged, however, that it was thanks to Dolores Olmedo that the Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo museums remained open for more than half a century, during which time she appointed herself “director for life.” Government support for the museums was extremely limited; “Lola,” as she was known, focused her own resources on the Anahuacalli Museum, where she completed the main building, the central courtyard, the gallery, the offices and the collections warehouse designed by Juan O’Gorman. It was she who supported the completion of the original museography by Carlos Pellicer and later the intervention of the brothers Jorge and Emeterio Guadarrama. And every year she set up a large ofrenda in memory of Diego Rivera.

However, Dolores Olmedo's enthusiasm for the Museo Frida Kahlo Casa Azul was not the same. She found Frida unpleasant; she always made explicit her disdain for the painter, perhaps out of jealousy. It is likely that this feeling led to the Casa Azul being abandoned for several decades. Dolores Olmedo's own words portray it in her description of Frida Kahlo: "Who would have said that one would provide my food?" 

However, it is a fact that today museums open their doors thanks to Diego Rivera, Frida Kahlo, Dolores Olmedo and the Bank of Mexico.

Sixty-nine years after Diego Rivera's donation to the "People of Mexico," Banxico has not been able to respond to the task it accepted to safeguard the collections of the museums that house part of the national heritage work that is essential to understanding the history, identity and memory of our country.

Safeguarding artistic heritage assets requires care, sensitivity and knowledge. Bureaucracy cannot be over the nation's heritage assets. In no way can Mexican artistic works be in the hands of officials who do not know how to value what they must guard, care for and disseminate. The cultural heritage and symbolic value cannot be underestimated in favor of the economic. It is not about "a box that jingles."

For this reason, it is necessary to clarify what responsibility the officials and former officials of the Bank of Mexico, members of the Technical Committee of the Trust, as well as the people who have been put in charge of the museums, have and should have.

To date, the strategy of the Olmedo family, the officials of the Bank of Mexico and the Technical Committee, as well as those who have been put in charge of the museums, has been to remain silent about the events described here; however, they owe an explanation to society.

I do not doubt that there can be solutions to compensate for the loss of artistic heritage and to put an end to the abuse of power. There are viable conditions to begin a thorough investigation. The missing works in the collections donated to the “People of Mexico” in accordance with the will of Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo must be recovered and relocated to the Diego Rivera Anahuacalli and Frida Kahlo Casa Azul museums. To do so, one can go to the original registry of the works through the lists left in writing by Diego Rivera. On the other hand, the current location of several of these works can be traced on the Internet, where some appear for sale. They must be returned to the museums to comply with what Diego Rivera determined before a public notary to bequeath his heritage and that of Frida Kahlo to the people of Mexico. It is a heritage whose custody and care constitute a trust accepted by the Bank of Mexico since 1955.

In the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic and in the absence of responses to my official emails and letters delivered in person to request an official delivery that included a review of the collections, I requested in writing through letters to the governor of the Bank of Mexico, Alejandro Díaz de León, to the deputy governors, later also to the new governor, deputy governors and various officials of the institution, a comprehensive audit in order to record the delivery and receipt of the existing and missing collections. I have even personally sought out some officials of Banxico itself, but as I have said several times, I have only found deaf ears to my multiple requests of which I keep official sealed delivery-receipt copies.

También escribí a la Auditoría Superior de la Federación y, con base en la Ley Federal sobre Monumentos y Zonas Arqueológicos, Artísticos e Históricos, del 6 de mayo de 1972, y el Acuerdo para la preservación del patrimonio de los museos del 19 de febrero de 1986, solicité auditorías y entrega oficial; pero tampoco en este caso se hizo algo. Toda esta información también es conocida por cada uno de los miembros del Comité Técnico y los y las actuales colaboradores y excolaboradores de los Museos Frida Kahlo Casa Azul y Diego Rivera Anahuacalli.

It is surprising how little care the Bank of Mexico gives to the collections of the museums under its charge, the negligence and lack of interest of Bank of Mexico officials in caring for the artistic and historical heritage of the museums it manages and which are, in a strict sense, the property of the Nation. 

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the journalists and their media outlets that make it possible to disseminate information and thereby raise awareness of the risks or shortcomings that exist in safeguarding the artistic and historical heritage of our country, which is the most precious thing we have.

Fig. xl. Copies of letters and requests for an audit, following my termination from the museums at the end of 2020.

Fig. xli. Façade of the Frida Kahlo Casa Azul Museum, Summer 2019.