She did. We did.

Frida Kahlo, Tunas (Still Life with Prickly Pear Fruit). 1938. Oil on Masonite.

I'm going to have to go ahead and say that I still think you're wrong Michael.  Frida was a good artist, because she was a good painter.  Thomas Kincaid doesn't even touch his own paintings (that's a future blog).  I was making the point in the video that all of those artists are good, amazing painters, Georgia, DaVinci, Dali, Picasso...

I'm sorry, you can't seperate someone's ability to paint from the fact that they're an artist. You can't say "Well, Warhol was a good artist, but he was a horrible print maker."  Just like you cant say "Betty Crocker wrote some good recipes, but she was a terrible cook"  (betty crocker is fictional, but you can substitute her for your chef of choice)

"If she painted apples on a table, no one would've looked twice."

Apples painted by Frida's hand, informed by her experiences, are not apples painted by Cezanne.  I challenge you to think about the fact that someone who can look at an apple as an extension of herself, as her own bleeding heart on the table has the ability to make MORE interesting apples then say someone like Cezanne, who saw apples for shapes and forms and color and light, and appley-goodness.   I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that in my opinion, Frida is a better painter then Cezanne, and a lot of other painters-of-apples out there.

She did paint apples on tables.  We did look, and we still are looking.