In about 1966/7, when I was managing the small 'Fine Art Gallery' in London's Devonshire St W1, I met a lady who's name was Marevna. Just by chance I was recently looking at a self-portrait by someone called Marevna; and I put two and two together!
I'm certain that she'd said she had been the wife of Diego Rivera. We had conversed in French, so I may well have misunderstood the meaning of 'femme'.
However, she was a fascinating and ebullient woman, and we spent several pleasant hours together over a period of several weeks, after which she invited me to stay at some estate in Mexico, where visiting painters were lodged in small cottages and got together in the evenings to discuss 'artistic things'.
Thanks to Wiki, I now discover that she had in fact been the 'mistress' of Rivera, and had a daughter by him.
Marie (Marevna) Bronislava-Stebelska had lived in Paris, where she met Rivera, then later in London (where I met her).
Goodness knows why she invited me to stay at Diego's estate in Mexico; I had absolutely no intention of going, and I don't suppose she had any right to invite me. Both Rivera and Kahlo were deceased by that time, and I have no idea what connection she had with his estate.
Discovering her self-portrait recently (above) brought it all back, and I remembered her well. She was much older when I met her, plumper, and more 'matronly' looking than in the self-portrait. I also remember her name as being Mar-ee-evna; now I know differently.
I wish Wiki had been around at the time; if I'd known her interesting history I would have delved!
A wee snippet of London life in the mid 60's.
What a face. To me that is an impressive painting. As you say, pity you didn't know exactly who she was back then. You have many tales to tell
ReplyDeleteHer name is even more impressive!!
DeleteHis name even more so (as in the title).
DeleteI wondered whether all that title was a name too. It's an entire lineage!
DeleteI think just plain Diego Rivera is much better!
DeleteRivera spread himself around very much. He liked women.
ReplyDeleteI don't really know a lot about him; he was never on my list of favourites.
DeleteI also googled her,always wanting to know more, she was born in 1892,amazing.
ReplyDeleteSo she must have been about 74 when I met her. It was all such a long time ago.
DeleteForgive me, I am confused: If Rivera painted her how can her portrait be a "self portrait"? Isn't a self portrait when someone paints him/herself?
ReplyDeletePity you were so suspicious of her invitation. Forgetting the plane fare lots of youngsters would have jumped at it.
U
It's a 'self portrait' by Marevna, not by Rivera. I didn't say it was by Rivera.
DeleteLove the story Cro. Can you explain her technique to us? I'm reading this on a small tablet and her painting appears to be comprised of...are those dots?
ReplyDeleteIt's very much post-Seurat 'Pointillisme'. Yes, tiny dots rather than brush strokes.
DeleteThe chances/opportunities we never take .....
ReplyDeleteI don't regret for one moment not taking up her invitation. I'm not the type!
DeleteThat's interesting Cro. I didn't know much about Kahlo and Rivera until I saw the film Frida last year. They had an unusual relationship.
ReplyDeleteI still don't know much about them, other than their work.
DeleteYou've certainly been around Cro (even if you didn't go to Mexico).
ReplyDeleteLiving in central London in the mid 60's had its advantages.
DeleteI so enjoy reading these little snippets of your life.
ReplyDeleteYou just never know who you will meet on any given day.
cheers, parsnip
That's how I felt at the time.
DeleteI quite like that picture, especially around the mouth and chin.
ReplyDeleteNice colours too.
Delete