i am not a big fan of frida kahlo's artwork, however, i do find it quite creative and love the colors. i enjoy artwork that i can look at for long periods of time, feel myself taken into the painting. kahlo's view is just too disturbing, as was her life, or so she wanted the public to think. she spent her whole life building her image as a mythical, self-possessed, often defiant figure. she dressed in elaborately embroidered tehuana indian dresses and even altered the date of her birth by three years to say she was born in 1910, the year of the mexican revolution. now, 100 years after her real birth, researchers are uncovering a different side of kahlo not reflected in the self-portraits which made her famous . . . one of an optimistic, studious, playful side. is it the life of an artist or is it the life of a painting that makes art appealing?