Very shallow analysis, ignoring even the most basic scripture - 'Isn’t it interesting that her only “act” was to give birth, yet there are no works portraying her actually doing so?'
Mary's other "acts" included saying 'yes' to the Annunciation, making the journey to her pregnant kinswoman Elizabeth and uttering radical as well as poetic words that very closely echo the canticle of Hannah, mother of Samuel. Both those words and the relationship with Elizabeth represent her as an educated and probably literate women.
After giving birth she presented Jesus at the Temple, indicating she was a pious observant Jew, travelled to Egypt to protect him and returned a few years later, took him to make his bar Mitzvah (and had a fright when he got separated from the family). When he was a man she pushed him to perform his first miracle when he did not want to.
She stood and watched her son being tortured to death.
She was present with his Apostles after the Ascension.
Not many women of that period have narratives that full.
She is always conventionally shown in a red tunic and a blue cloak - flesh clothed in divinity, whereas Jesus is often shown in a blue tunic and a red cloak - divinity clothed in flesh.
Artistic convention is convention, not photographic realism, but making up stuff like Robed in pink, as opposed to chaste blue when her blue cloak is clearly visible in the picture accompanying the article undermines the rest of the writing.
Not that it needed much undermining. Badly researched.