Framing Goddess
SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
So, I've been around long enough to do the framing for the now adult children of my customers, so I somehow think that gives me the right to indulge in a Minor Rant. (I think that includes many of you out there, hehe!)
Gosh, these framing trends just keep going 'round and 'round. Usually they have little to do with the how it suits the artwork, let alone the well-being of the artwork.
Right now we have three large gorgeous iris prints on decent but not pristine rag paper that are to be float mounted, that is, with edges exposed. These prints would look rich and timeless overmatted- no, customer thinks they 'should' be floated. These prints will never lay flat, they have been rolled. But float we will. I'm tired of the look of floating- I dislike the way the print just magically dangles in the frame, I see no virtue in showing all of the margin of the paper. Frankly, I think they usually look "plopped" in there. Deckled edge does not a piece of fine art make. I also really dislike the way the art is supported only by the hinges on the back, I think overmatting lends so much more support to larger pieces. And never mind even thinking about shipping the thing! I think matting looks so much neater and I like that we can hide our hinges underneath the mat. Some papers show the hinges behind no matter how little water you use in the paste mix.
I find it generally to be overused and I'm sick of it.
Okay, I am a big fan of natural wood, hardwoods especially, but dangit, I am sick of plain maple being used as a default on institutional framing. Yikes, every contemporary piece is indiscriminately housed in what-will-be-a-dated-looking natural maple. And that tall stem maple moulding version, sheesh. Can someone tell me what makes that a better choice than a flat wide maple around a matted artwork? Do ya'll remember how precious we all were about white washed maple? Can anyone say 90's?
I'm sick of it.
My newest irritation is this business of using matte white on white on contemporary art. This might actually replace natural maple. Doesn't anyone realize what a nightmare white is to haul around? Nope, I can't do anything about those marks, scratches and scuffs on your perfect white frame. Yep, it was perfect and only works if it stays that way. One ding and it is no longer perfect. No, we can't match that white frame to the white paper which of course shows because it's *floated* to the rag board backing behind. Yep, the glass/acrylic WILL indeed alter that white. It will have to be a delightful symphony of whites.
I'm already sick of it.
And I have always been sick of sandwiching art between glass. This is such a tricked out technique that simply does not work visually. And it's bad for the art. Who cares about the blasted wall behind? We usually try to isolate the art from its surroundings with matting, NOT try to upstage the art with it. Will showing the wall behind *really* enhance that art somehow? Really?
And I am still sick of it.
Anyone?
edie the andstilltiredofsilveraluminumpuhlease goddess
Gosh, these framing trends just keep going 'round and 'round. Usually they have little to do with the how it suits the artwork, let alone the well-being of the artwork.
Right now we have three large gorgeous iris prints on decent but not pristine rag paper that are to be float mounted, that is, with edges exposed. These prints would look rich and timeless overmatted- no, customer thinks they 'should' be floated. These prints will never lay flat, they have been rolled. But float we will. I'm tired of the look of floating- I dislike the way the print just magically dangles in the frame, I see no virtue in showing all of the margin of the paper. Frankly, I think they usually look "plopped" in there. Deckled edge does not a piece of fine art make. I also really dislike the way the art is supported only by the hinges on the back, I think overmatting lends so much more support to larger pieces. And never mind even thinking about shipping the thing! I think matting looks so much neater and I like that we can hide our hinges underneath the mat. Some papers show the hinges behind no matter how little water you use in the paste mix.
I find it generally to be overused and I'm sick of it.
Okay, I am a big fan of natural wood, hardwoods especially, but dangit, I am sick of plain maple being used as a default on institutional framing. Yikes, every contemporary piece is indiscriminately housed in what-will-be-a-dated-looking natural maple. And that tall stem maple moulding version, sheesh. Can someone tell me what makes that a better choice than a flat wide maple around a matted artwork? Do ya'll remember how precious we all were about white washed maple? Can anyone say 90's?
I'm sick of it.
My newest irritation is this business of using matte white on white on contemporary art. This might actually replace natural maple. Doesn't anyone realize what a nightmare white is to haul around? Nope, I can't do anything about those marks, scratches and scuffs on your perfect white frame. Yep, it was perfect and only works if it stays that way. One ding and it is no longer perfect. No, we can't match that white frame to the white paper which of course shows because it's *floated* to the rag board backing behind. Yep, the glass/acrylic WILL indeed alter that white. It will have to be a delightful symphony of whites.
I'm already sick of it.
And I have always been sick of sandwiching art between glass. This is such a tricked out technique that simply does not work visually. And it's bad for the art. Who cares about the blasted wall behind? We usually try to isolate the art from its surroundings with matting, NOT try to upstage the art with it. Will showing the wall behind *really* enhance that art somehow? Really?
And I am still sick of it.
Anyone?
edie the andstilltiredofsilveraluminumpuhlease goddess