What a Difference the Right Frame Makes

Create a Post
Right again, Baer. Love it!
 
OK ...I'll say it. I think both frames work well with the painting but do give it an entirely different look. Maybe the second is more appropriate for the period of the still life but I actually somewhat prefer the first one.

No accounting for taste or lack thereof...

:shrug:
 
Dave said:
OK ...I'll say it. I think both frames work well with the painting but do give it an entirely different look. Maybe the second is more appropriate for the period of the still life but I actually somewhat prefer the first one.

No accounting for taste or lack thereof...

:shrug:
Click to expand...


I personally prefer the color of the first frame too, but if you click on the original frame, closeup you can see it's deterioration.

Now about the paint that is cracking....
 
I have to agree with Dave. The original frame might benefit from restoration. I'm just guessing here, but it looks as though it had been resized for this painting from a previous use, and that the work done to achieve that hasn't held up as well as the overall frame itself. That said, I do like it on the painting. (Not that there's anything wrong with the new frame.)
:cool: Rick
 
How about the older frame in the newer color? Even with an unbiased eye, I see the new frame more than the painting. The pattern almost detracts from it almost. Just my opinion, maybe the client chose that one.

The article mentioned the old frame has has a "negative affect on the painting". So is the new one possibly sealed inside the rabbet?

Nice free publicity for Mr. Wilner though.:thumbsup:
 
This going to sound awful but I prefer the first frame too. I like the color better and it has a certain patina that just works with the painting. The new frame is nice but maybe a touch bright. If you read the comments on the bottom somebody asks which is the old and which is the new, the responder sounded disconcerted it wasn't obvious.
 
At one time, the old frame would have been probably as bright as the new.

My personal taste runs to the new frame..... aged/toned to the older one's softness that blends better with the art.

BUT

Be all that as it may...... the art is mid 1800s American. The original frame is late wanna be goopy Baroque Italianette. The new is Pre-Rafelite and the proper period.... even the "brightness". So it is "proper" period frame..... but with our sensibilities, a little tone would be nice.

I just thought the "fish scales" were absolutely exquisite.
 
Baer Charlton said:
At one time, the old frame would have been probably as bright as the new.

My personal taste runs to the new frame..... aged/toned to the older one's softness that blends better with the art.

BUT

Be all that as it may...... the art is mid 1800s American. The original frame is late wanna be goopy Baroque Italianette. The new is Pre-Rafelite and the proper period.... even the "brightness". So it is "proper" period frame..... but with our sensibilities, a little tone would be nice.

I just thought the "fish scales" were absolutely exquisite.
Click to expand...
MY GAWD!!! Neat fish scales.....L.
 
Byzantium fishy scales they are..... Romantic affectations of the roman scale. Now I have to go do some horse trading with the man in the east....
 
Whew, I am glad I am not the only one - I far prefer the original frame and would have simply restored that one. I like the ornaments - to me they seem to harmonize better with the painting's ruffley subject matter and the new frame is too huge and masculine.
 
W.C.Framer said:
I'm not gonna be the first, be ya think maybe we should tell them?

http://www.imamuseum.org/connect/contact
Click to expand...

They told me that it was none of my business and that they wanted it to look new. And then my wife said something like "I told you so" and that is were it's at for now....

But, hey, if you're feeling froggy..... jump on it. :thumbsup:
 
Oh bite your tongue young Caliber, bite your tongue.... there may be small children listening.... :D
 
If you look at them both quickly, the original frame feels like part of the artwork. The new one is more jarring...or maybe that's just me.
 
We know that our eyes perceive colors based on their surroundings. I was convinced that the second frame may not be as bright as it seems. The reason I thought that is because the colors look much brighter in that painting. Look at the tablecloth. The original one looks much darker and dirtier to me. The second one look more creamy with more tans and less grays.

So I got the largest res images and cut one painting out and put it over the art of the other frame in photoshop. As I toggle the paintings, they are virtually the same color/brightness. The second one is just slightly brighter but not significant. Yet when you look at the two side by side in the frames, they don't look alike at all.

Finally the second one almost looks cropped. The bowl looks bigger and more centered than in the first frame.

Onto the topic, what roll does personal perception play? We joke about how artists have poor taste in framing yet artists used to pick frames as an extension of the art. I have heard stories of artist buying frames before doing the painting. Maybe that's false but the point stands. They didn't care that the frame was Italian or Russian or American. They just liked how it looked. This was never more clear than the Washington crossing the Delaware painting frame. If I own the art there is no way on earth I'd put that second frame on there.
 
Creepshow said:
If you look at them both quickly, the original frame feels like part of the artwork. The new one is more jarring...or maybe that's just me.
Click to expand...

The first frame looks cohesive with the artwork. Very symbiotic.

The second frame outshines the artwork. Looks to me like "here's an awesome bright gold frame, and we found a random painting to put into it". The artwork is lost, in my opinion.
 
The first frame shown is presumably, not the original frame chosen by the artist for the piece though to some eyes it may work aesthetically. Where Wilner's talent lies is in the historical accuracy of the frame chosen - Thayer, working in the 1880's could very well have chosen this (updated) frame style for his work. In collecting (and selling, or in this case, displaying) the work of important American artists from this period, frame selection is paramount.
Of course, there are many ways to skin a cat, but in terms of relevance to the period (and the gorgeous gilding of this frame which softens the image overall and speaks to the flowers, rather than the dark underside of the bowl holding them) I have to say still - I love it.....
 
Jay H said:
I have heard stories of artist buying frames before doing the painting. Maybe that's false but the point stands. They didn't care that the frame was Italian or Russian or American. They just liked how it looked. This was never more clear than the Washington crossing the Delaware painting frame. If I own the art there is no way on earth I'd put that second frame on there.
Click to expand...
1)Yeah,I Have,and do.....2) Get over it! 3) What`s the problem with the frame being a piece of art too? That new Washington crossing the Deleware is an awesome piece of skilled artisans at their best.....................................................:shrug: L.
 
Jay H said:
This was never more clear than the Washington crossing the Delaware painting frame. If I own the art there is no way on earth I'd put that second frame on there.
Click to expand...

The country can breath a collective sigh of relief that you neither own the painting or run the Met.
The frame is the same as the artist designed the original . . . and trophy frames have aesthetics as a secondary consideration. The frame is completely about symbols and speaking about the focal of the frame and painting.
 
Jay, correct me if I am mistaken, but are you talking about "the second frame" as in the Wilner on the still life, not the Wilner on the GW crossing the D painting?
 
Thanks, Baer. I watched the video also and saw the pictures of the original.
Jay H said:
...artists used to pick frames as an extension of the art. I have heard stories of artist buying frames before doing the painting....They didn't care that the frame was Italian or Russian or American. They just liked how it looked. This was never more clear than the Washington crossing the Delaware painting frame...
Click to expand...
Yea, we agree.

Luddite, I'm not sure I understand. I'm glad you do. There is nothing to get over. I think an artist carefully picking a frame is a great idea. Who ever picked that shiny gold frame wasn't so careful. I'm not understanding your comments?

Framar, I was talking about the still life. That second frame sucks. Many here agree. In my last sentence it wasn't clear which frame I was talking about. Thanks for asking and letting me clear that up. I should have started a new paragraph at "If I own the art there is no way on earth I'd put that second frame on there."

I don't have any opinion on the Washington Crossing painting. It's an amazing project and I'm sure will do a great job telling the story. It seems a little bulky but it's a bulky painting. I think that one I'd like to see in context.
 
Without passing judgment on either of the frames, and wishing not to disrespect anyone's opinion, I am nonetheless curious.

It is understandable that a museum would want original frames, or at least period-specific frames for the artworks they display. It seems perfectly appropriate to recreate the original frame for Washington Crossing The Delaware. It was integral to the art.

But that's not what's going on with Thayer's Still Life, is it? Did Thayer select or create a specific frame design for that painting? In 1886, were there no frames similar to the earlier one? If the artist had selected that frame, would it have caused the art to be less appreciated?

If that same image were painted in 1786 or 1986 instead of 1886, would the "appropriate" frame choice be the same?

Before there were picture framers, artists had to create their own frames, and they were integral to the art. Later, artists commissioned specialists to create frames to their specifications. Eventually, artists selected frame styles created by frame builders. Today's artists seem to believe that the most appropriate frame would be the cheapest one that fits, acquired from the neighborhood garage sale.

Considering that judgments of style and appearance are mostly personal, how are some people qualified to declare with absolute certainty that one choice is right and another is wrong?
 
Jim Miller said:
... Today's artists seem to believe that the most appropriate frame would be the cheapest one that fits, acquired from the neighborhood garage sale.
Click to expand...

I think you are over exagerrating here Jim... toadays wanna be artists maybe , but there still is some "real" artists out there.

I liked the first as well, - doesn't the 2nd one remind us too much of the ones we usually replace the broken frame that the customer wants fixed. (especially the color) - shame on us!
 
Jim Miller said:
Today's artists seem to believe that the most appropriate frame would be the cheapest one that fits, acquired from the neighborhood garage sale.
Click to expand...

I think you're wrong. Some spend big bucks for custom distressed frames so overly patnia'ed that they no longer have an actual color or recognizable finish. The odd thing is that I often can't see much of a difference between that frame and the one you describe. I guess that's what seperates a hack like me from a real framer?

Seriously though, I do agree to some other points. If the second frame was one that the artist had picked, then I would expect a museum to restore the presentation as accuratly as possible. If it was chosen for asthetics, they missed the mark IMO.
 
My quip about garage sale frames wasn't meant to offend, but to imply that most artists today, including those HB describes as "wanna be artists", perceive framing to be unimportant to their art, and certainly not an integral part of it.

Of course some artists consider the design of framing for their art to be important, but in my experience, they are in the minority.

Jay, maybe the difference between a "hack" and a "real framer" would not be found in opinions of style. At least in the retail realm, that difference might be better indicated by an ability to help customers decide their own preferences, rather than to dictate "expert" preferences to them.
 
Well....

I have to agree with Jim. Framing is an afterthought to most professional artists or those looking to earn a profit from their art. I had an interesting conversation from a seasoned artist/teacher who recalled that a customer did not purchase his work because the frame did not match her house. From then on he framed things cheaply and completely neutral (if at all).

The unfortunate thing, however, is that often customer's do not distinguish an artists choice to cut costs vs. their artistic vision. It's not that they particularly want to use all white mats, it's just cheaper.
 
Another thing...this is from the point of view as an artist along with being a framer....

Many galleries ask the artist to provide a "framing allowance". In other words, a certain dollar amount off the painting if the customer doesn't like the frame and wants to just buy the art. Sounds reasonable, except if the frame was specifically made for that particular painting, then it real hard to paint another to fit, especially if it is an odd size, or unique finish.

So, many of my artist friends who show in galleries opt for the "neutral" look. If I have made one of my custom hardwood frames...I flat refuse to give an "allowance" since I have custom finished that frame to THAT painting. Fortunately, the issue of a person not buying one of my originals because of the frame hasn't come up...not that I know of anyway...(whew!)
 
Jim Miller said:
But that's not what's going on with Thayer's Still Life, is it? Did Thayer select or create a specific frame design for that painting? In 1886, were there no frames similar to the earlier one? If the artist had selected that frame, would it have caused the art to be less appreciated?
Click to expand...

After about 1830, the artists strongly rejected the past styles, especially the Baroque and Rococo. But too, museums of today have started back to framing styles that would be appropriate for that artist or at least regional and time sensitive.

If that same image were painted in 1786 or 1986 instead of 1886, would the "appropriate" frame choice be the same?
Click to expand...

In 1786 in Europe it would have most likely gotten a "washed" Louie XIV or a Louie XV in gold with a scumbled tone. In 1986 it would have gotten a N15-51.

Before there were picture framers, artists had to create their own frames, and they were integral to the art.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm has it really been 3 years since I taught that class...... The first frame was designed and an artist was commissioned to fill the image area....
Until that short twit Blownapart came along, the artist and framer collaborated before the painting was started.... and the frame dictated the painting demographics.

As for taste and deciding style and such..... dealing with historical items has changed greatly since the 19th century.
 
Create a Post
Back
Top