A Short History of Frames
|
|
Beth E Peterson
Text and Artwork:
|
Frames are something that a lot of artists tend to take for granted. You go down to the local framing store, or you order frames or frame kits from online or mail-order houses. Occasionally, you may even run into an artist who builds their own frames. But have you ever really looked at a frame? Have you ever looked at the different styles of frames? Have you ever wondered why they are the way they are? Ever considered how various styles of frames are perceived by the general public, and why? Let's peer at these issues through the exploration of...*ta-da-da-DA* "THE HISTORY OF FRAMES!" Framing art and images actually began long before frames, as separate physical items, existed. Way, way back when, art began when people began painting on the walls. Most of those earliest of images, however, were not framed. They just kinda free-floated in the visual space of the entire wall surface. This habit of direct decoration of wall surfaces continued for quite some time. As people left the caverns behind and began to create towns and cities, pictures moved with them, becoming a part of the architecture of buildings. These images were an actual physical part of the architecture: three common varieties of this architectural art are the fresco, low-relief carving and the mosaic. But it didn't take long at all for people to begin putting visual borders (aka frames) around their images. People are psychologically more comfortable with organization than with chaos; it isn't difficult to understand why the organization inherent in containing and framing off areas became so pervasive. And as civilizations grew and flourished, becoming more sophisticated in their tastes, lifestyles and technical expertise, the architectural borders and frames became more pronounced. From a simple strip of color or incised line, architectural "frames" developed into columns, niches, arches, and so on. 
Pillars w/ entablature Ah, but what about real frames? Well, in Europe (from whence the present 'Western' traditions have sprung) it wasn't until the 1300 - 1400's that paintings really began to come loose from their walls. Around about then, people decided that they wanted to be able to take their paintings with them when they traveled. Pictures began to be painted on wooden panels, but it was soon discovered that the wood needed extra support to keep it from warping. As a solution, frames were made for these 'recently-mobile' pieces, following the architectural tradition. A very common example were paintings made with frames in the form of a pair of columns topped with an entablature. Portable paintings, with their supportive frames, were at first conceived of and created as one thing. A unified whole, if you will. But, as painters began working on canvas, the supportive role was taken over by the unseen stretcher strips. Painters began to paint...and frames began to be made by separate artisan craftsmen. Thus began a split that is still existence today. Frames began to be thought of as objects in and of themselves, no longer a simple support and adjunct to the artwork, and NOT primarily a part of a larger whole. As the craft of frame-making developed, frames became more and more ornate. Frames and framing was conceived to be an art in and of itself, especially by the artisans. This attitude spread and seeped into the very fabric of the cultures involved. By the late 1500's frames had become grossly ornate and overblown. They were busy shouting their own praises, not that of the art they supposedly were showing off. And the growing bourgeois bought into it. The more elaborate and expensive the frame, the higher class it showed the person owning it to be. Right?  Eventually, the artists...pitifully unorganized, totally lacking in group-based clout...yes, the painters themselves, began to revolt. But how long it took! Seeds of such a revolt could not be seen until the late 1800's. It wasn't until then, when there came a set of bold, intrepid artists who were willing to face down the world of academic art. The Impressionists rejected the heavy, elaborate frames that were de rigor. They sought to relate the art with the frame surrounding it. James Whistler designed and built his own frames, and Seurat extended his paintings out onto their frames. Many of the Impressionists began building their own frames from simple flat wooden moldings. A triumph seemed to have been achieved! Simpler frames suddenly had a voice, and eventually, a market. Gone were the days when monstrous frames ruled as a matter of course. But not every story has a completely happy ending. For, if you take notice, you will still, even today, find the vestiges left by the now-long-defunct framer's guild. The un-informed, un-art-educated buyer who thinks that a more elaborate frame means that the painting is a better painting....and those who are willing to pander to that misconception. .....Ah, my friends, it is sad, but too true, that recently I was on eBay, and found several such instances. For example one seller of a painting wrote enthusiastically about what a fine frame it had...'notice the fine plaster work and gilding'...and yet wrote next to nothing about the painting itself...it's rhythm, it's chiaroscuro, the technique used, or even it's provence. Even so, dear friend, take heart. Now you can tell your own potential buyers why a gilded frame is not always even as good as a gilded lily. Now you can more easily guide them to realizing that the integrity of a piece sometimes means that less IS more. *stirring music* Let the clout of the individualistic be heard!! |
