Comments on: In real life, the frame matters http://artandperception.com/2006/09/in-real-life-the-frame-matters.html a multi-disciplinary dialog Tue, 06 Jan 2009 03:37:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Adrian http://artandperception.com/2006/09/in-real-life-the-frame-matters.html#comment-173579 Adrian Fri, 22 Aug 2008 01:37:14 +0000 http://www.artandperception.com/v01/?p=13#comment-173579 Thankyou Karl; appreciate it! Thankyou Karl; appreciate it!

]]> By: Karl Zipser http://artandperception.com/2006/09/in-real-life-the-frame-matters.html#comment-173345 Karl Zipser Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:40:02 +0000 http://www.artandperception.com/v01/?p=13#comment-173345 you can borrow the frame you can borrow the frame

]]> By: Adrian http://artandperception.com/2006/09/in-real-life-the-frame-matters.html#comment-173284 Adrian Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:04:20 +0000 http://www.artandperception.com/v01/?p=13#comment-173284 Very valid points! In my experience the art brigade do seem to prefer a simple white matte with a thin black frame; but whilst I think it's a good starting point I feel that certain images would benefit from a different style. Interestingly I actually like the last of the three frames the least; as it seems too smooth to me, and for me that invokes a mass produced feeling; which in turn makes it feel cheap. In many ways I prefer the first one, as the roughness gives it an impression of being handmade; a certain rustic charm if you will. To me the most important thing is that the frame doesn't distract attention away from the picture. If everyone's first thought is "nice frame", you have a problem ;) It goes to show how subjective the whole issue is! P.S. Would it be OK if I borrowed the frame from the top picture (just the frame) to show someone what their picture would look like with a real frame? I'm having a debate on Flickr about real frames vs computer added frames... More than happy to attribute you as the source if you wish! Very valid points!

In my experience the art brigade do seem to prefer a simple white matte with a thin black frame; but whilst I think it’s a good starting point I feel that certain images would benefit from a different style.

Interestingly I actually like the last of the three frames the least; as it seems too smooth to me, and for me that invokes a mass produced feeling; which in turn makes it feel cheap.

In many ways I prefer the first one, as the roughness gives it an impression of being handmade; a certain rustic charm if you will.

To me the most important thing is that the frame doesn’t distract attention away from the picture. If everyone’s first thought is “nice frame”, you have a problem ;)

It goes to show how subjective the whole issue is!

P.S. Would it be OK if I borrowed the frame from the top picture (just the frame) to show someone what their picture would look like with a real frame? I’m having a debate on Flickr about real frames vs computer added frames… More than happy to attribute you as the source if you wish!

]]> By: Karl Zipser http://artandperception.com/2006/09/in-real-life-the-frame-matters.html#comment-20 Karl Zipser Fri, 22 Sep 2006 16:26:00 +0000 http://www.artandperception.com/v01/?p=13#comment-20 Ossi, this is a matter of taste, of course, but I understand your concern. In particular, the last of the three frames shown might be considered a bit broad for the still-life. I think it is good to have the elements of the frame profile have good proportions with respect to the objects. The solid black frame might be out of proportion in this sense, too wide. The snail shell pictures have a narrow white inner frame to separate them from the gold. Without this element, the gold was overpowering, Hanneke says. What I have been learning as a painter is that choosing a frame is in some was as important, and as difficult, as painting. Even though these frames are not Hanneke's work, they are her choice, and I'm glad we have begun this discussion over this aspect. Ossi, this is a matter of taste, of course, but I understand your concern. In particular, the last of the three frames shown might be considered a bit broad for the still-life. I think it is good to have the elements of the frame profile have good proportions with respect to the objects. The solid black frame might be out of proportion in this sense, too wide. The snail shell pictures have a narrow white inner frame to separate them from the gold. Without this element, the gold was overpowering, Hanneke says.

What I have been learning as a painter is that choosing a frame is in some was as important, and as difficult, as painting. Even though these frames are not Hanneke’s work, they are her choice, and I’m glad we have begun this discussion over this aspect.

]]> By: ossi http://artandperception.com/2006/09/in-real-life-the-frame-matters.html#comment-19 ossi Fri, 22 Sep 2006 15:22:00 +0000 http://www.artandperception.com/v01/?p=13#comment-19 My inclination would be to use smaller frames so as not to overpower the paintings. My inclination would be to use smaller frames so as not to overpower the paintings.

]]> By: Karl Zipser http://artandperception.com/2006/09/in-real-life-the-frame-matters.html#comment-18 Karl Zipser Fri, 22 Sep 2006 13:10:00 +0000 http://www.artandperception.com/v01/?p=13#comment-18 Update: I talked to Hanneke. I learned that she paints most of her pictures in the frame. The two snail shell pictures in the post today are an exception. Clearly we need to have more photos of the frames she is using as she paints. Update: I talked to Hanneke. I learned that she paints most of her pictures in the frame. The two snail shell pictures in the post today are an exception. Clearly we need to have more photos of the frames she is using as she paints.

]]> By: Karl Zipser http://artandperception.com/2006/09/in-real-life-the-frame-matters.html#comment-17 Karl Zipser Fri, 22 Sep 2006 12:05:00 +0000 http://www.artandperception.com/v01/?p=13#comment-17 Great questions, Auspicious. I want to write a lot more on these topics. In short: The frame changes the picture A LOT. This is why the "frame "problem" so important. You can try to avoid it by not using a frame, but then the surroundings in the room become more important. More on this later... In previous centuries when artists worked on wooden panels, it was common to have the panel and frame made as an integral unit by a carpenter. The painter could thus paint the frame and the painting at the same time. Jan van Eyck has some beautiful painted frames, for example, the small Madonna with fountain in Antwerp. The convention in photography of using a large white matt is something like hanging an unframed painting on a large white wall. Not a bad system, but as you say, it might miss some opportunities. Great questions, Auspicious.

I want to write a lot more on these topics. In short:

The frame changes the picture A LOT. This is why the “frame “problem” so important. You can try to avoid it by not using a frame, but then the surroundings in the room become more important. More on this later…

In previous centuries when artists worked on wooden panels, it was common to have the panel and frame made as an integral unit by a carpenter. The painter could thus paint the frame and the painting at the same time. Jan van Eyck has some beautiful painted frames, for example, the small Madonna with fountain in Antwerp.

The convention in photography of using a large white matt is something like hanging an unframed painting on a large white wall. Not a bad system, but as you say, it might miss some opportunities.

]]>