Small picture - wide mount & frame

[framemaker]

A small sketch that was mounted with Crescent museum boards (standard thickness inner, 3mm outer), TV cons clear glass, framed in R&H A138 with oil gilded and distressed paint finish.

[Jonny2morsos]

Would that be a Lowry?

Makes the case nicely for generous proportions to the mount and frame.

[Geoff]

Looks very good Richard.The colour you have applied to the scotia section is very subtle adding a softness which compliments the finished art work very well.

[prospero]

Fell of the back of a Lowry?

That's my star moulding at the mo. Get though loads of it. Do you get problems with the undercut at the back breaking?

[John Ranes II, CPF, GCF]

Hi Richard,

I'd like to be honest with you here....

From your title, Wide Mount and Frame, I honestly expected to see an even wider mount, perhaps 13,0-15,0 cm wide. For this image I would describe the mount that you created as standard in width.

In fact I believe that because the frame width is approaching the same width as the mount, this creates too much of a static presentation. Whereas if the mount were even wider, it would become more dynamic.

IMHO

The frame is exqusite BTW!

John

[prospero]

The old 'rule' states "don't have the mount the same width as the frame".

But like most sweeping generalisations they can safely be ignored.

It depends on the style of the frame and mount. Looking at Richard's frame, the inner gilded band creates an inner frame in itself. The scoop makes a nice understated softer area and the outer gilded band makes a visual stopping point. Effectively the frame is divided up. If it was all the same then it wouldn't look quite so good. The darker edge of the mount window also breaks up the mount area creating another 'frame'.
All in all, it gives the feeling that this is a thing of importance without swamping the work. 10/10 for design and execution.

I have a David Shepherd print on my wall that has a 76mm mount and a 70mm frame. 6mm approx of the mount goes under the rebate so in fact it has the same width frame and mount. It wouldn't look so good with a smaller frame or a bigger one. Same with the mount. But the (double)mount has a dark reveal and also a shot-edge fillet. Plus the print shows a 20mm border, making the image appear to have a 90mm mount.

So really the only rule is: "if it looks right, it is right"

[IFGL]

I totally agree with Prospero, I nearly posted a similar sentiment about the frame having 3 separate parts, then couldn't be bothered. Although I do agree a slightly bigger mount would have looked even better.

Very nice work.

[IFGL]

the golden ratio 1.618 even the line drawing looks nice.

[prospero]

That's also the approx ratio for (modern) TV screens.

I remember going into Comet round about 1992 to get a new-fangled widescreen TV. The sales assistant had no idea what I meant, so she fetched the manager. He said something to the effect of - "oh yes, we did have one but it didn't sell so I don't think we will be getting any more".

[GeoSpectrum]

I had a lady from the village where I work in the other day with a needle point for framing. She said she always has her work framed without a mount (no idea where she had them done in the past). I convinced her to have a mount although she wasnt sure it would 'look right'. I went for a wide mount, single as cost was an issue for her. Can't recall the sizes (or if it was in the golden ratio) but the mount It must have been approx a 1/3rd of the width of the needle point, so added somewhat to the cost of the no mount 'option'. (not an option in my view).

With a simple dark stained (by me) frame which was probably approx 1/3 the width of the mount, the piece looked very classy. Perhaps the artists 'rule of thirds' is applicable?

The lady now has it hung in pride of place and is starting to bring me her old items for reframing, all with wide mounts. I'm working on the double mount!