A moment for Praise

[vintage frames]

Sometimes you spot something that looks - just right.

The frame was made by Matt Curtis / Northwood Framing and the artwork is an original Rembrandt etching.

Remarkable work from Orde02 whose only framing qualifications are a membership of this forum and an account with Rose&Hollis.

[JKX]

Doesn’t look just right to me!

I’m pretty sure that’s a ready made frame, looking at the uneven mount margins.

For something like an original etching by Rembrandt, or for pretty much anything really, you should work from the art out, not some frame you have handy, in!

This, unless gallery law states this is exactly how Rembrandt prints should be framed, should have a wide mount, maybe 8 ply, in a different tone and a narrow frame, not skinny, narrow in relation to the mount.

Again - nice art, nice frame, but not together thank you.

.

[vintage frames]

This one is obviously a matter of personal taste.

To put it in context, the framing was done by an art / museum conservation studio who did the restoration work on the etching, then framed it for their client in the selected frame shown.
The frame is not a 'ready-made' but was commissioned to size by the studio.

I like it because I see the image as sitting comfortably inside the wide frame and how the framer has cleverly proportioned the mount, with a deep bottom weighting, so that the etching does not look 'boxed in'.

Matt spends many hours in the making of his frames and it's good to see it reflected in their use on original artwork.

Overall, a really nice package.

[IFGL]

This real does not look "just right" to me either, I see a very fine etching in a very very heavy black frame and off putting thick gold slip and a badly cut mount, nothing about this suits the picture in the slightest.

[vintage frames]

Brilliant!

At last something of interest. It's been so quiet here on this forum. It's my little bit of social media indulgence - logging in day after day and yet only seeing another list of 'items for sale'.

So back to the comments.

Do feel free to hate my taste in admiring this frame. It's just the way my brain works. And if if we all felt the same, how boring the world would be.

The artwork is an original Rembrandt, so at least the framing studio chose a hand made frame.
The client was happy because the frame married into their interior styling and the artwork received the respect of a frame made with all the skill and craftsmanship of an actual human being.

Thanks again for digging up this post.

[JKX]

A saying I've always liked "don't make the artwork jealous"

But, regardless, what does one see first, honestly? A delicate etching? No - you see the whole thing, the framer is competing with the artist and no framer has the right to compete with Rembrandt!

If that's what the customer ....(sorry, at this level you'd have to say "client" - it all does get so confusing) ........ wants though, who are we to argue? The customer/client has specified a skinny mount, heavily bottom weighted - when normally for this sort of thing you don't really notice bottom weighting, you're not supposed to, you're supposed to notice the art - and then s/he has also specified the top mount margin should be heavier than the sides as well. Really? My label wouldn't have gone on the back of that, when I did mounts with those sort of proportions they were normally for Ikea frames!

Darren, you, I and most other normal framers (or ex framers), move in different circles - we do not have the class to see how worthy of praise this is.

[Keith Hewitt]

I think it looks awful, and I'm not a framer

[vintage frames]

I still like the framing.

I could try to analyse why I like it but my analysis would be the opposite to those who dislike it.

We all have our own judgement as to what we find beautiful and in my case it tends to be influenced by the many years experience I've had dealing with high value antique art.

Others will have had different experiences.

[prospero]

The extreme 'bottom weighting' of the mount spoils it.

No objection to the BIG frame but the design could be better. The side margins of the mount are the same as the liner.

Things like that need more thinking about than doing.


* I don't care for the colour of the mount either.

[vintage frames]

Prospero makes some valid and considered points.

And the funny thing is, I like it because it has the extreme bottom weighting with a little extra margin at the top to compensate.

I think it prevents the the appearance of being 'boxed-in' by the visual weight of the frame.

[IFGL]

The little extra at the top is simply because the farmer hasn't taken into account the extra couple of mm for expansion and contraction, they have cut it the same as the sides and that couple of mm where it has dropped really stands out, the whole thing is poor as a combination, hand made or not.

I appreciate it's hand made and the skill that went into finishing it, but surly the idea is to show off the etching, which has become secondary to say the least.

Sometimes subtlety is king.

And yes, I am glad we are not all the same with all the same taste.

[JKX]

With a mount that skinny you’re probably right as just a couple of mm is enough of a percent to notice, but I think it’s been deliberately cut larger as well. Lateral movement could make it look ‘side weighted’ too.

The shadow on the right also makes the left look wider.

Rules or guidelines can be ignored when it suits, but it doesn’t in this case. I’d prefer the ikea frame TBH …. with a nice new wide mount and museum glass of course!

[vintage frames]

Leaving aside the debate as to whether the inner proportions are correct or not, there is an interesting visual phenomena you get when working with old prints.

There is a huge degree of tolerance for eccentricity and inexactitude - that's a big word and I'm not sure it even exists, but you know what I mean.

Take the frame. If you ever visit an art museum you'll notice that some of the frames look as if they have been dragged backwards along a road and yet look 'just right' when framing the art.

Then there's the familiar problem of dust and flumbs showing underneath the glass.
Put the glass over an antique print and you just don't see them.

And then there's the mount.
I can only repeat an interesting experience I once had where a set of drawings were delivered to me to make frames for an art exhibition. The drawings were displayed in quite beautiful mounts, and the extraordinary thing was that, when measured, none of the margins were equal.
And it didn't matter because they all looked terrific.
And that only worked because the artwork was hand drawn and original.

One final point on a mount. How is it that an antique print looks so much better in a yellowy foxed mount than a brand new one?

So I'm quite relaxed about any criticisms thrown at this particular framing.

[Justintime]

I love a bit of critique, I hope Matt does too.
I love the frame and slip. I think the gold slip could be a bit warmer and aged a bit more. It doesn't appear to be gold leaf, which if it was mine I would want and the frame to be a bit more ebonised, a bit more antique and glossy. Obeche is really no substitute for a traditional hardwood frame of old and I'd lose all of that Obeche grain below some of Dermot's traditional finishing techniques. Proportions-wise, I'd say I'd be into seeing a bit more of the paper even with an antique white/cream rag mount. Mount proportions are tricky, we'll all have our own just right look. I think I'd go for 3/4 of the black frame width with a barely noticeable bottom weighting.

[vintage frames]

Good grief!
You noticed!

Full points to Justintime on his critique of the frame.

Yes, obeche is a horrible wood to use for ebonising and I agree that the gilding is a bit off the mark.
But you've noticed those things and that's the sign of someone who knows his stuff - don't blush.

I forgive Matt, the frame maker for those faults because he's only been dong this thing for far fewer years than most of us. He's self taught and always trying to improve his skills. His reward is that he's busy with orders from all over the world and that makes his day very interesting indeed.

When he does go on to using more premium materials he will have to charge considerably more and to do that he will have to master further skills and techniques.
I'd say he's well capable for that.

Then he gets to deal with a totally different type of customer.

[JKX]

................Take the frame. If you ever visit an art museum you'll notice that some of the frames look as if they have been dragged backwards along a road and yet look 'just right' when framing the art.

Then there's the familiar problem of dust and flumbs showing underneath the glass.
Put the glass over an antique print and you just don't see them.

And then there's the mount.
I can only repeat an interesting experience I once had where a set of drawings were delivered to me to make frames for an art exhibition. The drawings were displayed in quite beautiful mounts, and the extraordinary thing was that, when measured, none of the margins were equal.
And it didn't matter because they all looked terrific.
And that only worked because the artwork was hand drawn and original.

One final point on a mount. How is it that an antique print looks so much better in a yellowy foxed mount than a brand new one? .........

Some of the frames in museums etc, yes, but not all. It's nice to see images looking as fresh as the day they were painted, with or without restoration/conservation, so there's nothing wrong with having a frame looking the same as the day it was made, and if considered beyond repair or of no significant value, replacing it with something brand new. I don't see the need, in many cases, to make something brand new imitating something that has had a hard life, why not make it look like the original frame when it was new, or, if that would not suit the surroundings it would be hung in, something that suits that and the artwork, a compromise?

Antique glass can have blemishes that may disguise flumbs and dust, but those flumbs and dust really shouldn't be there, have no need to be, and are only there because the frame has not been periodically inspected, opened up, mounts and backings cleaned/replaced etc etc.

Unequal mount margins can look very effective, wider sides than top/bottom, vice versa, whatever, but they look quite ridiculous if they are not wide enough. 4" top/bottom and 6" left/right may be great, but 1.5" L/R and 0.75" T/B is for file 13!

The yellowy foxed mount is probably acid burned, not foxed, but anyway, as per the above on the frame, that's not how it was when it was cut, nor for a while after, now, it needs tossing out as it's teeming with acid and years of soaked up pollution! I've certainly never been asked to replicate an old stained mount, and it would be very easy. I have been asked to replicate washlines though.

A crisp white bevel may look a bit incongrous, but it can be painted, or reversed and a slip added. Nielsen used to do a cream core board in their artcare range, specifically too look like old non acid-free board, there are solid core boards too of course, and if using boards made from cotton, that's standard.

I've looked at the website the above frame is from, there is one there in the same moulding and slip, the proportions, moulding width versus aperture width, look absolutely identical to this one to me, and it's a 7x5. I still believe there could be no other reason for those distracting and far too narrow mount margins than working from the frame in, instead of the artwork out.

[vintage frames]

Thank you for your continued interest in my opinions.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough in my comments. I was only describing some of the interesting visual phenomena which occur when framing antique art. This included how unaffected the presentation of the art can be, no matter what the condition of the frame.
Provided, of course, the frame is either original or of at least the same period.
But that goes with out saying.

Flumbs and dust under the glass. Nobody would want to leave them in there. I'm just pointing out that they become almost invisible when glazing over old paper art. But it doesn't have anything to do with the type of glass.

Regarding old mounts, it's a pity there isn't a way of neutralising their acidity. I continue to think old prints look so much better in their original mounts.
And frames for that matter.

This all makes me think of an old building or ruin even. How visually beautiful it can look when surrounded by trees, wild foliage and grass. Or when the preservation zealots get in, cut everything away, clean it up and surround it in well raked gravel.

And that may please some people. They are well entitled to their views and I'm sure they derive great satisfaction in their appreciation of 'the new'.

Luckily those people rarely get access to the nations treasures.