Subject: Frame finish policies
Alex Moomey <amoomey<-at->arkansasartscenter<.>org> writes >I am on a search for any standards or policies conservators or >museums may have regarding the specifics of the finishes used on >frames Much has been written on the appropriateness of frames and framing treatments in general and it all seems to boil down to WHAT you consider the frame's function to be beyond protecting its contents. Curators have struggled with this question for generations. At more than one institution they removed and discarded fine period frames contemporary to the art they contained and replaced them with plain moldings--all in the name of " artistic purity". They felt that the ornate period frames distracted from the artworks. Of course it didn't take long for the pendulum to swing back the other way, but regrettably for many period treasures it was too late. In some way, I can understand their reasoning as faulty and misguided as it was and I believe that in their zeal, they were misinterpreting basic tenets of visual perception and aesthetics. Regrettably some of this is still going on, mostly in commercial galleries, but also in institutions that ought to know better. So what you're reading here is simply my opinion; and you know what the say about opinions. They are like noses, everybody's got one. IMHO frames, including mats, etc., should provide artwork with a safe refuge from the elements and protect from deterioration. Beyond that, framing treatments should provide an ideal portable background for the art, isolating it from the surroundings and direct the viewers' eye to the art. Thirdly, if possible, frames should provide some context to the art contained within, be it historic, stylistic, aesthetic, including appropriate visual weight both by being the right size, tone and color. Most of this is subject to interpretation and personal taste, but you will notice that in fine museums and photographs of traditional interiors, the framing treatment is never jarring and always enhances the art. It just all looks natural to the point, that you don't even notice it. It just feels right. Now to the dilemma at hand. You didn't mention if you were looking for the same finish to apply to works on paper and also for paintings, whether you have milled one molding shape or several, if you are going to rotate new works into existing frames, or the frames are made specifically for each work, if the art is from the same geographic and temporal region, or varied. Is cost an important factor, or only the availability of over 10 foot lengths of molding? Some years ago, I devised a Museum Exhibit Framing System conceived for rotating exhibits. Frames were destined to be reused on new and unspecified art, so they had to be ultimately neutral and generic but still had to be classical in style and finishes, so as not to be jarring or inappropriate. And ultimately the finish had to be durable to withstand years of service and many rotations. I decided on a historic finish that was popular in the early part of the 20th Century in France. It can be described as a contemporary version of shabby chic, an opaque, combed wash applied over artificially tarnished metal leaf base. You can see examples on my webpage at <URL:http://goo.gl/UJ3a2> and still in use after 15 years <URL:http://goo.gl/0kFUwh> I know the above is a poor excuse for specific advice, but I hope I'm helping you to think this through and come closer to determining what the solution should be for you. You should avoid having your exhibits look like they were made in a factory, framing treatments should enhance and compliment the art. Don't be afraid to go against accepted conventions if you feel instinctively that they are wrong. Contact me off list if you want to talk. George Schwartz, Professional Associate AIC ConservArt, Inc. 561-482-7292 561-912-0030 Mobile: 561-206-4406 Fax: 609-594-1199 *** Conservation DistList Instance 29:7 Distributed: Friday, July 3, 2015 Message Id: cdl-29-7-002 ***Received on Sunday, 28 June, 2015