In some of my recent work I have experimented with the use of ‘spectacle frames’ within my paintings. The intention is to two fold. Firstly, it attempts to illustrate what I, as the painter, see when I create the artwork. Secondly, it acts as a mechanism to focus the perspective of the viewer onto a particular part of the painting.
This prompted me to think more about why an artist would wish to almost constrain the viewer’s perspective, rather than to present free rein to the viewer to come up with their own interpretation of the work of the artist. The ‘traditional’ view of a frame is that it is purely functional and merely serves as a way of allowing art to be displayed. However, frames have always been an integral component of a painting. Indeed for artists such as Van Gogh, how best to frame their work was of significant concern. In a sense, the frame acts as the boundary between the art and the rest of the world. At times, the artist may wish to have a smooth boundary that provides a seamless interface between their work and the rest of the world. Other times, it may be more opportune to have a harsh boundary to convey something that doesn’t sit easily with how it would be perceived in the rest of the world.
My use of spectacle frames within my paintings is a way of showing how my work is an interpretation of everyday life. I portray images with which the viewer will be familiar but I present them in a rather abstract fashion. The use of spectacle frames is intended to help the viewer to perceive the images as being standard, fairly common, examples of everyday items.
With the above in mind, and building on my recent blog entry Framed by Frames, I was prompted to visit The National Gallery’s exhibition Frames in Focus: Sansovino Frames. This represents the first in a series of frame focused exhibitions at the gallery. The exhibition features the work of architect and sculptor Jacopo Sansovino (1486-1570) whose work blended architecture into frame design.
It was quite interesting to note that this line of work not only evaluated the importance of frames but in many cases the frame was seen as being more important that the encapsulated artwork. It was illustrative to note that all the items on display were frames; all the canvases were blank.
All of this raises questions about the importance of frames and how they affect the way in which we see a particular art work. To what extent should an artist be incorporating the frame into their vision for a piece of art? Also, how does an artist decide the importance of the frame itself and on what criteria can a frame be judged to assume greater importance than the art work it surrounds? Certainly, this is given me a lot of food for thought.
