Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Review: Frames

As I type this now, I am looking at a picture. It's pretty much an abomination. There are tall evergreens in the background dotting a mountain scape. In the forefront are bushes with different kind of flowers. The "artist" obviously intended they should look like wildflowers, but they've failed. Clearly the flowers in the picture have been trimmed into perfect bushes. Meanwhile the rest of the picture is most definitely not cultivated. It is an evil I have often pondered. But my question is, who or what should I really blame, the artist for creating an insult on the senses; the company, perhaps, that printed them in abundance; or should I blame the picture itself for not being self aware? In the end I blame picture frames.

First of all it's a pretty cruddy frame. It's a faux gold finish, and a bad one at that. Over the years it has worn away to show its true colors underneath. We're a people obsessed with frames. Depending upon the content we like to choose whether or not to go with a simple elegant frame, or an over the top frame. Quite often it enhances the picture. In these instance I cannot fault frames, for this is what they were intended for. But the dirge of bad prints in this country has been covered up by frames for years. They're there to distract us from really seeing the picture. If we did look at all the horrible art we pass by in our lives, we'd probably end up eating our eyelids.

People even go nuts for antique frames. Some of these frames surpass the value of the paintings they frame. And of course there are the ever popular digital frames which display a rotating body of photos. This way I  hopefully won't notice that my friend's kids are ugly and shouldn't be highlighted, because I'll be distracted by the technology. Not your kids, naturally I'm talking about a different friend. Further more, Apple, I know there's an ap for that, but I don't want an iPhone to be an over glorified frame.

Why do you think the phrase "I was framed" came into being? You think those negative connotations are by accident? Frames have long since made us believe a host of lies. I therefore propose going to a system of no frames, so we can see this so called art as it really is: *radio edit*

Frames: 3 out 10

Now if we're talking about 'The Frames' Glen Hansard's (the lead from Once) band, well that's different. They're quite artistic, and wonderful to listen to. With Glen's raggedy voice, and crisp sweet sounds of the band, they're perfect for singing along with or leaving on in the background. There's a frame I can get behind.

The Frames: 8 out of 10


  1. Way to go! Next time I'm in a museum, I'm going to be looking at the frames instead of the art...

  2. Great...something else to annoy me now. I do like the color paper frame that surrounds the picture before the outer frame. Can you like one 'frame' and not t'other?

  3. Yes, Carl, you are talking about the 'matting,' I believe. I am a frame purist...it should only be something to hold the picture.

  4. Hmm, yes matting is a different beast altogether.

  5. I have nothing against basic frames, matting, quail, or any other form of bird. I agree that some "art" is crap, though. Add to the list of who to blame: consumers! People buy stuff because it's labeled "art" and/or is signed by someone labeled an "artist." This embitters me.
    :) Robyn

  6. That's a fair point. I didn't consider the 'don't blame the dealer blame the druggie' argument.

  7. It's exceptionally looking one of the natural source to get the stunning information about frame. The regarding contents and features of this post really makes me crazy about it. Thanks for sharing.


Related Posts with Thumbnails