- Email: [email protected]
Picture framing II: Two exhibitions of American picture frames
318
Professional
Picture Framing II: Two Exhibitions of American Picture Frames Throughout 1990 a new assessment of American picture frames has occupied the attention of curators in several major museums. Sally Mills of the San Francisco Museum of Fine Arts and Carrie Rebora of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York (Figure 1) have both curated exhibitions dedicated to expanding the public’s knowledge of this enigmatic subject. Many of the frames were hung without the paintings, and in these instances, the viewer was invited to examine the frame without the interference of the painting fighting for attention. The reaction of a museum-goer,
I. Installation June-September
Notes
when entering for the first time a gallery filled with empty frames, is a curious mix of amazement and horror. The first reaction is that the paintings have been stolen, and then, as the shock wears off, the viewer is ushered into a realm never before considered: the picture frame as a work of art. The frame has traditionally been ignored by most museums, both as a curated object and the recipient of conservation care. Funds are rarely appropriated for acquisitions of frames and conservation efforts have been minimal. However, with these two major museum initiatives, the attitude is changing towards a more cohesive and holistic approach to frame connoisseurship. Until recent record-breaking auction prices,’ frames have been relatively inexpensive to replace and few people have realized the difference between a bad reproduction
of the exhibition, American Frames, at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 1990, with the displays culminating in a magnificent tabernacle frame (c. 1900) designed by Stanford White (1853-1906).
Professional Notes
and a correct period frame. In addition, with the increased value of paintings comes the close scrutiny of the educated collector and curator inquiring about the appropriateness and condition of the frame. In some cases, the frame may provide clues to the authenticity of a questioned painting. In other instances, the frame enhances our understanding of the taste of the collector, patron or artist. This understanding allows us to interpret the vast depth of our material culture that has slipped through the grasp of art history books. The frame has not been studied as a part of sculpture, architecture, design, furniture or painting. It is an arcane amalgam of all of the above. The scholarly study of frames can begin to provide us with a new outlook towards collection management and analysis. For example, the New York Historical Society has paintings from the Lyman Reed collection which can all be identified through their similar frames. Selecting a frame provided a means by which a patron could unify his collection. This event inadvertently leaves us with a record of the collector’s proclivity towards design and some insight into the prevailing taste of the era. In the Chicago Historical Society’s collection, there are a number of identical frames on paintings by America’s first international portraitist, George Peter Alexander Healy (1813-l 894). Healy lived in Chicago in 1855-66, and during this period he painted many important social figures. Although the sitters no doubt had individual tastes and preferences, it may have been the artist’s suggestion to use a certain style of frame, or perhaps there was only one frame-maker in Chicago that could produce frames of this quality. More research and study is thus needed to understand Healy’s relationship with this I9thcentury Chicago frame-maker. Unfortunately, neither of the two exhibitions of American frames produced in 1990 has a catalogue. Indeed, the appearance of these exhibitions with no catalogues is an indication of a surge of interest which has scant precedent and historical background upon which to draw. 2 Up to this date, the majority of the documented examples of American frames are from the late 19th and early 20th century, and most of the informa-
319
tion that frame historians have been able to accumulate has been culled from makers’ labels on the back of the frames or the account books and diaries of artists.3 Another important source of information on frame-makers is provided by the American Artists’ Materials Suppliers’ Directory by paintings conservator, Alexander W. Katlan. This comprehensive book lists the artists’ colormen and frame-makers in New York City during the 19th century. The information has been painstakingly gathered from field research, newspaper advertisements, city directories, and other sources.4 Perhaps the most important and wellknown frame designer of the late 19th century was the architect, Stanford White (1853-1906). White synthesized classical design elements with other ornaments to develop a style that was both new and inventive. For example, in the frame for Tobit and the Angel by Thomas W. Dewing (1851-1938) (Figure 2), White places row after row of delicate ornament next to each other to create an illusion of interwoven gilded fabric. Starting with the outermost edge of a slightly sloped profile, White employed ‘compo’5 to create the classical ‘guilloche’, but braids it into a three-part interlocking configuration. Next, he introduces a ‘pearf’, then a ‘twisted rope’, followed by a ‘ribbon and stick’, ‘4 pearls and spiraled bar’, ‘lambstongue’, ‘2 pearls and bar’ and then an ‘acanthus leaf’. Finally the eye rests on a flat area that has the title of the painting incised into the surface. Above this, on three sides, is a delicate garland studded with roses. The innermost ornament is a ‘laurel leaf’ and is positioned with centerpoints to direct the viewer’s eye gently to the work of art within. In Grzco-Roman classical ornament, the laurel symbolized renewal, resurrection, glory and honor. As an evergreen, it also signified eternity. ’ The subject of the painting most certainly is linked to this concept, and White’s understanding of his friend Dewing’s work enhanced the unity forged between frame and painting. White also specified 18k or green gold for many of Dewing’s works because his soft, cool, tertiary palette enhanced the chromatic harmony with this color of metal. Another
320
Professional
Notes
2. Tobit and the Angel (1887), by Th omas Wilmer Dewing (185 l-1938), with its original frame designed by Stanford White, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, gift of Edward D. Adams, 1919.
finish often used was a burnished bronze or ‘Roman Gold’. This gave the effect of extremely ancient water gilding, and was an effective means of obtaining a soft warm luster for paintings also requiring a specific color balance. The tabernacle frame style was used extensively by White for a number of his artist friends, such as Abbot H. Thayer (1849-1921) (Figure 3), and Alfred Q. Collins (1855-1903) (Figure 4). In comparing these two frames we can see clearly that White was inspired by ISth-century Italian architectural forms, although he did not copy them exactly. The Pre-Raphaelites had revived this style in the 186Os, and White continued the form into the 20th century, until his untimely assassination in 1906. In addition to studying ornament intensively, he also collected old frames to be used as inspiration for his creations, and admired them as works of art in their own right.’ Another frame designer represented in the Metropolitan Museum exhibition is the artist Elihu Vedder. Vedder collaborated with White on the murals for the Boston Public
3. Young Woman (c.1898), by Abbott H. Thayer (1849-1921), with its original tabernacle frame designed by Stanford White, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, gift of George A. Hearn, 1906.
Professional
4.
Portrait of Alexander Stewart Wetherill (c.l900), by Alfred Q. Collins (185~1903), with its original tabernacle frame designed by Stanford White, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, gift of Miss Kate Lefferts, Mrs Oliver Edwards and Mrs Philip Bartlett, 1965.
Library in 1892 and later the World’s Columbian Exposition in 1893.8 Vedder lived in Rome for the majority of his life and was immersed in all aspects of the Decorative Arts. He designed this tabernacle frame (Figure 5) to accompany one of his paintings based on the series of illustrations for Omar Khayyam’s Rubaiyat, published in Boston in 1884. The Cup of Love underwent several transformations as it was developed from illustration to painting, and Vedder had to contend with the Victorian penchant for prudery. During his work on the book he was admonished by the publishers for introducing nudity. He convinced them, however, that he would make the nudes dignified. He won this small battle by emulating the style of the Renaissance masters and ancient Greeks. In order to carry this point further, and add symbolic content to the painting, the classical tabernacle frame he designed incorporates a winged disc at the pediment. This
Notes
321
5. The Cup of Love (1887), by Elihu Vedder (1836-1923), with its original tabernacle frame designed by the artist, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, gift of Mrs Harold G. Henderson, 1976.
6. Carved and Gilt Picture Frame (c.1906-1916), probably designed by Albert Milch, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, included in the exhibition American Frames.
Professional Notes
322 Ancient deities
Egyptian motif is associated with the Hot-us and Edfu; a symbol of
protection both in earthly and eternal life, it appeared on temple entrances and on the ceilings of tombs. In addition, the beautifu~y balanced crossed cornucopias at the antependium are symbolic of fertility and abundance. The association of the ‘horn of plenty’ with Bacchus also appears in decorative motifs for centuries to carry through the theme of love, as an emblem of fecundity. UndoubtedIy, Vedder’s message is well taken by a close study of the frame. The exhibition in San Francisco illustrated the work of Arthur F. Mathews (1860-l 945), a California artist who designed and made many of his own frames of the symbolic tabernacle variety. 9 He and his wife, Lucia, worked together producing some of the most finely crafted and thoughtfully designed frames of the period. They were artists of consummate skill and refinement who placed an important weight on the presentation of their paintings. Both exhibitions were well received by the public and it is hoped that this is the beginning of a series of investigations into the almost lost world of the picture frame. It can be said that if a picture is worth a thousand words, then these exhibitions will leave you speechless!
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
(Professional Picture Framers Association, Richmond, Virginia, 1983). Examples of diaries with valuable information regarding framing are those of Worthington Wh~ctredge found at the Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution, and those of Frederic Remington located at Remington Museum in Ogdensburg, NY. A. W. Katlan, American Artists’ materials Suppliers’ Directory (Noyes Press, Park Ridge, New Jersey, 1987). ‘Compo’ or ‘Composition’--a mixture of chalk and resins and glue-has been used with great frequency since the end of the 18th century as an inexpensive alternative to laborious wood-carving. The mixture is kneaded like dough, and pressed into molds that have designs carved in reverse out of end-grain boxwood. Other molds have been cast out of asphaltum, copper-coated lead and suiphur. G. Darley and I?. Lewis, Dictionary of Ornament (Pantheon Books, New York, 1986), p. 185. T. J. Newbery, G. Bisacca and L. B. Kanter, Italian Renaissance Frames (The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 1990), p. 38. This frame was owned by Stanford White and purchased with the Rogers Fund in 1907 from his estate. R. Soria et al., Perceptions and Evocations: The Art of El&w Vedder (Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, 1979). H. L. Jones, Mathews: Masterpieces of the Ca~~fo~~ Decorative Style (Oakland Museum, Oakland, CA, 1985).
Notes
9.
1. ‘The Magnificent Border’, The journal of Art (New York, The Journal of Art Enterprises) 2(5) February 1990. 2. W. Adair, The Frame in America, l~~~-l~~~: A Survey of Fabrication Techniques and Styles
1WL. ho Credits. Metropolitan New York.
Picture Framing III: A Frame by Giuseppe Maria Bonzanigo Technical virtuosity is not a quality which has been articularly admired during much of the 2Ot ! century, when deliberate crude-
Museum
of Art,
WILLIAM ADAIR
and the evocative power of unworked surfaces have been admired by many; but for students of picture frames and related productions the meticulous carving of Giuseppe Maria Bonzanigo (1745-l 820) represents one of the high points of late l&h-century art in Piedmont. A native of Asti, Bonzanigo had settled in Turin by 1773 when he was working for the court of Savoy, and this first ness
Professional
Picture Framing II: Two Exhibitions of American Picture Frames Throughout 1990 a new assessment of American picture frames has occupied the attention of curators in several major museums. Sally Mills of the San Francisco Museum of Fine Arts and Carrie Rebora of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York (Figure 1) have both curated exhibitions dedicated to expanding the public’s knowledge of this enigmatic subject. Many of the frames were hung without the paintings, and in these instances, the viewer was invited to examine the frame without the interference of the painting fighting for attention. The reaction of a museum-goer,
I. Installation June-September
Notes
when entering for the first time a gallery filled with empty frames, is a curious mix of amazement and horror. The first reaction is that the paintings have been stolen, and then, as the shock wears off, the viewer is ushered into a realm never before considered: the picture frame as a work of art. The frame has traditionally been ignored by most museums, both as a curated object and the recipient of conservation care. Funds are rarely appropriated for acquisitions of frames and conservation efforts have been minimal. However, with these two major museum initiatives, the attitude is changing towards a more cohesive and holistic approach to frame connoisseurship. Until recent record-breaking auction prices,’ frames have been relatively inexpensive to replace and few people have realized the difference between a bad reproduction
of the exhibition, American Frames, at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 1990, with the displays culminating in a magnificent tabernacle frame (c. 1900) designed by Stanford White (1853-1906).
Professional Notes
and a correct period frame. In addition, with the increased value of paintings comes the close scrutiny of the educated collector and curator inquiring about the appropriateness and condition of the frame. In some cases, the frame may provide clues to the authenticity of a questioned painting. In other instances, the frame enhances our understanding of the taste of the collector, patron or artist. This understanding allows us to interpret the vast depth of our material culture that has slipped through the grasp of art history books. The frame has not been studied as a part of sculpture, architecture, design, furniture or painting. It is an arcane amalgam of all of the above. The scholarly study of frames can begin to provide us with a new outlook towards collection management and analysis. For example, the New York Historical Society has paintings from the Lyman Reed collection which can all be identified through their similar frames. Selecting a frame provided a means by which a patron could unify his collection. This event inadvertently leaves us with a record of the collector’s proclivity towards design and some insight into the prevailing taste of the era. In the Chicago Historical Society’s collection, there are a number of identical frames on paintings by America’s first international portraitist, George Peter Alexander Healy (1813-l 894). Healy lived in Chicago in 1855-66, and during this period he painted many important social figures. Although the sitters no doubt had individual tastes and preferences, it may have been the artist’s suggestion to use a certain style of frame, or perhaps there was only one frame-maker in Chicago that could produce frames of this quality. More research and study is thus needed to understand Healy’s relationship with this I9thcentury Chicago frame-maker. Unfortunately, neither of the two exhibitions of American frames produced in 1990 has a catalogue. Indeed, the appearance of these exhibitions with no catalogues is an indication of a surge of interest which has scant precedent and historical background upon which to draw. 2 Up to this date, the majority of the documented examples of American frames are from the late 19th and early 20th century, and most of the informa-
319
tion that frame historians have been able to accumulate has been culled from makers’ labels on the back of the frames or the account books and diaries of artists.3 Another important source of information on frame-makers is provided by the American Artists’ Materials Suppliers’ Directory by paintings conservator, Alexander W. Katlan. This comprehensive book lists the artists’ colormen and frame-makers in New York City during the 19th century. The information has been painstakingly gathered from field research, newspaper advertisements, city directories, and other sources.4 Perhaps the most important and wellknown frame designer of the late 19th century was the architect, Stanford White (1853-1906). White synthesized classical design elements with other ornaments to develop a style that was both new and inventive. For example, in the frame for Tobit and the Angel by Thomas W. Dewing (1851-1938) (Figure 2), White places row after row of delicate ornament next to each other to create an illusion of interwoven gilded fabric. Starting with the outermost edge of a slightly sloped profile, White employed ‘compo’5 to create the classical ‘guilloche’, but braids it into a three-part interlocking configuration. Next, he introduces a ‘pearf’, then a ‘twisted rope’, followed by a ‘ribbon and stick’, ‘4 pearls and spiraled bar’, ‘lambstongue’, ‘2 pearls and bar’ and then an ‘acanthus leaf’. Finally the eye rests on a flat area that has the title of the painting incised into the surface. Above this, on three sides, is a delicate garland studded with roses. The innermost ornament is a ‘laurel leaf’ and is positioned with centerpoints to direct the viewer’s eye gently to the work of art within. In Grzco-Roman classical ornament, the laurel symbolized renewal, resurrection, glory and honor. As an evergreen, it also signified eternity. ’ The subject of the painting most certainly is linked to this concept, and White’s understanding of his friend Dewing’s work enhanced the unity forged between frame and painting. White also specified 18k or green gold for many of Dewing’s works because his soft, cool, tertiary palette enhanced the chromatic harmony with this color of metal. Another
320
Professional
Notes
2. Tobit and the Angel (1887), by Th omas Wilmer Dewing (185 l-1938), with its original frame designed by Stanford White, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, gift of Edward D. Adams, 1919.
finish often used was a burnished bronze or ‘Roman Gold’. This gave the effect of extremely ancient water gilding, and was an effective means of obtaining a soft warm luster for paintings also requiring a specific color balance. The tabernacle frame style was used extensively by White for a number of his artist friends, such as Abbot H. Thayer (1849-1921) (Figure 3), and Alfred Q. Collins (1855-1903) (Figure 4). In comparing these two frames we can see clearly that White was inspired by ISth-century Italian architectural forms, although he did not copy them exactly. The Pre-Raphaelites had revived this style in the 186Os, and White continued the form into the 20th century, until his untimely assassination in 1906. In addition to studying ornament intensively, he also collected old frames to be used as inspiration for his creations, and admired them as works of art in their own right.’ Another frame designer represented in the Metropolitan Museum exhibition is the artist Elihu Vedder. Vedder collaborated with White on the murals for the Boston Public
3. Young Woman (c.1898), by Abbott H. Thayer (1849-1921), with its original tabernacle frame designed by Stanford White, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, gift of George A. Hearn, 1906.
Professional
4.
Portrait of Alexander Stewart Wetherill (c.l900), by Alfred Q. Collins (185~1903), with its original tabernacle frame designed by Stanford White, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, gift of Miss Kate Lefferts, Mrs Oliver Edwards and Mrs Philip Bartlett, 1965.
Library in 1892 and later the World’s Columbian Exposition in 1893.8 Vedder lived in Rome for the majority of his life and was immersed in all aspects of the Decorative Arts. He designed this tabernacle frame (Figure 5) to accompany one of his paintings based on the series of illustrations for Omar Khayyam’s Rubaiyat, published in Boston in 1884. The Cup of Love underwent several transformations as it was developed from illustration to painting, and Vedder had to contend with the Victorian penchant for prudery. During his work on the book he was admonished by the publishers for introducing nudity. He convinced them, however, that he would make the nudes dignified. He won this small battle by emulating the style of the Renaissance masters and ancient Greeks. In order to carry this point further, and add symbolic content to the painting, the classical tabernacle frame he designed incorporates a winged disc at the pediment. This
Notes
321
5. The Cup of Love (1887), by Elihu Vedder (1836-1923), with its original tabernacle frame designed by the artist, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, gift of Mrs Harold G. Henderson, 1976.
6. Carved and Gilt Picture Frame (c.1906-1916), probably designed by Albert Milch, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, included in the exhibition American Frames.
Professional Notes
322 Ancient deities
Egyptian motif is associated with the Hot-us and Edfu; a symbol of
protection both in earthly and eternal life, it appeared on temple entrances and on the ceilings of tombs. In addition, the beautifu~y balanced crossed cornucopias at the antependium are symbolic of fertility and abundance. The association of the ‘horn of plenty’ with Bacchus also appears in decorative motifs for centuries to carry through the theme of love, as an emblem of fecundity. UndoubtedIy, Vedder’s message is well taken by a close study of the frame. The exhibition in San Francisco illustrated the work of Arthur F. Mathews (1860-l 945), a California artist who designed and made many of his own frames of the symbolic tabernacle variety. 9 He and his wife, Lucia, worked together producing some of the most finely crafted and thoughtfully designed frames of the period. They were artists of consummate skill and refinement who placed an important weight on the presentation of their paintings. Both exhibitions were well received by the public and it is hoped that this is the beginning of a series of investigations into the almost lost world of the picture frame. It can be said that if a picture is worth a thousand words, then these exhibitions will leave you speechless!
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
(Professional Picture Framers Association, Richmond, Virginia, 1983). Examples of diaries with valuable information regarding framing are those of Worthington Wh~ctredge found at the Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution, and those of Frederic Remington located at Remington Museum in Ogdensburg, NY. A. W. Katlan, American Artists’ materials Suppliers’ Directory (Noyes Press, Park Ridge, New Jersey, 1987). ‘Compo’ or ‘Composition’--a mixture of chalk and resins and glue-has been used with great frequency since the end of the 18th century as an inexpensive alternative to laborious wood-carving. The mixture is kneaded like dough, and pressed into molds that have designs carved in reverse out of end-grain boxwood. Other molds have been cast out of asphaltum, copper-coated lead and suiphur. G. Darley and I?. Lewis, Dictionary of Ornament (Pantheon Books, New York, 1986), p. 185. T. J. Newbery, G. Bisacca and L. B. Kanter, Italian Renaissance Frames (The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 1990), p. 38. This frame was owned by Stanford White and purchased with the Rogers Fund in 1907 from his estate. R. Soria et al., Perceptions and Evocations: The Art of El&w Vedder (Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, 1979). H. L. Jones, Mathews: Masterpieces of the Ca~~fo~~ Decorative Style (Oakland Museum, Oakland, CA, 1985).
Notes
9.
1. ‘The Magnificent Border’, The journal of Art (New York, The Journal of Art Enterprises) 2(5) February 1990. 2. W. Adair, The Frame in America, l~~~-l~~~: A Survey of Fabrication Techniques and Styles
1WL. ho Credits. Metropolitan New York.
Picture Framing III: A Frame by Giuseppe Maria Bonzanigo Technical virtuosity is not a quality which has been articularly admired during much of the 2Ot ! century, when deliberate crude-
Museum
of Art,
WILLIAM ADAIR
and the evocative power of unworked surfaces have been admired by many; but for students of picture frames and related productions the meticulous carving of Giuseppe Maria Bonzanigo (1745-l 820) represents one of the high points of late l&h-century art in Piedmont. A native of Asti, Bonzanigo had settled in Turin by 1773 when he was working for the court of Savoy, and this first ness