At museums, visitors usually pause to contemplate an artwork’s composition. Often people learn more about an artist or a period by reading the label describing the work. But rarely do viewers study the frame. Many view frames—wooden, metal, or plastic structures that exhibit paintings—as an afterthought. But these objects can provide clues about the art they display.
For many who create, sell, or hang art, frames serve a practical purpose. They protect and support the art, making it easier to display as well as move without damaging the work. In addition, they can help a painting stand out. Some experts believe that a frame succeeds most when it goes unnoticed, instead directing the viewer’s attention to the artwork. The wrong frame can distract from the art, or alter it for the worse.
A frame can also provide historical context about an artist and era. Flemish painter Sir Anthony van Dyck’s 1640 self-portrait, left, hangs in its original gilded frame at the National Portrait Gallery in London. It represents a time when art owners showed off their wealth using ornate frames to display paintings. The sunflower at the top of the frame, which historians associate with Van Dyck, indicates that he likely helped design it. Other artists have worked with frame makers to create borders best suited for their work, and some craft their own. But many original frames have been lost, and most frame makers throughout history aren't recognized for their work.
Today some experts are focused on preserving works’ original frames. They believe a frame can provide contextual clues about the art it displays, and that if viewers consider frames, they might uncover more information about the work.
What do you think: Should historians invest time in studying frames? Why or why not?