The framing of works of art plays a significant part in their interpretation and appreciation. That said, when should notions of authenticity lead one to replace a frame?
Friedrich Schlegel encapsulated this question when he wrote: 'Every artwork brings forth its own frame. Without a frame, compositions tend to slip out or float' (Schlegel 1981, p.14). James McNeill Whistler went further still, saying '... my frames I have designed as carefully as my pictures - and thus they form as important a part as any of the rest of the work - carrying on the particular harmony throughout' (Mahey 1967, pp.252-3). Sir Joshua Reynolds, like so many other artists, often played a part in the selection of frames for his work (Penny and Gregory 1986, pp.810-25).
From this, it would appear axiomatic that a painting should be exhibited together with its original frame. However as Mitchell and Roberts (1996, p.12) point out, the divorce rate of the original marriages between paintings and their frames is more or less proportional to the age and status of the works of art, a view that is supported by Brettell (1986, p.9), who states that although we might fondly imagine that there is an intimate relationship between a frame and the picture, they are, more often than not, only distant cousins.
Heydenryk (1963, p.105) highlights the difficulty faced in framing the many works of art for which the original frames do not exist. Using frames contemporary with the paintings suffers from the problem that there are insufficient old frames of good enough quality for the number of old paintings that still survive; even if, as is unlikely, the frame is the right size. This may lead to the enforced use of modern replicas.
A further complication arises with a painting such as Sir Joshua Reynolds' The Age of Innocence1 (1788, Tate N00307) which was completed about 17882 and was given to the nation in 1847 as part of the Vernon Collection. The collection was presented and intended to be exhibited as a whole. However, The Age of Innocence was bought by Vernon in 1844 and almost certainly was reframed at his behest in a gilded bolection3 frame in the Emilian Italian style. Does authenticity demand that a late eighteenth century frame, contemporary to the painting, be used or should the later frame chosen by Vernon be considered more authentic? Reynolds is believed to have favoured the 'Carlo Maratta' frame4 (Levy and Newbery 1986, pp.367-70) yet the current 'contemporary' frame (Fig.1) is a rococo frame with pierced foliate centres and corners rather than a 'Carlo Maratta'.5 It has an overgilded matt finish unlike the bright finish seen on the mid-nineteenth century Vernon frame (Fig.2). Which is more authentic?
Unfortunately authenticity does not necessarily provide a definitive answer. Perhaps in this example, the frame chosen by Vernon, as a significant and interesting part of the painting's history, is the one to be preferred; nevertheless, the painting remains framed in the contemporary, but not original, frame (Fig.1).
Ivan Houghton, Frame Conservator (London Metropolitan University Placement, 2004)
February 2007
I am grateful to the Governors of the Tate for permission to take the photographs of Sir Joshua Reynolds The Age of Innocence.
1. View this work in the Tate Collection
2. 'Provenance: Reynolds sale, Greenwood's 16 April 1796 bought in; 1797 exchanged, along with another picture, by Lady Inchiquin (Reynolds's niece) for 'the Dido' to Bryan; sold to Bryan to Jeremiah Harman for 50 guineas; Jeremiah Harman sale, Christie's, 18 May 1844, by Robert Vernon for 1450 guineas; presented by Vernon to the National Gallery 1847 in 1847.' (Mannings, 2000, p.507)
3. Reverse profile.
4. It has been suggested that the sitter possibly chose some of the rococo frames that some portraits are in, without reference to the artist (Penny 1986, p.821).
5. Carlo Maratta is a classically derived style of frame named after the Italian painter (1625-1713) particularly associated with its early use.
