A dense tangle of synthetic fibers, soft and mysterious, draw my eye into its depths. This a detail of one of the miniature textiles by Sheila Hicks in her recent exhibition at Sikkema Jenkins & Co. (I'm sorry not to have title and dimensions, but this piece wasn't on the website.)
Stepping back from the detail, I see the small work imprisoned in its frame. The sensuality of the material seemed to be denied by being behind glass. I've been a fan of Hicks' miniature textiles for a couple of years, ever since the artist Rosaire Appel pointed me to a catalog of her work, Sheila Hicks: Weaving as Metaphor, which I'm lucky to own, since now it's wildly expensive. I wrote a blog post on the work in 2010, which you can read here. But I had only seen the work in reproduction, which might be why it was such a shock to see these small pieces, which I was accustomed to seeing on a white ground, tightly framed in a mid-toned wood.
Ardoise, 2006, monofilament, linen and slate, 8 1/2 x 4 1/4 in.
Meandering white lines with thinner threads holding flat stones remind me of a shallow river bed, with flickering light held in water.
La Lettre de Rupture, 2004, cotton, handmade paper, linen, 9 7/8 x 6 in.
Strips of paper are held by colored threads that act as an ancient language, waiting to be deciphered. The inventiveness of this work, the surprising use of ordinary materials, is thrilling.
La Clef, 1988, rubber bands and metal key, 9 1/2 x 6 in.
This one work, an agglomeration of brightly colored rubber bands, was hanging free on the wall, unframed, and I looked at it with a great sigh of relief. It was relating directly to the wall, its forms and cast shadows not confined by the edges of a frame; my eye was free to expand the energy of the materials outward.
Installation view
I discussed this issue with a couple of my artist friends, both of whom loved the show, neither of whom found the frames troubling. I thought back a year ago, when I saw the fantastic Louise Bourgeois Fabric Works show, which I wrote about here. The frames in that show didn't bother me one bit...why not? is it because Bougeois' work is less textural, more image oriented? or was it simply that I had no expectations, as I did with the Hicks show? Of course I understand that some work must be protected under glass, but Hicks' large textiles must be installed without protection, so why not the small ones?
Altoon Sultan, painting Reds, 2011, and textile Pale Pink/Yellow Ground, 2011
It may be that I'm just bringing a personal attitude to the work in the Hicks show. I've always wanted my textiles to be hung directly on the wall, but last year a gallery dealer asked me to frame a couple of them; otherwise, she claimed, collectors would think of them "as rags". I hated the idea of putting them under glass, so had them put in a white frame that would be as close to being a part of the wall as possible. My preference is still for no frame at all. You can see a group of photos of my studio installations here, in which the work is more closely hung than it would be for a show. I like the idea of the different works conversing, with no frames intervening. How about you? do you have anxieties over framing? is it always necessary?
Oh, what a raw nerve this is! After all those years making quilts, tactile pleasure for everyone if there ever was one, but now working on paper, it just kills me to have to frame my work under glass. And yet...watching work get beat up and faded and worn out is pretty discouraging, too. Often small work does need a big area around it just to set it off from the busy world around it -- a white wall with space is a rare thing in my cluttered world. But my goal, some day, is to figure out how to make work that's right out there being an object that a person could turn over and look at the back of and hold in the hand. I want to touch things!
ReplyDeleteoh, I understand your frustration, Susan. I never worried about framing work on paper or prints; it seemed natural for them. It's the other stuff that makes me nutty. I you take up oil painting on panel you wouldn't have to frame them.
DeleteTrue!
DeleteI frame things that I hang in my own house; it seems advisable for work on paper that is that exposed, if you'd like to have it around as long as possible. But I actually have issues with frames all the time, and I never ignore them but subject them to the same kind of judgement as any other aspect; I am frequently bugged by what I see in those choices. I avoid framing my own work, even for exhibition, and would always prefer that, if someone thinks a frame is needed, for the length of an exhibition, at least the glazing should be eliminated. But wood frames don't allow for that I think. The Hicks show would have been even more wonderful than it was with those smaller works unframed completely, I agree.
ReplyDeleteRavenna, I wholeheartedly agree about work on paper. It would be best, wouldn't it, if the frame were conceived at the same time as the work, if it was to be framed. The frame on my textile above is wood and has no glass, so it certainly can be done. The frames on the Richard Tuttle clay multiples are a similar type of wood frame, just a box, that are sometimes used for oil paintings.
DeleteI'm glad you agree with me that the Hicks pieces would have been more wonderful without the frames.
yes -- I meant removing glass from a frame only for the length of exhibition, then putting it back. Stephen Wirtz, gallery owner in SF, did this for a photography show I saw there many years ago, it was great. Those were metal frames though.
DeleteI like them unframed. Presentation is always a problem in a gallery.
ReplyDeleteIt sure is, alicia.
DeleteFraming is an issue and mostly I make work which doesn't have to be framed because I want the immediacy of it; yes, touch and turn, reflection of light as it moves across the surfaces...not stuck away, protected and aloof.
ReplyDeleteThe shadows of the unframed piece are so much a piece of its story. Still lovely to see this work and I am glad I could share it with you.
It's great to make work that doesn't have to be framed, I agree, Maggie.
DeleteI'm glad you liked seeing these Hicks pieces.
Hi Altoon. This is Susan W. (I still can't figure out how to sign these things!) I believe I am one of the friends you mention who also saw the Hicks show and was not bothered by the frames. My feeling is that your textile pieces are quite different from her work and also from those small pieces by Louise B. (I saw that show as well). Your work seems made for the wall--the robust, simple (but not without their beautiful subtleties), highly geometric designs relate directly to the architecture of a room. Much like an early Renaissance fresco, they read as well from a distance as they do up close, and I would agree, they don't want a frame breaking that relationship to the wall. With the Hicks and Bourgeois pieces, the sense of sale is quite different--there is so much minute detail and varied textures. They are worlds unto themselves and for me the frame is benefiting the vision of the artist by saying--"this is a world separate from the reality this room, come closer, enter this world and take a deeper look."
ReplyDeleteI just wanted to add that I feel these small works by Hicks do not reproduce well at all.
ReplyDeleteAnd I meant to say sense of "scale"--not "sale"!!
ReplyDeleteThanks Susan, for the clearly articulated response to the question of frames. (yes you were one of those friends) I understand your point, and it makes a great deal of sense regarding the different visual experiences and how they relate to framing.
ReplyDeleteI approach frames and framing with the same mixed feelings I approach the concept of an artist statement: Yes, I understand from a practical standpoint why they became de rigeur, but that doesn't make them any more appealing. I usually feel unsatisfied with both. But your point about conceiving of the frame at the same time as the work--as has been done by Howard Hodgkins and Judy Pfaff (among others) with successful results IMHO--is one way to go.
ReplyDeleteGreat post. I'm a huge Shiela Hicks fan too.
enjoyed reading this discussion! i tend to like frames and glass, i like that you have to make a special little effort to get past the reflections, you have to push a little to get through the formal barrier... but the exhibit alltogethernow (last weekend in Bushwick) wasn't framed and i was glad of it - it was completely suitable. this is also an architectural issue since architecture makes the context for the work.
ReplyDeleteI really wanted to see that alltogethernow exhibit!
DeleteThank you for your comments, slowmuse and rappel, and for adding your different points of view to this discussion. We really have different ideas about this, don't we!? I think rappel's is quite unusual; I've never heard anyone speak of the glass barrier as being a plus, as a special kind of lock and key you need to access the work.
ReplyDeleteI guess we all have to think about physical context in the larger architectural sense as well as with the piece of art and its frame.
I agree—"down with the cages." I first learned of Shelia Hicks' work about a year ago through your post on Facebook and was thrilled that I would have a chance to see them in person at Sikkema & Jenkins Co. The images I saw of Hicks' work as presented in Irma Boom's amazing "catalog" were truer to the work than the gallery presentation (except for those that were cage free). What a disappointment and an offense to such good work.
ReplyDeletethanks, Joan, for yet another point of view that echoes my own. But I also appreciate those who argue for the frames.
DeleteI am not necessarily against frames, though I do agree textiles are trickier to frame than works of paper. I have seen many a work on paper enhanced by a good frame.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the frames on the Sheila Hicks pictured here are simply not suitable frames for the work. Especially the La Lettre de Rupture, 2004, I don't understand the color choices for the background mat or the frame itself? or, really it seems there may be a more suitable size and shape of the background mat or the thickness and depth of the frame itself.
My husband and I have a lot of works on paper and we work with a great framer who often makes custom frames for us. It is definitely a process to find the right frame for each piece, and working with the framer, we have gotten collectively better over time at finding or creating the right match.
That same framer has told us before that she has a lot of printmakers who like the white frames like the one you used in the last picture, Altoon. Especially when their prints have deckle edge and are more 'object-like', for exactly the reason you mentioned- to make the frame recede into the wall.
For the record, I do prefer Altoon's textile piece in that photo that is unframed vs. the framed one. Sometimes to make something relate better to the architecture, crop the frame in close to the piece. You don't always have to stick with 4" mat or whatever they consider standard. Or maybe a shallower frame? What about a recessed frame with no glass and building up the mat inside more like a box?
Anyhow, enough brainstorming. The point is, you can still think outside the box when it comes to framing.
I agree, Saskia, that if these works have to be framed there must be a better choice for mat and frame color, and the amount of space left around the work. It is a very delicate balance, but of course, reading the comments here, one can imagine that each of us would have a different idea of a frame that was perfect for the work.
DeleteI think you are asking some very good questions Altoon, and what a response you have here already! I do think our mindset gets too 'autopilot' that we must frame art in these types of instances, and I especially appreciate your thought about the idea of the mind 'being free to expand the energy of the art outward'. With museums and galleries a component of the need to frame smaller installations may have to do with art conservation and security issues. I could see all of Hick's work you've shared here without frames, except for possibly "Ardoise", which might fair better in the lacy part against a light gray, yet maybe I'd still like the subtlety of the light lace shadows against a white wall there too. I would prefer your ruglets without frames, especially for the groupings.
ReplyDeleteOnce with my miniature art I was asked to frame the lid I painted from a 2" carved bone box in order to meet quirky competition requirements that it must be 'hangable' in two group shows where I entered the work, which to me has a touch of the absurd in it. I hadn't carved the bone box, nor was I claiming to have done that part in how I labelled the art. Since I wasn't comfortable going to the extreme of submitting the lid framed, I took the risk of entering it as a 3-D work of art (they also have miniature sculptures, where I hoped it might be displayed alongside in a case). The work was rejected from being shown in the larger show and positioned in a 'small works' gallery (although at 2 3/4" x 1" in scale) in a smaller show. In some way I wish it were possible for the creator to have the last word on how a work of art is presented, since that is part of the energy of the art too, and yet museums have dealt with great care and beauty at times with the framing and presentation of art by artists who have long passed away.
I agree, Mona, that it would be the best of all possible worlds if the artist could have the last word on how their work is presented, but that doesn't often happen. And you're also correct in that we mostly have the expectation that work must be framed. But that's changing and things are more open now. Of course museums must care for the art in their collections and that usually means protecting it in frames or boxes or cases. Oh, this is such a complicated subject!
DeleteWhen I visit the museum galleries that have Cezanne and other painters from that period, I always detest the frames, and I long to see those paintings with no frame at all -- or with simpler frames, at least. I usually tell myself they are framed in the style of the time, and that the painters problably displayed them framed that way, or imagined that they would be framed that way. But I still find the ornately carved and gilt frames abominable.
ReplyDeleteIt's funny, but because I'm so used to those elaborate frames I don't even see them, which is a good thing.
Delete