|
UPDATE ON THE EXHIBITON
Addenda to the book by Jacob Simon, The Art of the Picture
Frame, Artists, Patrons and the Framing of Portraits in Britain,
National Portrait Gallery, 1996.
no. 12
William Laud: Further examination makes it clear that
the frame is not original to the portrait.
no. 14
Thomas Chiffinch: Three other frames of this type, with
paired dolphins at top and bottom, can be found on Van Dyck studio
portraits at Blickling Hall, Norfolk; another example is in store
at Claydon House, Buckinghamshire.
no. 18
Samuel Pepys: The portraits in Pepys's Library all seem
to be of his friends. Pepys's own portrait must have hung elsewhere.
It is possible that Pepys reframed some of his pictures to obtain
a uniform set for his Library. Research is in progress with a
view to publication.
no. 20
Charles II: Similar frames are at Glamis Castle.
no. 26
Jacob Tonson: Research is in progress with a view to publishing
an article on the rehousing, framing and engraving of the Kit-cat
Club portraits in the 1730s. The tablets on the Kit-cat Club
frames are the earliest frame tablets in the exhibition identifying
the subject of a picture.
no. 27
William Shenstone: It has been suggested by the late John
Cornforth that this frame may perhaps have started life as a
mirror frame.
no. 33
Samuel Richardson: The later gessoing and gilding has
been removed and the frame regilded, 2000.
no. 40
Duchess of Devonshire: The 'carving' is in fact pressed
and gilt papier-mâché.
no. 58
Thomas Hope: The original fluting in the hollow of the
frame has now been exposed to view by stripping off the later
gesso. Fig. 69 shows work in progress.
no. 62
George Canning: The frame was definitely made by George
Morant; it bears his label.
no. 65
Frederick, Duke of York: The frame was commissioned from
Thomas Macdonald (information and letter transcriptions kindly
provided by Hamish Miles). On 9 June 1822, Wilkie wrote to Macdonald,
'If Mr. Macdonald will call in Phillimore Place on Wednesday
morning at 10, Mr. W. wishes him to take measure to make a frame
for the portrait of H.R.H. the Duke of York, with coat of arms,
etc'. Later that year, on 12 December, Wilkie wrote again to
Macdonald, 'Mr. Wilkie requests that the man who is to bring
the mouldings on Saturday morning may take back with him the
frame for the Duke of York'.
no. 69
1st Earl of Ellenborough: Payment for the frame on the
companion portrait of Lord Lincoln can be found in Robert Thick's
ledger (private collection) under 2 August 1848: 'Making Frame
to & Writing Earl of Lincoln by Say 1848 £10.18s'.
no. 81
Stephen Lushington: This frame is to a pattern designed
by the architect and designer Owen Jones (1809-74) for the National
Gallery's pair of pictures attributed to Quinten Massys, Christ
and The Virgin. I am most grateful to Nicholas Penny
for drawing my attentions to an entry in the diary of Ralph Wornum,
Keeper at the National Gallery, under 15 February 1858 where
he notes, 'received from Ford's the frame for the Quentin Matsys
pictures, made from a design by Owen Jones', see National Gallery
Archive (NG32/67).
no. 94
Alfred Waterhouse: A rather similar frame can be found
on Alma-Tadema's Love in Idleness, 1891 (Laing Art Gallery,
Newcastle).
no. 97
William Shakespeare: The reframing of this portrait coincided
with the celebrations in April 1864 for the tercentenary of Shakespeare's
birth.
no. 107
Octavia Hill: This frame seems to be Italian 17th century,
altered and regilded for Sargent's purpose. See Notes on John
Singer Sargent's portrait frames
no. 112
Osbert Sitwell: On the basis of limited further evidence
I am inclined to see the decoration of this frame as the responsibility
of the artist rather than the sitter.
p. 18, The rise of the exhibition
frame
Despite the evidence that 'massy gold frames' were encumbering
the walls of the Royal Academy as early as 1781, meaning that
'the carver rather than the artist claims our attention', it
has been mistakenly claimed in the publication accompanying the
exhibition at the Courtauld Institute Gallery, Art on the
Line, that special thin exhibition frames were used as a
standard practice at the Academy when it moved to Somerset House
in 1780. To quote: 'exhibitors must have been encouraged to use
thin frames designed for the purpose, and quite different from
the more ornate surrounds usually used for displaying pictures
in private houses. The use of special (and presumably re-usable)
exhibition frames appears to have been standard practice at least
during the first few decades' (see John Sunderland and David
H. Solkin, 'Staging the Spectacle', in David H. Solkin (ed.),
Art on the Line: The Royal Academy Exhibitions at Somerset
House 1780-1836, New Haven and London, 2001, pp. 23-37, especially
p. 25).
This is an overstatement. It
is certainly true that some artists kept stock frames for sending
in non-commissioned works. James Northcote states that Sir Joshua
Reynolds's fancy pictures were framed by the artist himself in
frames which were not more than two inches in depth: 'Sir Joshua's
frames went year after year; one frame in particular, I remember,
had gone so often it might almost have found its way to the Exhibition
alone' Joseph Wright of Derby's practice was somewhat similar,
judging from his correspondence concerning the Society of Artists
exhibition in 1774 when he refers to 'an old Italian moulding
frame which I have had by me for many years and keep for the
use of the exhibition'. However, while some artists submitted
work in relatively simple frames which they kept for the purpose,
many pictures were more richly framed, especially commissioned
works where the framing would have been the responsibility of
the patron. Northcote says of his master, Reynolds, that 'his
portraits were sent [to the exhibition] in such frames as his
sitters provided for them'. Visitors to the Academy and other
exhibitions are likely to have seen a great mix of frames, some
elaborate, reflecting the taste and pocket of the patron, others
relatively simple, especially if an artist had to bear the cost.
E.F. Burney in his record drawings
of the 1784 exhibition (Art on the Line, figs. 17-19,
207) deliberately reduces the frames to paired straight lines
and makes no attempt to portray the actual appearance of the
frames. A truer feeling for these frames can be obtained from
Daniel Dodd's view of the very same exhibition (fig. 33), which
shows that many of the frames were actually quite elaborate,
although relatively narrow in keeping with the taste of the time.
J.H. Ramberg's views of the 1787 and 1788 exhibitions (figs.
35, 37) are schematic but they do give some hint of the ornamentation
on some of the frames as an examination of a detail of the 1787
view (fig. 208) reveals.
p. 20
An interesting light is thrown on the framing of miniatures at
the Royal Academy by the account of Andrew Robertson in April
1803 who wrote how he conceived the large frames in which he
housed his pictures 'essential, to give them their proper effect';
he thus ignored the rule limiting miniature frames to mouldings
of one-inch width but was satisfied to find his work hung at
the centre of the miniatures at the Royal Academy, noting that
'they make a conspicuous figure, and the first things that strike
the eye on entering the room' (Emily Robertson, editor, Letters
and Papers of Andrew Robertson, 2nd ed., 1897, pp. 96-7).
p. 24
Although Ferruccio Vannoni's frames were supplied through Duveen's
Paris office, it appears that he was in fact resident in Florence:
in 1948 his address was via Borgo Ognissanti, 8 (see Nicholas
Penny, 'Frame Studies', letter, Burlington Magazine, vol.
141, 1999, p. 356.
p. 42
The carver, Thomas Johnson, known for his engraved designs in
the rococo style, can be found complaining of the carving business
as 'being ruined by the invention of composition' in the 1770s.
See Jacob Simon, 'Thomas Johnson's The Life of the Author',
Furniture History Society, 2003, p. 9.
p. 45, fig. 35
It has now been established that this is the trade catalogue
of Richard Scully.
p. 46
For 1883 read 1885.
p. 92, fig. 91
The portrait by Charles Jervas can be more accurately dated to
about 1709; see correspondence in the National Library of Wales,
items 2511, 2528, 2529.
p. 102
It was Sir George Beaumont, Wilkie's patron, not Wilkie himself,
who liked 'a frame with rich corners & then more plain in
the middle'; see Allan Cunningham, The Life of Sir David Wilkie,
1843, vol. 1, pp. 326-8, rather than the Whitley papers as quoted
in note 113.
p. 104
John Rogers Herbert's Lear disinheriting Cordelia is in
the Harris Museum and Art Gallery, Preston. It has a frame of
the type commonly found on Herbert's pictures.
p. 121, figure 130
The drawing of Samuel Pepys's Library is by Sutton Nicholls.
p.133
It was Thomas Temple's son, Thomas Maxfield Temple, who was made
bankrupt in 1839.
p. 137
An example of C.J. Eckford's printed 'Sheet of Drawings', datable
to 1840, can be found in the British Museum, Dept of Prints and
Drawings, in the Franks Ephemera, vol. 4 (as kindly pointed out
by Antony Griffiths). This item from the Franks Ephemera is located
at I & J Smith/British XIXc Imp.
p. 194, note 38
The Practical Carver and Gilder's Guide seems to have
been issued in a series of editions as follows: 1st ed., 1873
or later (probably 1874), 140 pp + [xii] pp adverts; 2nd ed.,
1874 or later (perhaps 1875), 176 pp; 3rd ed., 1874 or later
(perhaps 1876), 176 pp + [viii] pp adverts; 4th ed., c.1877,
201 pp + [i] p. adverts; 5th ed., c.1877 or later, 205 pp + [iii]
pp adverts. Authorship of the 5th edition is given to Charles
H. Savory: earlier editions are described as 'By a Practical
Hand'.
Reviews of the exhibition and book
John Cornforth, Country Life,
vol. CXC, 14 November 1996, pp. 32-5.
Alastair Laing, Apollo, vol. CXLV, January 1997, pp. 52-3.
Nicholas Penny, Burlington Magazine, vol. CXXXIX, February
1997, pp. 130-2.
Peter Cannon-Brookes, Museum Management and Curatorship,
vol. XV, 1996, pp. 419-23, 434-5
|
