Home > Catalogue > Essays > Picture Frames
Picture Frames
Sarah Parkerson Day
Introduction ^
Whistler's Frames ^
In 1873, the young American painter, James McNeill Whistler, wrote this pompous description of his new picture frames to a friend, George A. Lucas:
‘You will notice and perhaps meet with opposition that 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 - This is of course entirely original with me and has never been done.' 1
Whistler continued to be opinionated about the relationship between his pictures and the frames throughout his life. As his painting style evolved, so did the designs for his frames.
This view can be seen during Whistler’s preparations for the 1892 London exhibition, Nocturnes, Marines, and Chevalet Pieces. Whistler wrote to John Gerald Potter saying, ‘I hope you are as pleased as I am with my new frames, at last the pictures have a dress worthy their own dignity and stateliness. Wherefore, you may thank me for finally inventing them - You see it takes years to know these things.' 2 Likewise, Whistler wrote to Frederick Jameson, an owner of one of his paintings, Blue and Silver: Trouville [y066], claiming, ‘I want you to let me have it framed in one of my newly composed frames. They are very beautiful - and your picture will gain five times in stateliness - as I am happy to know it has gained at least ten times in value - The frame will cost you very little.' 3 Whistler implored his patrons to remove older frames in favour of his new frame, one that would add dignity, stateliness and value to his works and would cost the owners ‘very little'. Whistler may not have personally manufactured or crafted these frames, but he oversaw their creation and considered them a vital part of his artwork.
Yet, much to Whistler’s irritation, many of his patrons refused his new frames. While Whistler endeavoured to maintain control of all aspects of his artwork, including the framing, collectors such as J. G. Potter did not always pay the framer’s bills and, as Whistler wrote to Potter, ‘threw the one or two frames in which they looked their best upon my hands! and Bless you – cheaply shoved the beautiful "Blue wave" for which you expect another thousand doubtless back into the mean old abomination of years ago.’ 4
No doubt this ‘old abomination of years ago’ was a frame that was originally of Whistler’s choosing, yet he rejected it in favour of the newer designed one that he declared more ‘worthy’ of his work. There may not be a more Whistlerian object than his picture frames. There may not be a more Whistlerian object than his picture frames. They are vital aspects of his art about which he continued to hold strong opinions, yet he changed them frequently and passionately. We as Whistler scholars must consider how these objects, his picture frames, can further enlighten our understanding of his artwork.
If Whistler was so passionate about his picture frames, why are they often misunderstood? Simply put, picture frames are often marginalized by art and decorative art historians alike. The canon of art history has long failed to recognize the frame as a part of the painting and so this object in artwork has largely been ignored. At the same time, the field of decorative arts has failed to see the picture frame as an independent object worthy of examination. Thus, the picture frame is left to dwell in the footnotes of academic art history.
Nevertheless, the picture frame must be treated as an important object of each work of art. It is a key part of the history of a work of art. No frame was placed around a work of art without much thought. Someone, somewhere, at some point in time, chose that particular frame for that painting, and in the case of Whistler, he was the one making those decisions. By looking at a frame, we can discover a deeper story behind the work. We can observe the physical history of the work of art, see where and how it has hung, and find evidence of who owned it. And in the case of Whistler, we can observe the changing attitudes of this artist towards his artwork.
The 2018 Revised Catalogue Raisonné ^
In this revised online edition of The Paintings of James McNeill Whistler: A Catalogue Raisonné, I examine the little-known history of these marginalized objects, Whistler’s picture frames, bringing them out of the footnotes and into the light. In the 1980 original edition of this book, the authors included the following introductory note on the frames:
‘In the 1890s Whistler evolved a uniform gilt frame from his paintings and pastels. It was deep, with bands of slim beading. Such frames are sufficiently common – and susceptible to imitation – that it has not been thought necessary to draw attention to them. Any frames individually designed or painted by Whistler, as well as signatures and inscriptions on frames have been described. Since the patterns Whistler used were fairly uniform, the following types are specified: Chequered, Basketweave, fish-scale, and bamboo’. 5
However, these painted frames, which he employed during the 1870s for a limited period of time in his career, represent only a small selection of the frames designed and used by Whistler.
At the time of the 1980 catalogue raisonné, detailed research on Whistler’s frames had been conducted. In 1974, Ira Horowitz completed the first in-depth examination on the subject in his master’s thesis, The Picture Frame, 1848-1892: The Pre-Raphaelites, Whistler, Paris. This work was then condensed into the article, ‘Whistler’s frames’, published by The Art Journal in 1979, but this information was not incorporated into the original catalogue. While the authors were (and are) undeniably knowledgeable on matters of Whistler, they did not possess that same knowledge and understanding regarding his frames. Only 30 works out of a possible 554 (5.5%) had identified frames. Furthermore, none were illustrated in the 1980 edition, and the ones identified were noted because they possessed some form of surface decoration, which is not a reliable source of information. This is because the surface of a frame can easily be altered, and manipulated by anyone, including the artist or a well-intended conservator. While this small number of painted frames is significantly more than the typical catalogue raisonné for its time and even for today, it is a fraction of what could have been identified.
For this edition, the frames surrounding 189 paintings have been identified, documented and photographed. This number does not include missing and/or replaced frames. As we will observe, some canvases have possessed up to three different frames. Additionally, I hope to correct the thinking perpetuated by the original 1980 edition. While the painted frames are more obvious to the viewer, the ‘uniform gilt frame’ is far from ‘uniform’ because it displays a wide array of distinct variations. These frames may appear to be sufficiently common and even identical, but they are in fact significantly different from one another and may date from different points in Whistler’s career. Thus, this study seeks both to challenge the previous knowledge about Whistler’s picture frames and to create the vocabulary needed for us to gain a better understanding of Whistler’s frames.
Definitions
The Term Whistler Frame
The ubiquitous term 'Whistler Frame' is commonly used to describe his frames, but as a term of classification, it is too broad in scope because it obscures important distinctions within the design. A Whistler Frame does often contain reeded ornament, but does that one characteristic alone classify it as a Whistler Frame? As we will see, not all of Whistler’s frames have reeds and not all reeded frames are Whistler’s. Furthermore, what does the generic term Whistler Frame tell us about the date? Does the frame in question date from the 1860s or the 1890s? Without a doubt, Whistler favoured reeded ornamentation, and the majority of his frames do contain reeds. Yet the profile (or moulding shape) of these frames differs significantly, which makes them unique designs. The profile of the frames Whistler used in 1860 is different from the profile he used in 1890. While both may display reeded ornament, we cannot use the same term, Whistler Frame, to accurately describe what are essentially different objects.
Therefore, the name, Whistler, will only be used to denote a frame used by the artist and not just the presence of reeded ornament. Any frames that contain reeded ornament and are not known to have been selected by the artist are classified as being Whistler-style frames or Whistlerian in style. Likewise, a Grau Whistler and a Grau-style frame are different, in that Grau Whistlers are known products of the framer Frederick Henry Grau, while Grau-style frames are those that simply follow his established pattern. There are at least five distinct frames Whistler used during his lifetime. Some categories contain slight variations,for example the size, the frame maker, or the presence/lack of painted decoration, but the basic profile of the frame remains consistent. These categories are, in rough chronological order: :
(1) the 1864 Whistler;
(2) the Flat Whistler;
(3) the Portrait Whistler,
(4) the Dowdeswell Whistler (small & large);
(5) the Grau Whistler.
Frames made after Whistler’s lifetime can be classified as being:
(6) Grau-style; or
(7) Whistler-style or Whistlerian in style (modern reproductions with reeded ornament).
Details regarding the variations within these categories are further outlined in the Glossary of frames, and later in this essay.
Methodology
Research Methods Employed
The majority of the information catalogued here is taken from the research conducted for my doctoral thesis, Variations in Gold: the stylistic development of the picture frames used by James McNeill Whistler. (Parkerson 2007). The thesis employed two methods of analysis: physical examinations of the objects and archival research. The work is grounded in an object-based approach and considers that evidence taken from these examinations is relevant to the dating of the objects. Additional information can also directly contribute to our larger understanding of the frame designs used by Whistler. I examined approximately one hundred frames in person, and when that was not possible, I consulted high-resolution photographs. I meticulously measured and photographed each frame as well as the frame’s profile, condition and any evidence of alterations. Finally, I observed the presence of all labels.
The frame’s profile, or basic shape of the moulding, is the first indicator of the frame’s style and type. The surface of the frame is easily altered, but it is much more difficult to change the moulding, which provides an extremely reliable source of information about the frame. As noted, Whistler’s frames often possess reeded ornament, yet the arrangement or profile of these reeds varied throughout his career. Jacob Simon, former curator at the National Portrait Gallery in London, defined a Whistler frame as being ‘a reeded frame, current from the 1870s onwards, found either as a flat frame with inner and outer reeded band, or as a reeded cushion frame.' 6
Simon was actually describing two different frame profiles dating from two distinct decades in Whistler’s career, and if my classifications are used, they are the Flat Whistler of the 1870s and the Grau Whistler (or Grau-style) of the 1890s. Without a close look at the profile, this distinction could not have been made, and the term Whistler Frame would continue to be applied to two different objects.
Likewise, a frame’s condition can illuminate aspects of its history. The surface can reveal whether conservation attempts have been made or if the piece has been re-gilded. (I have elected not to dwell on these conservation attempts, as they are almost impossible to follow. I have instead limited my observations to alterations made either by Whistler or during his lifetime) Similarly, by looking at the verso and the frame’s construction, it is possible to date a frame as either a 19th century artifact or a modern reproduction. Whistler’s framers often used corner-blocks to support the mitre joints, and these deep reeded frames consist of multiple smaller mouldings that are joined to create the whole. An 1892 Grau Whistler is often three separate pieces joined to make one frame. Where this technique has been used, the frame has a hollow back. Some of the worst modern reproductions are extremely heavy because they consist of mouldings milled from solid wood.
[Image 1, Nocturne: Silver and Opal - Chelsea [y309], verso of frame, and Fig. 2, The Storm - Sunset [m0808], forthcoming]
Primary source materials have been used to support these physical examinations. As observed, Whistler wrote letters containing subtle, and not so subtle, details regarding his frames. He might describe one as being ‘elaborately painted and ornamented’ or another to be ‘thoroughly clean[ed] and regild[ed].’ 7 Likewise, bills, exhibition checklists and some exhibition reviews aid in the identification of current or missing frames and provide invaluable information needed to determine the date of a picture frame. If both of these methods of object examination and archival research are applied, a rich history of Whistler frames becomes evident.
The Balcony: A Case Study of Object + Document Analysis
During his career, Whistler selected three different picture frames to surround the the canvas of Variations in Flesh Colour and Green: The Balcony [y056]. By examining this one painting, we can observe Whistler’s interest in frames and study his framing habits, which perfectly illustrates what can be gained from combining the different approaches to the study.
Currently, the painting hangs in the Freer Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, in a deep reeded cushion frame. The profile and the corner-block construction both suggest that the frame dates from the 1890s and was possibly made by Whistler’s favoured frame-maker of the time, Frederick Henry Grau, yet it lacks a Grau label or signature. The accession number for the piece (1892.23a-b) confirms this date. The Freer alphanumeric number indicates the year the painting entered the collection, followed by the number the painting was given within the year. The ‘a-b’ letters refer to the individual objects that made up the gift. The ‘a’ is for the painting, while the ‘b’ is for the frame. Therefore, this accession number tells us that this frame was the first and only frame to be on the canvas since it entered the Freer Gallery in 1892. If there had been additional frames, more letters would have been included (c, d, e, etc). The Freer Gallery is unique in this practice of accessioning the picture frames along with the canvas, which may reflect the high respect that the collector, Charles Lang Freer, had for Whistler’s interest in his frames.
Yet, even if we have determined the date of this frame, it is not the first to surround the canvas. The painting dates from the 1860s and the frame dates from 1892. So what frame was first used for The Balcony? Where did this Grau-style frame come from? Who put it there? And why?
The first frame to surround Variations in Flesh Colour and Green: The Balcony could have been an Empire or Watts frame, both of which are styles commonly seen in the 1860s. However, the subject matter and the date both suggest that The Balcony was surrounded by an 1864 Whistler similar to the frames seen on other works dating from ca 1864, such as La Princesse du pays de la porcelaine [y050] and Purple and Rose: The Lange Leizen of the Six Marks [y047].
This first frame was removed in the late 1870s and replaced with a Flat Whistler frame made by Foord & Dickinson. As Whistler’s wrote to John Cavafy in 1878,
'Look also at the matter of the little Balcony. I borrowed it several times from your Father - and each time I worked upon it and added to its worth until at last I had more than quadrupled its value - In the end I also ordered for it a new frame - and elaborately painted and ornamented it - and again the mere price of the frame was refused when Foord and Dickenson sent in his bill.’ 8
Foord & Dickinson were prominent frame makers in London during the mid-to-late 1870s and were popular with Whistler and the Pre-Raphaelite painters. It is possible to conclude that this frame Whistler ordered was similar to the one on Nocturne: Blue and Gold - Old Battersea Bridge [y140] in the Tate. This painted frame remained on The Balcony until 1892. So why is this frame not hanging in the Freer Gallery today? What happened to it?
Whistler’s letters perfectly illustrate his quest for ultimate artistic control and the fate of this decorated frame. In June 1892, Whistler requested that the New York art dealer, E. G. Kennedy, acquire new frames for the canvases he had recently purchased, including one for The Balcony. Whistler thought that the paintings must ‘be in hideous old things’ (these being the 1870s painted Foord & Dickinson frames) and instructed Kennedy to go to Grau, saying ‘He is the only one who has the true pattern of my frame', but it appears that Kennedy did not heed Whistler’s request and instead sent the canvases to New York City without their frames. 9 Therefore, the painted Foord & Dickinson frame was left behind in London.
In August 1892, Beatrice Whistler wrote to Kennedy asking ‘Why didn’t you have new frames for them all’ and he replied, ‘I wrote to you from London that the reason I did not order three frames was, that we make our own frames, and thus save duty on the frames, besides making a better article, or rather one which won’t split or crack in our climate. … But why this anxiety as to frames and not a single word as to the paintings themselves?’ 10
Therefore, the frame seen in Washington, DC, surrounding The Balcony is American-made after Grau’s pattern, and is most certainly the third frame to surround the work. Whistler changed his mind frequently about his frames, all with great conviction. By cataloguing Whistler’s frames, we can further contextualize their development and see that he saw his later designs as superior to the designs used earlier in his career.
Originality and Authenticity
When confronted with a frame, the viewer almost always asks, ‘is that an original’? But Whistler’s framing habits complicate this question greatly. What makes something ‘original’? Whistler selected all three possible frames for The Balcony, so which is the most ‘correct’? Can we even say? Is it the first frame to surround a work, or the last, or the prettiest? Is one frame more worthy of our attention than the others? For the examinations presented in this catalogue raisonné, we have chosen to document all frames known to have been on a canvas, and we hold the opinion that all frames and their various states (surface alterations included) are worthy of our consideration.
The main catalogue raisonné section outlines the frame currently on each work of art. The following bibliographic information is given for each frame: Whistler-frame category, details regarding surface decoration, date and moulding width. It is assumed that all frames are British and gilded unless otherwise noted. Any previous, missing and/or lost frames once on the work of art are included under the Technical Description tab. Here are documented any additional details, as well as possible reasons Whistler or a collection/dealer, for example, may have altered or replaced the frames.
These questions of dating, originality and authenticity have been a constant struggle within the study of Whistler’s picture frames. While they are part of the important story of the piece, what are we to think when Whistler was not overseeing the frame change? What if a collector or a museum altered a frame? Can we treat these reframings as equal to those done by Whistler? No, I do not believe we can. While the reframings do remain an important aspect of the history and provenance of the artwork, they cannot be seen as equal to the alterations that Whistler made.
Therefore, I have chosen to apply an anachronistic approach to studying the pairing of paintings and frames. The past and present frames are equally worthwhile and notable as each stage is an indication not only of Whistler’s continuing frame development but also of his evolving understanding of the frame’s purpose.
Why the reframes? An Examination of Styles and Development
So why did Whistler change his frames so frequently? As presented in my thesis, Variations in Gold: the Stylistic Development of the Picture Frames Used by James McNeill Whistler (Parkerson 2007), he altered his designs to reflect his changing understanding of the frame’s function or purpose. At its core, the picture frame is a very practical object. It protects the painting from its surroundings and during installation or transport. Yet the frame may serve additional functions, such as an extension (or a part of) the painting, as a decorative art object connecting the canvas to its surroundings, as a window into the painted world or as a trademark designating a particular artist, collector or dealer. Whistler employed each of these functions in his frames, and they can be seen in his varying designs. Below is an outline of each variation that provides key examples, quotes, profile drawings and descriptions for each frame as well as the function that each design served within his artistic career.
The 1864 Whistler
Whistler’s earliest original frames date from 1864. They are extremely rare, with only four remaining today, and are seen on Purple and Rose: The Lange Leizen of the Six Marks [y047], La Princesse du pays de la porcelaine [y050], and first on Variations in Flesh Colour and Green: The Balcony [y056]. These frames show the artist’s interest in creating extensions to his canvases and so they become a key part of his works of art. They also illustrate the influence Whistler’s collection of blue-and-white porcelain had on his early work. The bands of ornament on the frame reflect the ornament often seen on the Chinese and Japanese plates that Whistler was collecting at the time.
These '1864 Whistlers' are flat with a simple profile consisting of a flat back-edge that goes to a flat outer moulding covered with a crosshatch pattern (often made of composition ornament). A step down leads to a wide frieze adorned with incised whorls and roundels followed by an astragal or decorated flat at the site edge. They are unique to the 1864-1865 time period, and Whistler did not revisit the design later in his career.
[image 3, Profile drawing of the 1864 Whistler frame Caprice in Purple and Gold: The Golden Screen [y060], forthcoming]
The Flat Whistler
While the frames of the 1870s have been classified as Flat Whistlers, there are essentially two types of this style. Yet, as they possess similar profiles, they have been grouped together, and they both display his growing interest in interior and exhibition design. Thus, these frames function as links connecting his images to the larger environment, which he often created to surround his viewer. The Flat Whistler strives to create a link between the painted image and the environment. While Whistler does continue to explore the idea of the frame as an extension of his work, as seen in his practice of signing his frames, he is extremely aware of how his work is displayed.
An example of an early Flat Whistler frame surrounds Symphony in Flesh Colour and Pink: Portrait of Mrs Frances Leyland [y106]. During the first half of the 1870s, Whistler made his earliest attempts to decorate the surface of his frames. First, he used painted ornament, then later incised decoration as seen on the portrait of Mrs Leyland. The early Flat Whistlers have a similar flat profile to the 1864 Whistlers yet they have the first use of reeded ornament. The flat back edge rounds up to a group of four reeds that then flattens and steps down to a small fillet with incised basket-weave pattern. Then it takes two steps down to a wide frieze with a larger basket-weave pattern, one step to another small fillet and finally one last step followed by a bevelled site edge.
[Image 5, profile drawing of Symphony in Flesh Colour and Pink: Portrait of Mrs Frances Leyland, forthcoming]
The Basketweave pattern present on the frame is the same seen in the patterned surface at the feet of Mrs Leyland, where she stands on a simple woven rug. It is well documented that Whistler not only designed the dress Mrs Leyland wears in her portrait but also the interior space in which she stands. Likewise, he designed the exhibition space where this canvas was first displayed in 1874, a space that most likely contained a woven mat on the floor at the feet of the viewer. Therefore, the pattern present on the frame works as a link connecting the painted surface to its larger surroundings. By using the same basketweave pattern in the canvas, on the frame and within the room itself, Whistler created a unique world that completely surrounded his viewer.
During the latter part of the 1870s, Whistler painted his frames, showing a particular preference for the ‘blue sea wave’ or seigaiha pattern. At this time, he was also conducting his first reframing campaign in preparation for his lawsuit against John Ruskin. Here the frames begin to take on new life. They are part of the painting and part of the environment as well. Whistler’s creativity cannot be contained just by his canvases, but rather it spills out into the viewers’ space and demands to be noticed.
An example of this type is seen on Nocturne: Blue and Gold - Old Battersea Bridge [y140]. Again, this frame has a flat cassetta-like profile, with an outer edge of five reeds, a small fillet with a painted bamboo motif, a three reed step down to a frieze with a painted seigaiha pattern, a two reed step followed by another fillet with a painted bamboo motif and finally a five reed step down to a bevelled site edge.
[Image 6, profile drawing of Flat Whistler, Nocturne: Blue and Gold - Old Battersea Bridge, forthcoming]
Unlike the frame on the portrait of Mrs. Leyland, this frame also contains a painted butterfly signature on the frieze. While the seigaiha motif displays strong connections to Whistler’s Peacock Room interior, Whistler also used this frame as an extension of his painting. The two separate objects, painting and frame, join together to create a unique whole. Whistler confirmed this idea in his testimony at the Whistler v. Ruskin trial in 1878. When Nocturne in Blue and Gold: Old Battersea Bridge was brought before the court, Sir John Holker, the counsel for the defendant, asked Whistler, ‘What is that peculiar dark mark on the frame?’ To this question, Whistler replied: ‘The blue colouring on the gilt frame is part of the scheme of the picture. The blue spot on the right side of the frame is my monogram, which I place on the frame as well as the canvas; it balances the picture. The frame and the picture together are a work of art.’ 11
The Dowdeswell and Grau Whistler
Whistler’s view of the frame continued to change during the 1880s and 1890s. He suddenly stopped painting and signing his frames, then he created the classic Grau Whistler. At this stage of his artistic career, Whistler’s works were being purchased for important collectors, and he was surrendering the long-term control of his artistic property. This can be seen in the acquisition of Arrangement in Grey and Black, No. 2: Portrait of Thomas Carlyle [y137] by Glasgow Museums in 1891. Most likely a Flat Whistler, possibly with an incised basket-weave pattern on the frieze similar to that seen on Mrs Leyland, first surrounded Carlyle’s portrait. However, at this stage, Whistler may have been aware that as these works entered large collections, he would lose control over their long-term display.
The portrait of Thomas Carlyle was the first of Whistler’s works to be sold to a national collection. On 24 March 1891, James W. Paton of the Corporation of Glasgow wrote of the committee’s decision to purchase the painting. He said that the ‘picture shall be delivered to the Committee in good condition, in a frame suitable for the work, and for a public gallery.' 12 Two days later, Whistler sent the following reply: ‘The painting in question … is in absolutely perfect condition - this I have seen to myself - I have had the picture newly framed in the frame of my own design in which I trust it may always remain.' 13 Thus, Whistler added a condition of his own by requesting that his frame remain on the canvas for all time. He trusted the Glasgow Museum to honour his wishes and thus ensure that future generations would see and experience his art as he intended. These last and final Grau Whistler frames, as well as the Dowdeswell frames of the 1880s, served a new purpose: as a trademark and window into Whistler’s painted worlds.
The Grau Whistler has a deep reeded profile and is a term only used for the frames made by the English framer, Frederick Henry Grau. These large frames consist of three parts: (1) an outer section with a large reeded cushion and a fillet at the apex, (2) a middle section with two large reeds with small fillets on either side and stepped reeds down to the (3) inner section with large reeds alternating with fillets and finally the sight edge, often with a small step or bevelled flat.
[Image 7 : Typical profile for a Grau Whistler frame, c. 1892 (bottom part of the profile incomplete and not to scale: forthcoming]
Grau Whistler frames have been identified either by documents or labels/ signatures on the verso. Whistler claimed that Grau was ‘the only one who has the true pattern of my frame.’ 14
Therefore, any frame that follows this pattern but is not known to have been made by Grau is designated as being a Grau-style frame.
Whistler clearly thought much of Fredrick Henry Grau and his frames. He even wrote to the collector J. G. Potter saying, ‘I hope you are as pleased as I am with my new frames - at last the pictures have a dress worthy their own dignity and stateliness. Wherefore you may thank you for finally inventing them - you see it takes years to know these things.’ 15 Much of Grau’s work was done during the preparation for Whistler’s show, Nocturnes, Marines and Chevalet Pieces, at the Goupil Gallery in 1892. During this time, Whistler had several frames removed from older works and replaced with frames of Grau’s design. Not surprisingly, this annoyed many of his patrons, who in turn refused Grau’s work in favour of their early frames.
Yet, today a large number of these works are seen surrounded in Grau-style frames. Thus, these paintings have experienced numerous re-framings, first by Whistler into the 1892 Grau-made frame and later by the patron back into what enclosed the work before the Goupil exhibition. Finally, at some point, depending on the individual owner of the painting, these works were reframed once again in Grau-style frames, which may or may not have been produced by F. H. Grau. Paintings that have undergone this treatment include Symphony in White, No. 2: The Little White Girl [y052]; Nocturne: Blue and Silver - Bognor [y100]; and Nocturne: Blue and Silver - Cremorne Lights [y115].
These occurrences illustrate vividly the effect Whistler’s actions had on his frame legacy and the ways the art world came to view his work. Some paintings he had framed in what he described as dresses ‘worthy [of] their own dignity and stateliness’ were returned to frames preferred by the patrons, only for these same paintings to be yet again reframed in Grau-style frames sometime after leaving those patrons’ ownership and control. While the dates for these final reframings vary, many reframings occurred after Whistler’s death.
At the start of 1892, Whistler was in a new position; he now faced the challenge of preparing himself and his artwork for receiving ‘posthumous honours’. 16 Thus he needed a new frame designed to meet this need. In using the exhibition Nocturnes, Marines and Chevalet Pieces he established how he wanted to be remembered. After his death, as is seen with the treatment of this last group of frames, he did not personally need to oversee the alterations. Museums, dealers and patrons diligently followed the actions he outlined and reframed his works, as they had seen him do frequently.
CONCLUSION
Catalogue raisonnés aim to document all the known information regarding the entire output of an artist. They record the condition, provenance, exhibition histories, and publications. Yet they have too long ignored the object that has remained closest to the canvas throughout its history, the picture frame. As we have seen, frames tell a story about the artwork that may not be obvious at first.
While James McNeill Whistler was vocal in his opinions regarding the picture frames he used, he was not alone in his interest. Several of his contemporaries, such as William Holman Hunt, Abbott Handerson Thayer and Edgar Degas also showed particular interest in the frames that surrounded their works. While research of these artists’ frames has been done, it has not been a systematic ccataloguing, as in this revised edition of Whistler’s catalogue raisonné. If such a thorough examination was to be done, we might reach a new and fuller understanding of their artistic genius, as we now have with James McNeill Whistler.
Notes:
4: Whistler to J. G. Potter, [21 February 1894], #05010.
5: YMSM 1980 [more] Young, Andrew McLaren, Margaret F. MacDonald, Robin Spencer, and Hamish Miles, The Paintings of James McNeill Whistler, New Haven and London, 1980 , p. xvi.
6: Jacob Simon, The Art of the Picture Frame: Artists, Patrons and the Framing of Portraits in Britain, London: National Portrait Gallery, 1997, p. 208.
7: Whistler to J. Cavafy [July/October 1878], GUW #00549, Whistler to R. A. Alexanderm [15/28 February 1892], #07580.
9: Whistler to Kennedy, 13 [June] 1892, GUW #09685; Whistler to B. Whistler, 31 August 1892, #07201.
10: 12 August 1892, GUW #09829; 31 August 1892, GUW #07201.
11: Merrill 1992 [more] Merrill, Linda, A Pot of Paint: Aesthetics on Trial in 'Whistler v. Ruskin', Washington and London, 1992 , p. 151.
14: Whistler to E. G. Kennedy, 13 [June] 1892, GUW #09685.
15: [26/30 March 1892], GUW #01488.
16: ‘An Enthusiast’, ‘Mr Whistler in Bond Street’, The Pictorial World, 26 March 1892, p. 616; GUL PC 13/28
Last updated: 31st July 2018 by Margaret
