I have a nice original oil paining from one of my favorite painters, and I'd like to get it framed. Does anyone have any recommendations on picture framers in Houston? We've gone to Michaels in the past, but those were just for prints.....my wife insists she doesn't want to leave the original with "some fifteen year old kid." --No offense to fifteen year olds here; those were her words--I just have to live with her. And vice versa Anyway, if anyone has any recommendations, I'd sure appreciate it.
Sarah Balinskas Fine Art Framing Baar/Hill Studio So says Mrs. Serious Black. But she works for the museums, so this may be a bit pricey.
framing is an art in and of itself. my question is why is it not already framed? what i'm getting at is that if it is decorative, that's that, but if it is "art", then framing tends to mean something. ask the artist for suggestions.
This is the best in the city...and her prices reflect that. I would say she would be more important for a work on paper or something of that kind - with glass and matting. Oils are much simpler and not as difficult. I had forgotten Baar/Hill do framing...I only think of them as artists. Is the work valuable? What kind of frame would you want (ornate gilded, simple black, natural wood, etc.)? But, yeah, don't take it to Michaels. PS - thegary - do you know how many artists out there have no say in framing? A lot of the time the dealer handles that.
I'm an artist and a framer. I work at Upper Bay frame and Gallery in clear lake/nassau bay. Definitely go to a proffesional framer--no Michael's!!! Artists usually don't frame their own work very well because it can get expensive. I think the owner of the frame rather than the artist should be the one to pick out the frame because they are the ones putting it in their space. Most artists just go with cheap materials to frame their work (which is fine temporarily), or if the work is on canvas, not frame at all.
i'd listen to mrs. serious black and rimbaud. rimbaud is probably being a little bit too humble in this thread. but if you want quality for price, I can probably help with that. I'd have to make some calls though. So if you're serious, email me... pole.20.heypartner@spamgourmet.com
First of all; thanks for all of the responses. We had several items that needed to be framed, but one in particular needs TLC because it is valuable (well....in my budget, it is). It's an original Michalopoulos, and although it may not be expensive in the wide world of art, it IS expensive in my house. We also had an unstreched canvas remark from the same artist that was signed by him and Fats Domino (it was the poster for this past year's jazzfest). And we had a signed blue dog print for Katrina disaster relief. We love New Orleans (been there four times since Katrina), so we tend to load up on NOLA art. Before any critics pipe in--I know NOTHING about art; I just know what I like. (I could really care less about Blue Dogs--though I like some of Rodrigue's other stuff, but I definitely have "something" for Michalopoloulos' stuff). Anyway, we took all three items out yesterday (before the wealth of responses here), and we went to Arden's Gallery on West Alabama. Without even taking the original out of the car, we got pricing on the two prints....it was over a thousand bucks just for those two! This isn't like me--normally, I have a good idea of what something will cost, and though I may not like it, I'll generally step up and pay it if I really need/want/can afford it. When I was told the price, I literally just looked at my wife and said, "I need to take a walk." I walked out for a few minutes and came back in and told her we just can't spend that right now. I'm sure to everyone's dismay, we ended up at Michael's. Again, we never took the original in, but we did leave the Blue dog there to get framed (with matting that I liked a LOT better than what Arden's had, and at about two thirds the cost). We've had stuff framed at Michael's before, and although it is definitely not the same atmosphere as a gallery, we haven't been screwed yet--and it was just the Blue dog. I still need to get the two Michalopouloses framed; both will be canvases on frame, so matting and glass will be moot. I guess just a nice frame and possibly a liner. And I guess I need to just buck up and accept the fact this will be expensive. One more quick question for those of you in the know: The original painting I have--I can tell that at the bottom of the painting, the frame is slightly bowed inwards. No huge deal, and it doesn't detract from the painting (at least to my untrained eye), but I know that if we frame it, that bowing in the frame will become MUCH more obvious. Is there anything that can be done about that? Should I just hang it without a frame?
How big are the two prints you had done at Michael's? also, how big are the paintings on canvas? I am a custom framer and I can't see how those two prints could cost that much to frame unless the person at that gallery was trying to upsale you. As far as the bow in your stretcher bar, it should be ok, just don't go with a floater frame or you will see it. Are the edges painted? Sometimes you can just hang it without a frame if the edges look nice, painted, and show no staples. If staples are showing, it looks bad. I work in a very professional frame shop and gallery, and we try to work with the customer's budget as well as do a great job on the framing. We are located off Nasa Rd. 1 by Johnson Space Center if you are ever in the area. Good luck in future framing!
Actually, we only did one at Michael's....the one that wasn't on canvas, and it probably ended up having a frame of about 2' X 3'. It was double matted, and the top mat was a suede. With the glare proof glass, it ended up being about $225. I guess that was a good price.....it sure was a heck of a lot better than the other place, and I liked the matting better (though that may have just been luck of the draw--Ardens had a bigger selection; they just didn't have a color that matched up as well). You're actually in my area. I live in the part of Pearland that is almost walking distance to Friendswood, so I may have to come check you out. We're actually thinking now though about not framing the original. It is stapled on the sides, but it is also painted on the sides. I don't know......we may just hold off before we decide. We're going back to NOLA for Mardi Gras, and maybe we'll see what Michalopoloulos' gallery has to suggest. The last one--the jazzfest poster on canvas will probably need to be framed though. Who knows.....I don't know why I'm stressing over this; I probably just need to nut up, pay to have them framed, and get it behind me.
Ugh...I wish you hadn't said (or done) that. Don't ever, EVER do glare-proof. It is a huge scam, more expensive, and can actually damage the work underneath (due to the disruption of light). That is the other thing about Michaels - not really sound archivally. Arden's sounds only slightly expensive for two large works on paper. They use conservation quality materials so there you go. That is what I meant about oils being easier and cheaper. No glass, no acid free mounting, not matting, etc. The oil on canvas (not poster on canvas) should be quite a bit cheaper, regardless of where you go. thegary - you are hardcore...you just insulted a huge number of current and historical artists who did not pick/make their own frames...not to mention about 90% of all works in museums that are no longer in their originals. Besides, most artists suck at making frames.
$225 is a good price for that size. Check us out sometime--Upper Bay Frame and Gallery on Upper Bay Rd.
I personally don't like non-glare, but some people do. Also, if you have 2 mats, you really don't want non-glare because the further away from the art, the less detail you see. The best glass to go with (besides museum) is conservation clear. It blocks out 97% uv rays. Non-glare doesn't damage your art, it just doesn't really make it look as good as the other glass choices.
perhaps, but i don't mean to insult you, pole, or anyone else, i am overly blunt to a fault. i don't know what you do but i think you are in academia/art preservation/history?, dunno. we all come at this from different perspectives and i don't want to derail the thread or get into a pissing contest to define "art". i am from the conceptual/minimal/formal school and i am biased. i dig mondrian, dada, rothko, tuttle. the latter would be impossible to frame, the space his works inhabit is the frame. i've made a lot of site-specific and installation art, so again, i'm biased. historical works are just that, history. like classical music, i respect it but i don't listen to it. i know the houston scene is a bit provincial compared to new york, but here the contemporary scene tends to be the everything is everthing kinda groove. everyone is from somewhere else and there is a common dialogue that i would call "art". sorry if i'm not being clear, i am no writer. ps- i loved the hélio oiticica show at the MFA, i saw it over the holidays.
Well, I realize I was not clear. Some non glare can damage the art. Not because of light but because of chemical interaction which can lighten the appearance of the work. Sorry for that. There are some decent non glare and UV filtered manufacturers out there but I would not trust Michaels to pick the best. But I do repeat, damage can occur. Nobody in the museum/gallery world goes near it. thegary - you certainly didn't insult me I was mostly just intrigued by your rather puritanical (and in my opinion naive/idealist) view of frames in relation to art. I am not just talking historically either as there are plenty of contemporary artists who don't care about framing (art has too much of a life of its own after purchase that one can never control what peole will do to it, where they will place it, etc.). I am not really sure what Houston vs New York has to do with anything. As an aside - how on earth can you both like Mondrian, Dada, and Rothko but not be into historical works?
1. puritanical, hardly. i think you pegged me better with hardcore. naive? dunno. idealist? maybe. but by historical, i am referring to much older works. we are not done with mondrian, dada, rothko or tuttle. what they brought to the table continues to bear fruit and is very much alive and well within contemporary artist's thinking. 2. i am aware that once a work of art has been sold it has very little to do with the artist anymore. a work's provenance takes on it's own life and i'm fine with that. but can you give me som examples of artists working today that don't frame their own work? and mondrian, dada, rothko and tuttle, who framed there work and can you site an instance where they have been reframed? 3. houston versus new york. i'm not making a value judgement, just saying that they are different, as are museums and galleries. just making a point that we are probably coming from different perspectives and that all is fair in love and war. 4. “but, truly, i have wept too much! the dawns are heartbreaking. every moon is atrocious and every sun bitter.” -arthur rimbaud
