Framing v. not framing, revisited

[Note: I originally posted this in response to a thread from last September. I assume that few would ever see it. As I gave it some more thought, I thought I'd reopen this can of worms for some further thoughts from anybody out there. As a gallery curator, this was an issue I navigated from both sides. Here is my original comment, slightly edited.]

I'm showing up pretty late to this party, but in regards to framing vs. not framing -- both ways have potential to be a visual distraction. Depends on who you ask and where their aesthetic compass is set to.

Often art (that's not by Vermeer or Rothko or something) lacks psychological "weight" with the potential collecting public. We confront an unfamiliar art object with built in assumptions -- quite different ones than what we confront a Michelangelo or the Mona Lisa with. There is very little we artists can do about this, as non-Vermeers and non-Rothkos. But, one of the very small things we CAN do to distinguish our works and assist them in acquiring psychological weight (other than just painting great paintings) is to give them physicality -- to give them actual, physical mass.

Whether this means framing or not framing is a judgment call on behalf of the artist. I saw a great Raymond Pettibon show where everything was simply pinned up. And I've seen a number of student shows where things are pinned up and/or wrapped in acetate and look like crap.

For most buyers who are "collecting" a piece of art, it's simply not practical to have unframed artwork in their homes, offices, etc. So if they feel compelled to purchase an unframed piece, they're gonna go straight to a frame shop. This, in purely practical terms, adds expense to the piece -- and often quite a bit of expense. A large custom frame can easily cost hundreds -- if not more. One can assume that if they're interested in the piece, they're interested in its longevity.

I read recently (in the book "The Gardner Heist") that there is a single substance on earth which is more valuable per ounce than gold, platinum, diamonds, heroin, you name it -- and it's fine art. Not necessarily MY fine art, but fine art just the same. We're often the worst possible judges of the commodity value of our own work -- we tend to grossly under- or over-value it.

As a consideration to potential buyers, I always put my works on paper into a relatively inexpensive black metal frame with regular window glass over it to protect it. If someone wants to reframe it, fine. I've had to get pretty creative with matting if it's a diptych or an oddly shaped piece. Of course, this adds to my expense and so nudges my prices upward. Back in the day, painters used to hand-carve and gild their own frames. I consider myself lucky.

So in a sense I've capitulated whatever my aesthetic opinion is on having my work ideally be framed/not framed. I've assumed (hoped/prayed/feared) that someone might like it enough to invest in its physical survival -- and I've made that option as attractive to them as my time and financial means allow.

That's my 32 cents.