Square artwork

[ceebdub]

Advice, preferences please.
A square piece of art, in a window mount,
should the frame be square with equidistant
mount board on all edges,
or rectangular with 3 equal and the lower wider?

[David]

Good question.
I put a bias on the bottom of most mounts. One of the exceptions is squares and circles where an extra bit of space can upset the geometry, I feel it can become distracting rather than aiding the overall perception.

So as a rule even boarders all round.

[Steve N]

I agree and I'm finding that there is more square artwork around at the moment, perhaps due to the fact there's more square readymade frames on the market (artist wanting to frame cheap), also if you make the boarders even all round, makes life easier when cutting the frame

[David McCormack]

Just a bit of weight to the bottom can work. Neither square nor too rectangle. In this example I've got equal top and sides with about 10% extra on the bottom.

Derwent.jpg (148.17 KiB) Viewed 4724 times

[Graysalchemy]

I find it depends on what the artwork is. I always put a drop on it sometimes a very big drop to make it definitely rectangular. However more contemporary or high street and photography pieces of art I would probably leave square as that is the trend.

[ceebdub]

I have done both, I have a piece of mine to to for the RA summer show, I think I will go equal all round.

[Jonny2morsos]

My personal view is that if something is not quite square then you keep looking at it to decide whether it is square on not and I find that annoying

I would either leave it square or put a big drop bottom on so you have a square sitting in a rectangular frame.

But each to their own...

[prospero]

I would weight the bottom margin by a small amount. Maybe 5mm or less depending on the overall scale. Do this and the square will appear to be in the middle. It's an optical illusion: if you make the margins identical top and bottom, then the image will seem to be lower than the centre, even though it isn't. This can create an unconscious impression of instability. Remember, you see with your brain - not your eyes.
There is also the factor of the inside package physically dropping to the bottom of the frame thus making the top maybe 2mm wider than the bottom. A little extra bias on the bottom will counteract this.

[Gesso&Bole]

I definitely prefer to put a drop on the base, but only a subtle one - 5 or 10mm depending on size.

I think this is particularly important when there is a signature under the print (as in the example from David McCormack above) as the white border is wider at the bottom, so an equal mount outside that will look odd.

[The Jolly Good Framer #1]

I'd definitely put a drop on a square image.

[stcstc]

i would do what the customer asks....

actually what i do like though is eg

12" square print in a 20*16 frame, but depends on the image

[ceebdub]

Trouble is I am the customer, framing my own artwork. Sitting on your own on the workshop sometimes one questions oneself. Hence the post. All of your ideas are great food for thought, thanks

[Not your average framer]

I would normally add an appropiate bottom weighting to rectangular mounts. If I not sure what will look best, then I add too much and trim the mount down until it looks right. Then I make the frame to suit the mount.

Most knowledgable customers will be expecting you to correct the optical illusion so that it looks right.