Last night I attended three art gallery receptions in Palm Springs, CA. One of those was for an artist I actually know; the other two I stumbled upon but decided to check 'em out.
The artist is Carrie Graber (www.CarrieGraber.com). She paints architectural details and interiors, often with a female in the scene who looks an awful lot like her. ☺
This is one of Carrie's paintings. It's realistic, yet she somehow achieved a look that would allow the piece to fit into contemporary homes or offices (unlike MY paintings, which are modeled after 19th century -- or older -- artwork). Most of her paintings seem very light and airy, even this nighttime scene. Her work is detailed but uncluttered which I believe is partly what gives her paintings that open look. They're quite pleasing to look at and would fit anywhere.
I noticed Carrie framed her paintings in a simple, natural-wood (pine? maple? ??) tone -- not a wide molding at all. I also noticed artwork in the other galleries I visited were framed the same way. And ANOTHER artist I know and like, Mary-Austin Klein (www.maryaustinklein.com), uses similar frames for HER pieces!
|Clouds Over East Mojave Mary-Austin Klein|
You can see the kind of molding I'm talking about here on Mary-Austin's paintings:
Again -- very simple, minimal blonde-colored wood molding. The grain is visible when you see it up-close.
All this made me think (OMG -- he's thinking!): is this a trend in framing contemporary art? Is this something I need to consider doing? And -- do I need to think about simplifying my painting and go for "zen realism"?
Don't know, don't know. I still love the works of the 19th century American Hudson River School painters and the drama they often portrayed. But I like Carrie's and Mary-Austin's look, too. And I'll bet they sell better in today's art-buying taste!
Some things I have to think about. (I should attend more gallery openings, too!)