As I mentioned, there are two ways in which to display what I’m tentatively calling the Opiate of the Masses triptych.
In the altered luggage version, there is sadly no phosphorescence whatsoever. That would be a con.
It does, however, come with a handle.
Schlepping art around gets old fast. The prospect of simply snapping an artwork shut and grabbing the handle–as opposed to bubble wrap, boxes within boxes, corner reinforcements, and rolls of packing tape–is the most glorious thing.
With this altered luggage approach, I also don’t feel obliged to protect the outside. The scuffs are part of the object’s history.
[ Speaking of frames as objects, there is something absurd about the contrast between frames’ utilitarian and decorative roles in contemporary art.
In utilitarian terms, the frame is only important as an unnoticeable buffer between the art and the art-hating vindictiveness of the world in general. Any scuff or dent in the frame would be seen from this utilitarian perspective as proof that the frame fulfilled its purpose.
On the decorative or aesthetic side, however, resides the awareness that the frame’s appearance is inextricably linked to the context and impact of the art. This leads to the recursive madness of creating boxes to protect the box (aka the frame) whose purpose is to protect the art. Not only is this silly and time consuming, but it is also heavy.
Weight matters. I don’t mind exercise, but I do second guess the frames’ importance when tithing to USPS/UPS/FED EX. ]
Now that the two frames are complete, it’s time to decide between them.
For the origins of this luggage-frame hybrid, please consult my previous post on luggage popups.
2 responses to “LUGGAGE vs. wooden frames”
[…] Next up: the suitcase version. […]
[…] triptych about seductive things (with a choice between frames made from luggage and hinged […]