Cracked 20th Century Art – it’s the frame and form!

I’d just completed (15 February, 10:34 ) reading of Frameworks for Modern Art which has helped me understand what is going on in Modern Art. Made me think would I have become interested in Art if I had needed an introduction to Botticelli or Michelangelo in order to understand them? Neither artists' work required (for me ) any mediation at all they stood for what they were /are lovely things to look at and enjoy. Yes, having studied them and their work I know there’s so much more going on nevertheless their paintings stood for themselves no critic, no curator just nice things to look at.

That 'something' was found in the forms - the shapes and colours which creatd the compostions. Both artists used line and colour to great effect.
I was solely concerned within inside the frame, outside came with OU Art History study which helped understand the inside. But the OU’s A216 , AA315 et al were not the basis of my Art appreciation....
Modernist art attacks, condemns the frame questions its usefulness in fact often doesn’t want one at all, see Newman or Stella for example. For the MODERNIST the frame was/is a constraint .For the Renaissance art it was essential it was what defined the window their painting was viewed through – without the frame it lacked a vital support.
BTW….Renaissance frames look great so good Laurence Llewelyn-Bowen has designed a great Renaissance framed mirror for MATALAN at great price £90 it looks extraordinary and makes its reflections look great. It’s silver carved wood with shells, scalloping, braiding all the features of a Renaissance Frame.