The picture frames of Wright of Derby (1734-97)
by Paul Mitchell
an essay from the Tate Gallery Wright of Derby exhibition catalogue, 1990,
to celebrate the opening of the National Gallery exhibition,
Wright of Derby: from the shadows, 7 November 2025-10 May 2026
Introduction
Framemaking was a flourishing trade during Wright’s lifetime. Artists and their patrons, as well as ornamentalists, decorators and architects, were all to some degree involved in the commissioning, design and purchase of picture frames. Sieving the Dictionary of English furniture makers [1] reveals one hundred-&-eighty craftsmen in London who supplied frames between 1750 and 1800. In Derby alone, according to the Universal British directory of 1791, there were thirteen craftsmen listed as specialist ‘frame smiths’ [2]. Many more in both London and the provinces must have gone unrecorded. Most of them also produced looking-glass frames, chimneypieces, ornamental mouldings, and often other interior furnishings. Creators and owners alike must have been well aware of the decorative impact made by gold frames, especially seen by candlelight.
Until recently, general awareness of frames has been slight, and modern art history is only just beginning to accommodate knowledge of their development, functions and effect. Virtually all illustrations of paintings in art historical literature, image libraries and exhibition catalogues exorcize the frame [3]. It’s an object which hovers between the fine and decorative arts, and few historians on either side have felt keen to tackle it – perhaps largely due to the bewildering number of patterns, and to difficulties in dating and attribution, generally so central to connoisseurship. However, even with minimal documentation, a great deal can be learnt from the visual evidence of frames; for example, the various styles can be analyzed, and their duration and overlaps determined. Identification of designers or craftsmen is an occasional bonus, providing new insights.
Wright’s account book includes many references to frames. The Tate’s 1990 exhibition devoted to his work presented an opportunity to examine the frame designs prevailing during his career, as well as those with which he was particularly associated. Before the exhibits arrived at the Tate, 108 of the 117 picture frames were assessed [4], and a further thirty-six frames on works by Wright not included in the exhibition were studied. This survey therefore comprises 144 frames, representing well over a third of all his recorded paintings. They included frames considered original to the picture; those which are stylistically contemporary but probably not original; and some which were of a period distinctly earlier or later than the painting [5].
The most significant fact to emerge is that just over half of Wright’s paintings in this survey still appear to retain the frames originally made for them. It may be the artist’s location, outside London, which accounts for this relatively high ratio [6]; many of his pictures have descended through the Derbyshire families which commissioned them, the frames remaining unchanged. Relatively few of these have appeared on the art market, where paintings are at their most vulnerable to reframing, and those mainly from the last decades 20th century onwards, as Wright’s art has been re-assessed [7].
As well as being a general appreciation of the subject, it is hoped that this study will encourage the spectator to contemplate the painting together with its frame, and assess their relative merits.
Rococo frames
From the late 17th century, British framemakers learnt from the sophisticated skills of the Huguenot craftsmen who had emigrated from France to escape religious persecution. This injection of talented carvers and gilders brought with them a wide variety of patterns and refined techniques. Many of the British designs were unique examples, but it is also easy to find discrete groups of frame patterns.
Joseph Wright of Derby (1734-97): a record of standard sizes of canvases, from two pages of his account book, ?1760s, National Portrait Gallery
The exhibition drew together three Rococo frames which appear to be the earliest identifiable pattern used by Wright.
Wright of Derby (1734-97), William Brooke, 1760, o/c, 127 x 102 cm., Danum Gallery, Library & Museum, Doncaster
Wright of Derby (1734-97), William Rastall, c.1763, o/c, 76.5 x 63.5 cm., Philadelphia Art Museum
These are the half-length frame on William Brooke of 1760 (127 x 101.6 cm.; 50 x 40 inches, or 4 ft 2 ins x 3 ft 4 ins in Wright’s table, above), and the pair of three-quarter length frames on Samuel Rastall and William Rastall, c.1762-64 (76.2 x 63.5 cm.; 30 x 25 ins, or 2 ft 6 ins x 2 ft 1 in in Wright’s table). With their swept and pierced outer rails, scrolled foliate corners and rocaille centres, these frames epitomize the lightness and elegance of the Rococo manner.
Wright of Derby (1734-97), Cornet Sir George Cooke, Bart., c.1776-78, o/c, 76.68 x 63.82 cm., Nelson Atkins Museum of Art
They can be contrasted with the preceding generation of more solid Louis XIV-style patterns, such as the frame on the portrait of Cornet Sir George Cooke.
Wright of Derby (1734-97), details of the frames on (left) William Rastall, c.1763, and (right) William Brooke, 1760
The S-scrolling silhouettes of the frames provide a perfect foil to the lines of Wright’s compositions. The outer contour is echoed by a meandering fillet near to the sight edge; and – typically for the Rococo concern for surface decoration – the panels are incised with trellis-work or quadrillage, punctuated by bosses. This has been partially obscured by re-gessoing and oil gilding, through which traces of the original burnished water-gilding can be seen. The techniques of incising and recutting in gesso were introduced into Britain mainly by Huguenot craftsmen, many of whom were picture and looking-glass framemakers. It may well be, therefore, that these frames were made by a French hand. This pattern – which as used primarily for portraits – does not occur on Wright’s subject paintings, to which he applied mostly Carlo Maratta designs (see below).
Comparing the frames of the Rastall portraits with that on William Brooke, we see the design change to be expected for a smaller format. In the Rastall frames, the top edge of the rail connects the corners and centres with a single sweep, whereas in the larger frame this length necessitates two S-scrolls which meet in a pierced apex. However, the Portrait of Thomas Bennett (c.1760, Derby Art Gallery), which is the same size as the Rastall portraits, carries an identical design to the large half-length William Brooke – showing that the framemaker offered at least three variations on this theme [8].
Wright of Derby (1734-97), William Pigot, 1760, o/c, 127 x 102 cm., Danum Gallery Library & Museum, Doncaster
Wright of Derby (1734-97), Elizabeth Pigot, 1760, Danum Gallery Library & Museum, Doncaster
The frames on the portraits of Mr and Mrs William Pigot, 1760, provide further contemporary evidence supporting the claim of these frames to be original to the paintings. Their consistent design also suggests that they were the product of the same workshop between c.1760-64, supplied by a framemaker with whom Wright worked closely.
From references in Wright’s account book, it is clear that John Dubourg, presumably of Huguenot descent, was the artist’s main framemaker at this point [9]. Dubourg, who had a separate account with the artist, supplied carved and gilded half-length frames at three guineas (£3.15 pence), three-quarter lengths at one-&-a-half guineas (£ 1.52½ pence), and black and gold print frames from 12s to 16s (60-80 pence) [10]. Included in these orders is a reference which ties the Pigot frames to Dubourg. It seems that one frame was returned to Dubourg and another supplied, an outstanding sum remaining in
‘Pigot’s Bill which was due and paid to Dubourg’.
Later evidence shows that Wright was always concerned with the framed appearance of his paintings, and is likely to have proposed these patterns to his sitters. He most probably even had one or two demonstration stock models in his studio – much as artists still do today.
Wright of Derby (1734-97), Launcelot Rolleston, 1762-5, o/c, Sotheby’s Important British Paintings 1500-1850, 2005, Lot 83
Surviving examples of papier-mâché frames are extremely rare, and there can be few finer than those made en suite for Wright’s Markeaton Hunt group, probably painted between 1762-63, of which four of the original set of six portraits were included in the 1990 Tate exhibition (one of them is no longer in its original frame) [11]. These were commissioned by Francis Noel Clarke Mundy and his five sportsmen friends and relations, to be displayed in the Mundys’ dining-room at Markeaton Hall.
Wright of Derby (1734-97), Francis Burdett, 1762-5, o/c, private collection
Clearly, a commission of this scale and importance demanded an exceptional framing solution, and the creation of what was probably an individual design avoided the regularity of repeating a standard pattern six times. The frame consists of a narrow bolection moulding, attached to which is a pierced wooden support holding a complex pattern of interlocking rocailles, foliate C-scrolls and flowers, all made of papier-mâché. Although the transition between inner and outer frame is little disguised, the Rococo motifs – very French in form – are skilfully deployed. They may be the work of Peter Babell [12], who worked in Long Acre, where John Dubourg’s workshop also stood. Babell almost certainly supplied a hang of papier mâché frames for an interior scheme at Doddington Hall in Lincolnshire (he sent a bill for 70 feet of gilded papier mâché), so would have been the ideal craftsman for Mundy’s commission.
Wright of Derby (1734-97), recto: Self-portrait at the age of about forty, c.1772-73, o/c, 76.2 x 63.5 cm.; verso: study for An experiment on a bird in the air pump, c.1768, o/c, 63.5 x 76.2 cm., Derby Museum and Art Gallery
If the hand of a Huguenot craftsman has been established in the manufacture of Wright’s Rococo frames of the early 1760s, it is emphatically present in one of the finest Rococo frames displayed in the 1990 exhibition. Most appropriately, this is on Wright’s self-portrait of c.1772-73. Like so much Huguenot work in Britain, this frame resembles French frames in execution, yet is basically British in design (and made, like most British frames, of pinewood). The sculptural quality of carving and the overall recutting of the gesso are superbly fluent, enhanced by the original burnished water-gilding. If this were the only example of this pattern, it might be assumed that it was a replacement for the original; however, a half-length version of the same design exists – it initially framed the portrait of Mr and Mrs Colthill (c.1771, now National Gallery), and remains on a copy of this painting [13].
(top) detail of centre cartouche on frame of Self-portrait, c.1772-73; (bottom) on frame of Mrs & Mrs Coltman c.1771 (copy of portrait)
Comparison of the carved centre motifs of each frame shows the same flowing scrollwork set off against a hazzled, or zigzag textured, background. A notable feature is the treatment of the sight edge mouldings, which are enriched with shallow gadrooning raking from centres to corners, and carved in the gesso. Clearly, these two frames of the early 1770s are of a superior quality of craftsmanship and design to the earlier group. The disparity in date and quality suggests either another maker, or perhaps that Dubourg is working in a more sophisticated style. The question of authorship may be resolved as further frames or documents come to light.
The fact that both these exceptional paintings have such magnificent frames emphasizes Wright’s concern (together with that of his patrons) to provide settings which mutually enhance both his pictures and his reputation. Similarly, the conversation pieces by another highly successful provincial artist, Arthur Devis, were often hung prominently in elaborate frames.
Wright of Derby (1734-97), A conversation of girls, 1770, o/c, 127 x 101.6 cm., private collection
Another important Rococo frame contains A conversation of girls, 1770. The richly-carved and sculptural treatment of the ornament recalls the frame of the self-portrait, but the ovolo chain moulding at the sight edge and the straight back edge are unusual. Certainly its weight and decoration harmonize well with the composition, and this may indeed be the original, the commission for the frame perhaps instigated by Wright.
In contrast to the examples discussed so far, which appear to have been supervised, more or less, by Wright and his regular framemakers, there are at least six frames amongst those in the 1990 exhibition which exemplify mainstream London Rococo patterns. These surround James and Mary Shuttleworth with one of their daughters, Mrs Wilmot, ‘Captain’ Robert Shore Milnes, Richard Cheslyn, and Mrs Sarah Clayton. The Shuttleworth frame shows all the signs of being the original: stylistically it accords with the portrait’s date of c.1764; it is unaltered; the size – 142.2 x 182.9 cm. – is irregular (therefore not easily interchangeable with another standard format canvas); and the lower rail is darkened by dust and worn by cleaning.
(top) detail of centre cartouche on frame of Self-portrait, c.1772-73; (centre) on frame of Mrs & Mrs Coltman, c.1771 (copy of portrait); (bottom) on frame of James and Mary Shuttleworth with one of their daughters, c.1764, private collection
Comparing a carved centre motif (bottom)[14] with two carved centres with French influence (top and middle) illustrates the difference in design and execution between native British frame patterns and contemporary Huguenot productions. The flat, rather than rounded, scrolling contours and sight mouldings of the Shuttleworth frame are typically British, like the apex junctions of the S-scrolled rails (as in the frames of William Brooke and the Pigots), and, above all, the oil- rather than water- gilded finish.
Wright of Derby (1734-97), Mrs Wilmot in riding dress, c.1762-63, o/c, 127 x 101.6 cm., private collection
The frame on the portrait of Mrs Wilmot, half-length in format, although closely related to the Shuttleworth design, is probably a replacement. As it was carved for a Derbyshire sitter around 1763, the original frame is more likely to have followed the William Brooke pattern. The most noticeable difference is the presence of a straight back edge to the frame, which reflects light behind the trefoil-shaped demi-centres. The openings in the William Brooke frame, which has no back edge, are slightly awkward and distracting, like those in the Rastall pair of frames.
Wright of Derby (1734-97), ‘Captain’ Robert Shore Milnes, c.1772, o/c, 127 x 101.6 cm., Sotheby’s New York, 25 January 2007, Lot 69
The frame for the portrait of Robert Shore Milnes is a standard variation on these British Rococo frames, with a husk sight edge, long flowered rinceaux, and more exotic centres with foliate rocailles, as instead of a triple fanned lambrequin. It is possible that James Milbourne of The Strand, carver, gilder, picture frame and looking-glass maker, supplied this frame to Wright [15]. The artist’s account book refers to his friend Hurleston (a pupil of Wright who accompanied him to Italy) paying Milbourne’s bill for ‘Milnes frames’. ‘Captain’ Milnes was the brother of John Milnes of Wakefield, one of Wright’s major patrons, and therefore the account may refer to other paintings he had purchased [16].
Wright of Derby (1734-97), Mrs Sarah Clayton, c.1769, o/c, 127 x 101.6 cm., Fitchburg Art Museum, Massachusetts
The frame of the portrait of Mrs Sarah Clayton is perfectly chosen for the painting, and provides a concluding flourish to this group of Rococo frames. It is advanced in design; the gadrooned sight edge and corner and centre fanned lambrequins – as in the frame of Mrs Wilmot in riding dress – are retained, but the panels of the wide hollow are cut away to a rocaille ‘skirt’ above which the top edge is suspended. It is highly likely that this extremely decorative late Rococo design, as lacy as the sitter’s shawl, is the original setting.
‘Carlo Maratta’ frames
Fashions frequently change quite abruptly, especially in the decorative arts, and picture frames, together with looking-glass frames, are reliable expressions of changing tastes. As the NeoClassical movement strengthened in the late 1750s, enthusiasm for the Rococo correspondingly waned. The previous curvilinear patterns were overtaken by an entirely different form – the rectilinear style known as the ‘Carlo Maratta’. With its many variations, this was the predominant pattern throughout Britain from around 1750-1800, picking up from the established classicism of the Palladian style [17]. As the name suggests, it was developed in Rome in the late 17th century, and diffused throughout Italy during the 18th century. It is named after artists with whose work it was associated: more often called after Salvator Rosa in Italy and Carlo Maratta in Britain. It was brought to Britain on paintings acquired by Grand Tourists, who had seen many examples in the great Roman and Genoese palaces [18].
‘Maratta’ frames: top, detail from Thomas Borrow; centre, detail from the portraits of Mr and Mrs Francis Hurt; bottom, detail from Girl reading a letter with an old man reading over her shoulder
Whereas many British frame designs of the 17th and 18th centuries had been based on French and Netherlandish sources, this – like the Palladian style of William Kent – was an Italian Baroque design which was enthusiastically and wholeheartedly adopted. Again like the Palladian style it was based upon architectural forms and ornament, and both anticipated and existed alongside 18th century NeoClassical designs. The 1990 Wright of Derby exhibition contained many fine examples of Marattas on his paintings, and – as with the Rococo frames – the work of Huguenot craftsmen was also evident. Depending upon the labour required and the budget, the artist and his patrons could have selected from plainer or progressively more enriched versions.
Wright of Derby (1734-97), Thomas Borrow, 1762-63, o/c, 127 x 101.6 cm., Derby Museum and Art Gallery
The profile is essentially the same in all of these, consisting of a convex top edge, a small step carrying a ribbon-&-stave or beaded moulding, and a deep scotia or hollow; the back and sight edges have various decorations. One of the simplest forms of the Maratta holds each of Wright’s paired portraits of Mr and Mrs Thomas Borrow – almost certainly in their original frames. In these, the back edge is carved with an ovolo chain, and the sight edge with a husk moulding [19].
Wright of Derby (1734-97), Two girls dressing a kitten by candlelight, c.1768-70, 90.8 x 72.4 cm., and detail, Kenwood House
The frame of Two girls dressing a kitten by candlelight has equally minimalist ornament; but it differs from the usual London patterns in having a wider cavetto at the sight edge, and a large husk moulding above it, which suggest that it may be provincial. In the 1990 exhibition, at least four more frames were in this plain style, with an unornamented scotia: two portraits of Erasmus Darwin (one with corner shells [20]), a Landscape with rainbow, and the portrait of Anne Bateman (a later frame, with ribbon and beads) [21].
Wright of Derby (1734-97), Portrait of Francis Hurt, o/c, 127 x 101.6 cm., detail of corner, Derby Museum and Art Gallery
Moving onto the more enriched versions of the Maratta, the most characteristic feature is an ornamental ogee moulding, carved separately and applied in the scotia, or hollow; it is usually carved with an acanthus leaf-&-shield. In the Italianate models – the ‘Salvator Rosa’ frame – this carved ogee ornament forms the sight edge, rather than being applied in the hollow. This arrangement is found on the pair of frames made for the portraits of Francis Hurt and his wife, Mary Hurt, above. British framemakers referred to it, rather confusingly, as a ‘semi-Carlo’, and to the version where the carved ogee was applied in the scotia as a ‘full-Carlo’, or just a ‘Carlo’.
The Hurt frames are unaltered and a pair, suggesting that they are original to the portraits; with their very wide acanthus leaves and the beaded back edges they differ from the patterns carved in London, and may be another example of provincial work.
Wright of Derby (1734-97), Girl reading a letter with an old man reading over her shoulder, c.1767to70, o/c, and detail, private collection, on loan to Derby Museum and Art Gallery. Photo: Oliver Taylor Photography
Wright of Derby (1734-97), Two boys fighting over a bladder, c.1767-70, o/c, private collection, on loan to Derby Museum & Art Gallery. Photo: Oliver Taylor Photography
One of the finest pairs of ‘full Carlo’ frames must be those still fortunately surviving on Wright’s two candlelit paintings, Girl reading with an old man… and Two boys fighting over a bladder, both of c.1767-70. Another associated work, Girl reading a letter by candlelight with a young man peering over her shoulder, from 1761, has the same frame pattern, suggesting that this was Wright’s own choice for these subjects.
It’s reasonable to assume that an artist so preoccupied with the effects of light and shade would have realized the potential of this frame to enhance his work. The contrasts produced by the deep, undercut ogee moulding alone, with its sculptural acanthus-&-shield, complement and reinforce Wright’s chiaroscuro technique; but there are three orders of ornament here, beneath the plain burnished top edge, creating a complex play of trapped light. When the paintings were illuminated by real candlelight at night, the frames would have created flickering ribbons of gold around the canvases, drawing the viewer towards and into the painted scene.
An unusual feature for British frames is the spiral ribbon carved into the gesso on the sight moulding, which is also a feature of the Self-portrait at the age of about forty, attributed to Dubourg [22]. Perhaps Wright commissioned the most talented framemaker he knew for work he considered to be in some way special.
Wright of Derby (1734-97), Fleetwood Hesketh, 1769, o/c, 127 x 102 cm., Walker Art Gallery, Liverpool
Wright of Derby (1734-97), Mrs Francis Hesketh, 1769, o/c, 127 x 101.5 cm., and detail, Walker Art Gallery, Liverpool
Interestingly, the use of low-relief ornament carved in the gesso occurs in five other Maratta frames which belong to Wright’s Liverpool period (c.1768-71), including the husband-and-wife pair above [23]. In these two, it takes the form of an echo of the acanthus leaf-&-shield carved in a larger, three-dimensional form immediately next to it, producing an additional shimmer of light on the sight moulding.
Wright of Derby (1734-97), Maria & her dog Silvio, from Sterne, 1781, o/c, 160 x 115 cm., Derby Museum & Art Gallery
A final example of a large-scale ‘full-Carlo’ in the exhibition was the frame of Maria & her dog Silvio, from Sterne (i.e. the melancholy shepherdess from Laurence Sterne’s A sentimental journey, published in 1768). This was probably carved in London, as the painting was exhibited in the Royal Academy in 1781 with four other pictures, after which Wright was elected ARA.
Wright of Derby (1734-97), A philosopher by lamplight, c.1769, o/c, 128.2 x 101.6 cm., Derby Museum & Art Gallery
The Salvator Rosa frame (with acanthus ogee at the sight edge) on the earlier Philosopher by candlelight, c.1769, also in the 1990 exhibition and appearing in the National Gallery’s 2025 exhibition, is sadly a modern replica with compo ornament. Its lacklustre casting cannot really live up to the detail and plasticity of, for instance, the Maria frame [24].
Wright of Derby (1734-97), The blacksmith’s shop, 1771, o/c, 125.7 x 99 cm., Derby Museum and Art Gallery
There were, however, contemporary frames with composition ornament which are much more faithful to the carved models. The structure and decoration of the Maratta developed in various ways during the last three decades of the 18th century, perhaps in response to other types of NeoClassical design, and one illustration of this is the frame of The blacksmith’s shop, which is altogether weightier than the previous examples. The scotia is wider and deeper, creating an effect similar to that in the Salvator Rosa patterns, with the hollow behind the carved ogee much larger and more visible, while retaining ornamental and concave mouldings at the sight edge. This extra concave surface would have reflected light more widely across the pictorial surface.
Wright of Derby (1734-97), Rydal Waterfall, 1795, o/c, 52.2 x 76.2 cm., and detail, Derby Museum and Art Gallery
For at least five of his landscapes, one of which is Rydal Waterfall, Wright chose or approved a further enlargement of the scotia – making it even deeper and wider, with the convex top edge projecting all round it, so that the painting appears to sit in a classically-ornamented shadow box. The top edge is also widened into a fasces moulding, bound with spiralling leaves. This development appears to confirm the idea that the reason for this design is to reflect angled light sources across the painting[25]. As well as an increase of light, the deep scotia enhances the perspectival effect of the mitres and therefore the spatial recession of the picture. The frames of all five landscapes appear never to have been disturbed, indicating that they are almost certainly original to the paintings.
They are all – like The blacksmith’s shop – also ornamented in compo, cast from the carved boxwood moulds which, from the last third or quarter of the 18th century, provided a means of increasing the manufacture of frames and lowering the price [26].
NeoClassical frames
The same principle underlay NeoClassical interiors as it had the earlier, Palladian interiors of William Kent and his peers – that every element should be in harmony. A vocabulary of classical decoration which could be traced back to the excavations in Herculaneum and Pompeii was employed in stucco designs on walls and ceilings, carved into furniture, chased into silverware and woven into carpets. Paintings might be grouped in a fixed arrangement of plaster frames (for example, by Robert Adam for Kedleston Hall). Some picture frames were carved specifically to match or harmonize with looking-glass frames (by Adam, again – for example, at Corsham Court), and regular stock patterns were devised to blend with the surroundings.
Wright of Derby (1734-97), The Hon. Richard Fitzwilliam, 7th Viscount Fitzwilliam, founder of the eponymous institution, 1764, o/c, 74.9 x 62.2 cm., Fitzwilliam Museum
However, the Baroque profile of the Maratta frame, with its large, sculptural acanthus-&-shield ogee, did not fit comfortably into NeoClassical schemes, where the frames tended to have shallower profiles and more delicate ornament. The change from an older style to the more fashionable and avant-garde can be seen in Wright’s frames – and in one superb transitional pattern, on the portrait of the Hon. Richard Fitzwilliam. This has the Maratta profile with a knulled top edge and a much reduced version of the acanthus ogee at the sight edge, while the scotia is decorated with the fluting and corner paterae which Adam would frequently use on picture and looking-glass frames, or, with a flat profile, on door panels.
Wright of Derby (1734-97), Maria, from Sterne, 1777, o/c, 100.3 x 125.7 cm., Ferens Art Gallery, Hull
Another transitional pattern (on a landscape version of Maria, from Sterne) has the Maratta profile with plain top edge and scotia, and three ornamental orders – ribbon-&-stave, a knulled astragal in the centre, and a small, restrained acanthus moulding. It is finished with little leaves at the mitres, and all the mouldings are finely carved by hand – the hallmark of a costly London-made frame. The worn lower rail indicates that the frame has been in place for a long time, and is almost certainly original. A related literary subject, Edwin, from Dr Beattie’s Minstrel (private collection), painted at the same time, has a similarly finely designed and decorated frame – this time with a flat frieze beneath a smaller scotia, as the pattern moves further from the Baroque and closer to a full NeoClassical form.
Wright of Derby (1734-97), John Milnes, c.1772, o/c, 127 x 101cm., Musée du Louvre
The portrait of John Milnes in the 1990 exhibition has a striking frame in a further stage of transition to the NeoClassical [27]. The convex top edge with bound fasces and a plain scotia are there, but the central ornament is now a very slender enriched astragal-&-triple bead, with a leaf-tip at the sight edge. This is an elegant and restrained expression of the new fashion.
Wright of Derby (1734-97), Matlock Tor by daylight, c.1778-80, o/c, 73.1 x 100 cm., Fitzwilliam Museum
Matlock Tor by daylight possesses a fully-fledged NeoClassical frame, which was one of the most striking in the 1990 exhibition. It is distinctly architectural in style, with the shallow entablature profile on which many NeoClassical frames are based, and is decorated with an attenuated egg-&-dart beneath the top edge, a ribbon-&-stave moulding, a flat frieze with alternating daisy and sunflower paterae between triple flutes, and an enriched ovolo chain at the sight edge. This is very much in the spirit of Adam’s designs: for example, the elevation of a wall in the Eating Parlour, Headfort House, County Meath, 1771, has a plethora of fluted friezes and corner paterae on chimneypieces, picture frames and door panels, with further runs of paterae along the lowest frieze of the ceiling cornice [28].
In the case of Wright’s painting, this frame has been borrowed – possibly from a looking-glass – and originally hung in portrait orientation, accounting for the darker rail on the right, which would originally have been at the bottom. The unequal number of flutes in the top left- and bottom right-hand corners show that it has been cut down to fit the painting. It was an inspired (if accidental) reframing choice for this landscape, since both sunflowers and daisies (the day’s eye) symbolize the sun.
Wright of Derby (1734-97), Thomas & Joseph Pickford as children, 1779, o/c, 122 x 147.3 cm., private collection
The NeoClassical frame of Thomas & Joseph Pickford as children is particularly significant since it comes within Wright’s circle of professional colleagues. At first glance it could be taken for a later Italian Renaissance-style reframing in composition, but on closer inspection it has been entirely carved by hand. No other frame like it has been recorded, and if it had been cast in composition, it would have spawned numbers of copies to justify the cost of carving the moulds.
Wright of Derby, Thomas & Joseph Pickford as children, detail of frame
Its origins are clarified by the knowledge that Joseph Pickford (1734-82) was an enlightenment architect, an exact contemporary and friend of Wright of Derby, and based in Derby from c.1760 [29]. It is extremely probable that he designed this frame himself for the portrait of his children; the undulating and scrolling acanthus leaves and florets in the corners, the anthemion and raking paterae centres, and the bay leaves wrapped around the convex top edge are unusual, striking and harmonious [30]. It is also likely that Pickford chose the craftsman to make the frame – probably the local Derby woodcarver, stonemason and fellow architect George Moneypenny, with whom he had worked on Long Eaton Hall in 1778. Moneypenny was also responsible for carving the north, side, and saloon doors at Kedleston Hall, as well as picture frames in the hall there, in 1776 [31]. Pickford’s frame would have stood out from the hang in the Royal Academy exhibition of 1779.
Wright exhibited with the Society of Artists of Great Britain in the early part of his career, continuing to show his work with the society after the founding of the Royal Academy in 1768, but showing there as well. However, he was irritated by the treatment of his frames at the Academy, where they were often left leaning against the walls, inevitably incurring damage. He refers to this problem, and also to his framemaker Milbourne, in a letter to his friend J.L. Philips in 1794:
‘The frames of all the pictures which I exhibited [have] been materially damaged at the Academy, Mr Milbourne has orders to put them in good condition.’ [32]
Wright’s first reference to Milbourne had occurred seven years earlier, in a letter to another friend, Mr Long, a surgeon [33] – evidence that Milbourne supplied his frames at least from the late 1780s. It was not always the case that a new frame had to be made for a painting submitted for exhibition; like many artists, including Reynolds [34], Wright maintained (for practical and economic reasons) a stock of studio frames, at least one of which was used several times. In a letter of 1774 to the secretary of the Incorporated Society of Artists, he writes:
‘Sir, I shall be obliged if you will inform Mr Martin that the picture of The Earth Stopper is to be delivered to Lord Hardwicke without its frame. The shabby price his Lordship is to pay for it will leave no room for his Lordship to expect the frame with it; but if he should say anything about it pray inform his Lordship that The Earth Stopper was exhibited in an old Italian moulding frame which I have had by me for many years and keep for the use of the exhibition, and on no account let him have it…’ [35]
Wright of Derby (1734-97), John Whetham of Kirklington, early 1780s, 130.8 x 101.9 cm., Christie’s, 5 July 2011, Lot 27
Amongst the frames in the 1990 exhibition, one particular design recurred, appearing on twenty-one out of thirty-seven NeoClassical frames surveyed by the author, dating from 1778 to 1792. There are almost certainly many other works by Wright which have, or had, the same pattern. They are significant in that they were evidently designed by Wright and his framemaker exclusively for his own use [36], since, over twenty years of searching, this frame has only been encountered on one painting by another (anonymous) artist. Both Romney and Raeburn also used their own particular patterns very frequently, but these were not exclusive to their use and occur on paintings by other artists [37].
Wright of Derby, John Whetham of Kirklington, detail
In using this design Wright was consciously advertizing the individuality of his pictures. It is not too much to assume that this unique frame must have helped to single out his work amongst that of other artists on his patrons’ walls, as well as in hangs at the Royal Academy and Society of Artists exhibitions. It has an entablature profile with an egg-&-dart or leaf moulding on the back edge, an ogee beneath the top edge decorated with leaf tips or rais-de coeur, and beading at the sight edge, all cast in compo [38].
Wright of Derby (1734-97), Romeo and Juliet, 1790, o/c, 180 x 240 cm., Derby Museum & Art Gallery
Wright of Derby (1734-97), A lake by moonlight, 1780-82, 62.2 x 75.6 cm., and detail, Yale Center for British Art
It was used for pictures of varying sizes, the width of the rail varying from three to five inches (7.6 to 12.7 cm.). John Whetham and Romeo and Juliet show its use in portrait and landscape orientation, and A lake by moonlight (not in the 1990 exhibition) adds a further example of its effect at differing scales. The portrait and small landscape have the most usual added decoration of moulded corner paterae – round and oval respectively, and the large figure scene has acanthus leaf corners.
Wright of Derby (1734-97), View of Dovedale, 1786, 45.7 x 63.5 cm., private collection
It might also be decorated with egg-&-dart beneath the top edge, rais-de-coeur at the sight edge, and little quatrefoil rosettes in the corners (Grotto by the sea in the Kingdom of Naples with bandits, MFA Boston) [39]; or with leaf tips or rais-de-coeur plus beading beneath the top edge, and a guilloche at the sight edge (the View of Dovedale, above, and its pendant, Convent of San Cosimato, below)[40]. The latter are two amongst numbers of others, but here, perhaps, frame and painting are seen to best effect. The frames are serene, austere and beautifully proportioned, and the plain gold friezes and rhythmical ornament are in perfect harmony with the landscapes, encouraging contemplation with no distraction. There can be few better contemporary examples of the unity between picture and frame.
Wright of Derby (1734-97), Convent of San Cosimato, 1786, 45.7 x 63.5 cm., private collection
Non-period frames
There are many reasons for the separation of a painting from its original frame. These are usually to do with changing fashions and refurbished interiors, or new ownership and a change of location. The chance of reframing, and the number of reframings per work, is generally in direct proportion to age – far more Victorian paintings than Old Masters or 18th century British pictures have survived in their original frames.
Wright of Derby (1734-97), Indian widow, 1783-84, o/c, 101.6 x 127 cm., Derby Museum and Art Gallery
The 19th century taste preferred heavier and more ornamental frames; the massive frame of Indian widow (later known as The widow of an Indian chief watching the arms of her deceased husband) show that designs lacking even the proportions of the original can have a detrimental effect on the viewer’s perception of the painting [41].
Wright of Derby (1734-97), Miravan opening the tomb of his ancestors, 1772, o/c, 127 x 101.6 cm., Derby Museum and Art Gallery
How much more invasive is the Victorian Louis XIV-style frame on Miravan opening the tomb of his ancestors? – the shallow compo decoration, applied as though with an icing bag, lacks any ornamental relationship to the painting and seems almost to have been chosen with a perverse desire to undermine the subject.
Wright of Derby (1734-97), A philosopher giving that lecture on the orrery, in which a lamp is put in place of the sun, 1766, o/c, 147.2 x 203.2 cm., Derby Museum and Art Gallery
Other paintings by Wright reframed in the 19th century include his two candlelight masterpieces, An experiment on a bird in the air pump and A philosopher giving that lecture on the orrery [42]. It is interesting to speculate on how these pictures would have looked in their original frames – which Wright would have undoubtedly chosen himself.
Wright of Derby (1734-97), Experiment on a bird in the air pump, 1768, o/c, 183 x 244 cm., National Gallery
*************************************
Paul Mitchell read architecture and fine arts at Cambridge, and European art history at the Courtauld Institute of Art, London. A frame historian and consultant of international reputation, he has published articles on European frames in specialist periodicals and exhibition catalogues, including Wright of Derby (Tate Gallery, 1990), and a guide to frames in the catalogue of the Thyssen Collection (1989). He is the co-author of A history of European picture frames and Frameworks, both 1996.
*************************************
A connoiseur admiring a dark night peice, etching, published by Matthias Darly, 1771 as a series of 24 Caricatures by several ladies, gentlemen, artists, &c., vol. 1, Trustees of the British Museum
[1] Geoffrey Beard & Christopher Gilbert, ed., Dictionary of English furniture makers 1660-1840, Furniture History Society, 1986
[2] Derby Local Studies Library, ref. BA914: the earliest trade directory to survive for Derby
[3] The first major exhibition catalogue illustrating a quantity of frames was the Tate Gallery’s Manners and Morals: Hogarth and British painting 1700-1760, 1987. See also Paul Mitchell, Picture frames in the Cartwright Collection: Mr Cartwright’s Pictures, exh at Dulwich Picture Gallery, 1987. Since this current article was first published in 1990, more exhibitions of frames have been held than were originally recalled in this footnote: a summary of these can be found in ‘A summary of frame exhibitions’, The Frame Blog
[4] Only frames on paintings in oil are considered here. It was impractical to chase down all of Wright’s scattered works and their frames
[5] The results of this survey of the frames included in the exhibition are published in a table in the exhibition catalogue, Wright of Derby, Tate Gallery/ Judy Egerton, 1990
[6] The author’s image archive of European picture frames, which covers museums, country houses, private collections and auction sales, indicates that paintings by more eminent and London-based artists are more likely to have been reframed than those by their provincial or less celebrated peers
[7] See Portrait of a lady with her lacework for the ultimate lavish reframing. This extravaganza is characteristic of the French Rococo-style frames commissioned from Parisian carvers and gilders by Joseph Duveen for his 18th century British and 17th century Dutch paintings. These regal and dazzling confections were more than equal to his clients’ 18th century French pictures and furnishings
[8] Another, slightly more elaborate version appears on Wright’s Portrait of John Day, early 1760s, Christie’s, 19 November 1982, Lot 88, and a further example on A young man, private collection, kindly shown to the author by Robert Holden
[9] From the evidence of a 1749 poll book, Dictionary of English furniture makers, op. cit., p. 257, Dubourg was known to be in Long Acre, London. Wright would have become familiar with the London framemaking trade during his apprenticeship with Thomas Hudson between 1751-53 and 1756-57
[10] Wright’s account book, National Gallery Archives, refers to the standard frame sizes: ‘Three quarter length’, 30 x 25 inches, ‘Kit Cat’, 36 x 28 inches, and ‘Half length’, 50 x 40 inches.
‘Wright used ‘Dubourg’ for supplying picture frames and packing cases, 1759-61, according to an account totalling some £83, transcribed in Wright’s account book’: see the Directory of British Framemakers, Jacob Simon, National Portrait Gallery. Dubourg’s workshop was in Long Acre, London
[11] Frame surveys show that pairs and sets of frames have a higher survival rate than individual items, since, due to the expense, owners were less likely to embark on reframing multiple paintings. This point was demonstrated in the 1990 Wright of Derby exhibition, which contained eight pairs where the frames remained unchanged
[12] Mortimer’s Universal director of 1763 mentions the work of ‘Peter Babel’ in connection with papier-mâché, as a designer and modeller in Long Acre, who was one of the ‘first improvers of Papier-Mâché Ornaments for Ceilings, Chimney-Pieces, Picture-frames, etc, and invention of modern date, imported by us from France, and now brought to great perfection’. The only other papier-mâché specialist whom Mortimer mentions as being one of the ‘principals’ in the trade is René Duffour, at the Golden Head in Berwick Street. Heal refers only to two other suppliers: Charles Middleton in Tottenham Court Road and James Shruder in Great Marlborough Street. There are no provincial papier-mâché dealers recorded in local trade directories, so it can be assumed that this highly novel and fashionable material was only available in London.
See also the Directory of British Framemakers
[13] The replacement frame for the double portrait, Mr and Mrs Coltman, is referred to on p. 276 of the exhibition catalogue
[14] The whole frame was reproduced in Wright of Derby: Catalogue of the bi-centenary exhibition of paintings, Corporation Art Gallery, Derby, 1934 (cat. no 10)
[15] Dictionary of English furniture makers, op. cit., p. 605
[16] Benedict Nicolson, Joseph Wright of Derby: painter of light, Paul Mellon Foundation, 1968, vol. I, p. 67
[17] The Carlo Maratta frame was used by both Reynolds and Gainsborough. Dr Nicholas Penny has discovered many references to Maratta frames in Reynolds’s ledgers and pocket books in his excellent study, ‘Reynolds and picture frames’, The Burlington Magazine, November 1986, pp. 810-25
[18] In the first half of the 18th century, the pattern became, and remains, virtually a house frame in the Doria-Pamphilj, Colonna and Spada palaces; see Paul Mitchell & Lynn Roberts, A history of European picture frames, 1996, pp. 65-66. There is an exceptionally fine collection of original Maratta/ Salvator Rosa frames on Italian paintings in Burghley House, bought by the 5th Earl of Exeter
[19] In Italian prototypes, the husk ornament is generally pierced beneath
[20] Another example of a frame with shells contains The captive, from Sterne, Derby Art Gallery; Nicolson cat. 217, pl. 162
[21] An example of the hollow pattern without ornament frames Landscape with ruins, by moonlight, Nicolson cat. 305, pl. 236; with Leger Galleries
[22] The pair of frames on the Gwilym portraits are virtually the same pattern as these (Girl reading a letter… and Two boys fighting over a bladder), although blurred by regilding; perhaps they too are by Dubourg
[23] See also the portraits of Mrs John Ashton and Mr & Mrs Thomas Parke of Highfield, all of Liverpool
[24] Other Carlo Maratta frames on works not in the 1990 exhibition include Mrs Beridge, 1777, Minneapolis Institute of Arts; A study after an antique bust in two positions, Yale Center for British Art;
Penelope Margaret Stafford, 1769, Derby Art Gallery; Richard Gildart, 1769, Walker Art Gallery
[25] The author has confirmed this effect with light meter tests. The largest landscape in this type of frame (amongst those surveyed) is The annual girandola at the Castle of St Angelo, Rome. Three others are in Derby Art Gallery: View of Tivoli, c.1783-86; A cottage on fire, c. 1790; and Bridge through a cavern, 1791
[26] By 1794, if not before, trade directories listed ‘composition ornament manufacturers’ as one of the increasing number of specialist trades; see The general London guide, or tradesman’s directory, 1794
[27] Two others in the exhibition with related frames were A cottage on fire, exh. cat. 111, and a Self-portrait, exh. cat. 149; a third is on The Convent of San Cosimato, c.1787-90, Walker Art Gallery
[28] See also Kedleston Hall, Harewood House, Osterley Park. An outstanding NeoClassical fluted frame appeared in Sotheby’s, 12 July 1989, Lot 46, on Wright’s Portrait of Sir Robert Burdett, Bart, of Foremark, Derbyshire; it was probably designed and carved by Thomas Chippendale, whom the sitter employed
[29] Pickford built Alderwasley Hall for the same Francis Hurt who was painted by Wright. He was also involved with architectural projects at Alfreton Hall, Ashbourne Mansion, and Robert Holden’s home, Darley Abbey. See Maxwell Craven and Michael Stanley, The Derbyshire country house, Derby Museum Service, 1982
[30] Architects have always to some degree been designers of frames, particularly in the NeoClassical period, for the reasons stated. For the principal exponents and surviving drawings, see Pippa Mason, with introduction by Gervase Jackson-Stops, Designs for English picture frames, Arnold Wiggins & Sons, London, 1987
[31] Geoffrey Beard, Craftsmen and interior decoration in England: 1660-1820, Edinburgh, 1981, p. 272
[32] Derby Local Studies Library, re. 8962
[33] Ibid. Long acted as the artist’s London agent
[34] Penny, op. cit.
[35] With thanks to Judy Egerton for this reference. W.T. Whitley, Artists and their friends in England: 1700-1799, 2 vols, London, 1928, vol., I, p. 247. The present frame on The earth stopper is a cushion moulding in regular use during the 17th century. This example, now conspicuously regilded, re-painted and perhaps partly remodelled, may conceivably be the ‘old Italian moulding frame’ mentioned by Wright, since the design derives from Italian prototypes via the Netherlands
[36] In the absence of references to any other framemaker, these frames might reasonably be attributed to James Milbourne
[37] Raeburn’s NeoClassical frame, with its deep scotia, can be seen on most of his paintings in the National Gallery of Scotland and the Scottish National Portrait Gallery
[38] This same profile was apparently run out as a plain moulding for two of Lord Melbourne’s pictures, An academy by lamp light, and The blacksmith’s shop
[39] Two narrow versions are recorded: Old John and John Harrison, on loan to Derby Art Gallery
[40] Another pair of small landscapes, Lake Albano and Lake Nemi, have fine NeoClassical frames of a pattern not seen elsewhere on Wright’s work
[41] Amongst the frames of an earlier period which have found their way onto Wright’s paintings is a late 17th century bay leaf-&-flower pattern related to Louis XIII designs on The alchymist in search of the philosopher’s stone; whilst Rev. John Pickering has a rare example of a later 17th or early 18th century gadrooned bolection frame finished in silver leaf. An unusual Rococo variation of a standard mid-18th century pattern has been altered to fit A cavern, evening; examples of this have been seen in Ireland. The frame on The sunset on the coast near Naples, with its moulded palmettes, is novel and difficult to date
[42] David Fraser has discovered a leaflet dated 1 December 1851, issued by Messrs Woollat & Co., Cabinet Makers & Upholsterers, 68 St Peter’s Street, Derby, advertizing the disposal of this picture ‘by lot’ for which 100 tickets at 2 guineas each were offered. The announcement describes the picture as being in a ‘…new and handsome gilt frame’
The Frame Blog 