A small rant on looking, and context, all probably said before, but needing said again.

It's nice to see people in an actual museum, looking at art in frames, hanging on a wall, just like it was meant to be. Too many curators, art students, and even dealers, look at art on computer monitors, in books, or sometimes, still, transparencies, where the art is torn from it's frame and any context, and the object quality of it is completely lost. No texture; just flat and flat. This out of context viewing leads to artists who labor long periods on the painting, and then finish it by "framing" with some ill-fitting, shoddily finished, wood strips, haphazardly nailed to the stretcher bars. A very obvious comment on the importance the artist attaches to his or her work.

I think a disservice to art is done by art professionals who think naught of tearing the art asunder from its context, and base all sorts of curatorial decisions, on the sundered remains. Is the frame, and some context, necessary? Obviously, I believe so, though, being an artist who works in the medium of the picture frame, it would seem I'm biased. More later, and a "snarky" comment; if you don't want to frame your art, become a sculptor.