RKD STUDIES

The close study of picture frames contributes to the better understanding of transnational exchange between Italy, England and the Netherlands during the 17th century. Material and technical art history bring new evidence to bear, that enables us to interpret these objects in new ways – the frames themselves are documents. The importance of the broad category of auricular frame in the Netherlands and England (and more widely throughout Britain and Ireland) over forty years is clear.

From the mid-1630s auricular frames swiftly evolved out of English Italianate Leatherwork frames becoming infused with Mannerist grotesques and kwab. International influences were developed into this radically new type of European frame by English craftsmen, carved in oak to resemble cut and flattened scrolling skin, and were gilded overall. This was more than a decade before we see kwab equivalents beginning to be made in the Netherlands under the direct influence of these sophisticated English designs.¹ Research and analysis, including dendrochronology, has confirmed these sophisticated new Leatherwork frame patterns burgeoned in the few years either side of 1640 up until the outbreak of the Civil War in England. However, they continued to be developed and there was new impetus at the Restoration of Charles II.

The impact of Leatherwork frames in the Netherlands can be related to the movement of artists and artworks from England as a result of political instability and the Civil War. Also, the exportation of prime examples of Leatherwork frames from England to the Netherlands after 1649, when Charles I’s and other major English paintings collections were dispersed, was just prior to Dutch kwab frames starting to be made. On the other hand, kwab appears to have continued influencing the next generation of English Leatherwork frames used by painters such as Peter Lely after the Restoration of Charles II. Visual ideas and motifs continued to be exchanged until auricular frames faded in popularity during the 1680s. However, the surviving kwab designs seen in prints from the Netherlands and silver etc., do not yet appear linked directly to surviving Leatherwork picture frames.

Significantly, despite the ongoing exchange between England and the Netherlands, there are fundamental differences between Leatherwork and kwab frames, namely the choice of timber, joinery, ornament, silhouette, and gilding. Given the relative durability of oak, and limewood’s susceptibility to infestation, especially if thickly coated with protein glue, the fact that considerably more Leatherwork frames survive than kwab may be misleading. Whilst the influence of clients, painters and ornamental designs was relatively international, specifically between Italy, England and the Netherlands, differences in construction and gilding between Leatherwork and kwab frames indicates that their framemakers themselves developed local practices.

In England, Leatherwork frames imitated Italian structure and design before incorporating kwab ornament from the Netherlands – Leatherwork frames became auricular – therefore, as a type they can be considered to pre-date the incorporation of auricular ornament. Additionally, whilst being directly influenced by Leatherwork, kwab frames adopted distinct materials, construction, ornament and decoration. Therefore, while the much later term ‘auricular’ has value in placing these frames within an important moment in the history of European decoration, Leatherwork and kwab can be considered distinctly in terms of origin, fabrication and appearance. This research of Leatherwork picture frames and their links to both the Netherlands and Italy is ongoing; however, the findings to date set out here indicate that we should consider auricular picture frames as an Anglo-Dutch project.

Acknowledgements
Dr Claire Jones and Dr David Hemsoll, University of Birmingham. Jacob Simon, National Portrait Gallery. Colleagues at the National Trust: Dr Hannah Maudsley and Sarah McGrady, Ham House; Dr Andrew Cochrane and Emma Hitchings, Lacock Abbey; Karen George, Chirk Castle; and Emma Lipscombe, Sudbury Hall. David McCormick and Rodney Melville, Chequers Court. Alastair Johnson, Tate. Femke Speelberg and Manus Gallagher, Metropolitan Museum of Art. Prof. Karen Hearn, University College London. Prof. Joanna Woodall, Courtauld Institute of Art. Ian Tyers, and Dr Tracey Chaplin. Carla Learoyd, City & Guilds of London Art School. Emma Schmuecker, Laurence Pordes, Daphne Gilbert and colleagues at the Royal Oak Foundation Conservation Studio, National Trust.