3 ms·
It may be cheaper than similar offerings, but it is still expensive. The thing that jumped out at me from his writeup is the initial problem he was trying to so
by jkaunisv1 12y ago
It may be cheaper than similar offerings, but it is still expensive. The thing that jumped out at me from his writeup is the initial problem he was trying to solve - framing a piece of art without paying 10x the price of the art or more. It doesn't _feel_ like he accomplished that, even if he technically did by bringing it down to 3 or 5x.
My inner consumer doesn't want to pay more for a frame than I did for what's going in the frame. It makes me angry. It feels wrong. That's the benchmark I'm evaluating against.
There will definitely be a big difference in desires and perception between the pro/semi-pro and consumer markets. What makes a shitty frame to you anyway (this is an earnest question)? I've never had a wooden frame disappoint me.
Personally I'd rather have the cheapest possible wooden frames that don't fall apart so that I can frame as much of the art I have lying around. To me a frame should be a cheap purchase that gets out of the way of the art it's highlighting.
- aaronbrethorst 12y agoIt may be cheaper than similar offerings, but it is still expensive. Fair point. I'm framing hand-made photographs (i.e. made in a wet darkroom) with a retail cost measured in the hundreds of dollars, not posters or prints purchased from art.com. It's totally reasonable that you wouldn't want to pay more for the frame than what's in it. a shitty frame Chipboard, particle board. That sort of thing.
- jkaunisv1 12y agoMakes sense. Most of my art is $20-40 prints bought to support artists at conventions and a simple pine frame would do the trick. Eventually I'll just cut my own. I'm glad to see OP is targeting the higher end market with the possibility of expanding to the low-end later. It's not what I'm after, but it clearly has value and at least he's not trying to do it all.