Village Frame Crafters: Uncle Bob

With the right frame, it's not Uncle Bob, it's art.

Village Frame Crafters does custom framing for everything from fine art to family portraits. So we thought, why not combine the two?

Advertising Agency: McKee Wallwork Cleveland, Albuquerque, NM, USA
Creative Director: Bart Cleveland
Art Director: Bruce Johno
Copywriter: Bart Cleveland
Photographer: Steve Bonini

December, 2010


HappyHour's picture
2381 pencils

I think this one hits the closest to the mark.

JeffP's picture
810 pencils

This one I like.

atb2005's picture
13561 pencils
That One Guy's picture
That One Guy
266 pencils

yeah. art direction is the same. but the pictures and copy are a better in these.

Billoughsby's picture
5144 pencils

That's the set I thought of, atb. Exactly. And without the earlier campaign, I don't think this one would have happened at all. I think there's something beyond a spiritual kinship between the two sets. Flipping through Lürzer's is, er, inspiring.

"Ubi hubave lubearned thubat ubanuby fubool cuban wrubite uba bubad ubad, bubut thubat ubit tubakes uba rubeal gubenubiubus tubo kubeep hubis hubands uboff uba gubood ubone."
-Lubeo Buburnubett

Gearbox's picture
116 pencils

Lame. The Frame on Wheels series was better. It made sense. This makes no sense.

CuriousPencil's picture
4225 pencils

There's an 'important dialogue' to be had about the comparison between this and the FOW campaign, so let's have it.

Personally I don't see this as one for joelapompe. Sure, both sell picture frames, around subjects that some people could ridicule, and some find laughable. The difference I see in VFC is that their subjects are *wilfully* ridiculous, and made better by framing. They're *part* and willing subjects of the end product.

With FOW, the slant is on ridicule, not ridiculous. Hence the tag "we don't judge, we frame". Which could be boiled down to 'we framelessly shame anything' - not a positive message when you're using subjects you're laughing at.

Village Frame, on the other hand, paint their subjects proudly. There is no laughing, except maybe amongst close relatives, and that is a knowing laughter, not a pointy-finger in-joke, and the end result is a positive pointer to the client, a fine feelng.

The question then is: "Did VMC take a half-followed idea to its comical end, and in the process strike marketing ore, or did they golden this one alone, and does it matter?"

Billoughsby's picture
5144 pencils

But aren't the subjects of framing in both sets of ads unconsciously ridiculous individuals? That's the nonaesthetic issue that nettled me about FOW, and I think it's the very same with VFC. If the subjects of VFC's set are proud, they're no less ridiculous for it; and I don't believe the subjects of the FOW would consider themselves ridiculous if you asked them.

So is there a difference in the respect factor between the two sets? (--And this question is far removed from the gotcha universe of joelapompe, which does not interest me except as trivia, by the way.) Aren't both ads built on ridicule?

It's a personal, subjective thing, but I dislike ads that judge and ridicule. At what I will call the humanist level, they invariably fail. This, in my opinion, is because they do not show their subjects 1) laugh at themselves, and then 2) invite us to join them by laughing at ourselves, but instead keep it to straight up laughing at the other guy. ("Gee, I'm glad I'm as cool as I no doubt am, and not like that weird loser.")

(How could this one not be ridicule, given the place society's dialogue on body image is right now?)

So I wasn't interested in seeing a mean idea followed to its logical conclusion. I didn't really want to see that gauntlet taken up. On the first basis alone, for me, the VFC ads are a failure, as were the as the FOW. On the second basis, i.e. did they take up an old idea and turn dross into gold, I think the result still a break-even proposition.


"Ubi hubave lubearned thubat ubanuby fubool cuban wrubite uba bubad ubad, bubut thubat ubit tubakes uba rubeal gubenubiubus tubo kubeep hubis hubands uboff uba gubood ubone."
-Lubeo Buburnubett

CuriousPencil's picture
4225 pencils

I think if you asked the subjects of VFC (in their role as 'real people' in the context of the ad, rather than the models posing the shots) they would say they're expressing themselves, and wouldn't pose for a photo if they thought they were ridiculous. Knowing people who point at themselves with garish make up or clothes, they have a range of reasons to dress as they do. None of those reasons involve self-ridicule, and any negative reaction they get from people tends to be dismissed as those people 'not getting it'.

That aside, I do see how it can be seen as a mean set of ads, since it highlights a stereotype of people who are often mocked. It doesn't quite show them in a positive light, even if they are 'in on the joke'; but they differ from the FOW ads in that they're not out-and-out mockery: they're photos of 'real' people, whether they differ from the norm or not, whether some find them ridiculous or not, but yes they're being laughed at. Just argued myself into a corner. OKay yes, they're on the same sliding scale of mean, these just don't go as far, though that doesn't fully excuse them for the gentle mocking tone. I'm stumped.

CastroAlonso's picture
2 pencils


vote4pedro's picture
4601 pencils

More scam ads from this scam agency. They did this work for free to try to win awards.

Even worse, they ripped off this campaign, which was in Archive a year before.

Log in or register to post comments